Nourishing Ourselves, Nourishing Others:
How Mindful Food Choices Reduce Suffering
From Mindfulness in the Marketplace: Consuming with
Compassion, edited by Allan Hunt Badiner (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 2002) --
publication date Oct. 28, 2002
By Kate Lawrence
The choices we make regarding the foods we eat, particularly choices to
consume meat and other animal foods, have considerably more profound
consequences than may be apparent on the surface. These consequences are felt in
our own bodies and those of our children, by other people--especially the poor,
by animals, plants and the earth herself. What guidance can we find in Buddhist
teachings to assist us in making these choices?
Among core teachings accepted by virtually all Buddhist traditions, we can
begin with the Noble Eightfold Path by looking at Right (Wise) Action, and
specifically at three of the Five Precepts or Mindfulness Trainings. These
statements illuminate the kinds of behaviors that cause harm to ourselves and
others, that lead to anger, violence, hatred, despair, and destruction.
The First Precept
The First Precept (as stated in the Pali Canon) is to refrain from
destroying living creatures. The most immediate way that we participate every
day in taking the lives of living creatures is through our diet; some life forms
must be destroyed in order for us to eat. We cannot hope to attain perfection,
to avoid all killing for food. Even a conscientious vegetarian organic gardener
growing food cannot completely avoid killing insects and other small creatures
in the soil, as well as some of the wild plants (weeds) that compete with the
vegetable plantings. But although we cannot avoid these kinds of killing, how
can we eat so as to reduce to a minimum the pain that we inflict?
Views on the sentience (ability to feel; in this case, to feel pain) of other
beings include these: 1) that plants are not sentient beings; 2) that plants and
animals are both sentient, but animals suffer more than plants when injured or
killed; and 3) that plants and animals are both sentient, and they suffer
The first view, that plants do not count as sentient beings at all, makes our
food choice clear: we can eat plants with impunity, whereas animals suffer, so
we would want to eat plant foods and avoid injuring and killing animals.
The second view seems to be the most commonly held; many people have an
instinctive feeling that although a plant may suffer a little, an animal suffers
much more than a plant when it is killed. Picture a cutting board in front of
you and a knife in one hand. In your other hand you have a fistful of
sprouts--live, whole plants. Consider how you would feel if you placed the
sprouts on the cutting board and began to chop them up. Now imagine that,
instead of the sprouts, you have a baby chick--a live, whole animal--on the
cutting board, and consider your feelings if you began to chop up the chick.
Most people would have an immediate visceral reaction to the prospect of killing
a live animal which is very different from their reaction to the killing of live
plants. Furthermore, we know that animals have a central nervous system which,
as a survival mechanism, sensitizes them to pain so that they can escape from it
if possible. Plants lack a central nervous system, so we can only presume that
their suffering is less. If this is our view, we would want to eat plants, so as
to cause less suffering.
The third possibility assumes equal sentience, that there is just as much
suffering when a carrot is wrenched out of the ground as when a chicken or calf
is killed. How would we choose our food in this case? We know that it is the
eating of hundreds, if not thousands, of plants by an animal that enables it to
grow large enough to be useful as meat. Therefore, if our interest lies in
causing the least amount of suffering to living beings, we would still
want to eat plants instead of animals, because so many more plants must be
killed to feed the animal, than must be killed for an equal amount of food
calories if we eat the grains directly. Thus in all three views of plant and
animal sentience, the conclusion is to eat plant-derived foods if we want to
cause the least suffering.
Furthermore, unlike meat which always requires a being to be killed, the
taking of plant food suitable for us to eat does not always require
killing the host plant. Fruits, seeds and nuts, beans, grains, such vegetables
as broccoli, cauliflower, squash, peas, tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, most kinds
of greens--all of these can be taken without killing the plant. It is only the
root vegetables, such as onions, carrots, and beets, that require a plant to be
killed when they are taken. Thus, eating plants necessitates less taking of
plant life than people might assume, and fortunately, the human body tends to be
healthier on a plant food diet, as we'll
Because most of us do not live near a slaughterhouse, we have no idea of the
scale of the violence involved. Every year in the U.S. alone, roughly nine
billion cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens and turkeys are killed to put meat on
our tables. (1) Slaughterhouses operate around the clock every day of the week.
If you do the math, you will discover that this number means that 17,000 animals
are killed every minute, and about 285 each second. This amount of
killing, and the fear and pain of all these animals leading up to the moment of
slaughter, is nearly incomprehensible. It is more than ten times the number of
animals that are killed by humans in all other ways combined: for medical
research, products testing, fur, and those euthanized in animal shelters. Fish
are not included in these figures, as they are counted by the pound rather than
as individuals, but their numbers are legion. Some experts have said that fish
suffer much longer in the process of suffocation when taken out of the
water--perhaps for as long as an hour, than land animals do in the standard
methods of slaughter.
When I first began giving talks over a decade ago to educate people on the
issues related to meat eating, that figure of annual slaughter was about six
billion. It has been steadily going up because the consumption of red meat has
been decreasing while the consumption of poultry has been increasing. Chickens
and turkeys are much smaller than cattle and pigs, which means that many more
animal lives must be taken to supply a given amount of meat. If we seek to
practice the First Precept, how can we justify, much less participate in, this
We've looked at animals that humans
kill directly for food, but what about other animals killed in the process of
bringing food animals to market? In order to protect ranchers'
livelihoods, USDA Wildlife Services, formerly called Animal Damage Control,
spends millions of taxpayer dollars every year to kill tens of thousands of
coyotes, wolves, and other species that prey on livestock. None of these animals
would be killed if humans didn't eat
meat. The male chicks of egg-laying hens are killed shortly after birth, often
by suffocation, because as males, they will never lay eggs, nor are birds bred
for egg-laying suitable for meat. Many thousands of sea animals are killed in
drift nets in order to bring in a fish catch. Some years ago there was
widespread concern about dolphins being killed in these nets, but the many other
species caught and killed have not enjoyed public compassion.
The Second Precept
The Second Precept is to refrain from stealing, from taking that which is not
given. Again there are several ways in which we violate this precept if we eat
animal flesh. When we, by our food choices, require animals to be killed, we are
taking their lives by force; no animal comes voluntarily to a slaughterhouse and
offers to die. Of far greater significance are the ways in which we deprive
these animals of any semblance of well-being in the time period between their
birth or hatching and their slaughter. Animals are deliberately bred to be
killed, and their growth is manipulated to please human palates. For example, in
turkeys what is prized is white meat, the turkey's
breast, so these animals are bred to have huge upper bodies. They are so
top-heavy that they cannot come together normally to mate; turkeys must all be
artificially inseminated, by minimum-wage workers under time pressure, who
cannot take care about handling them gently.
We also "steal"
animals' body parts. Animals raised
for food are routinely--depending on the species--debeaked, dehorned, castrated,
branded, or have their tails docked, all without anesthesia. They are confined
in small cages or stalls without sunlight or exercise, fed an unnatural diet,
and forced to inhale fumes from their own excrement. Infants, such as calves
destined to be veal, are removed permanently from their mothers after only one
day, so that humans may drink the milk. The mother cows cry out and search for
the lost babies. During transport to the slaughterhouse, animals may be starved
and exposed to extremes of temperature. And once at the slaughterhouse, the
stunning process is not effective in every case to render animals unconscious;
perhaps 10% are fully conscious when killed. Drawing a parallel to the
Holocaust, Nobel Literature laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote, "To
[these animals] we are all Nazis; for them it is an eternal Treblinka."
How else do we steal the well-being of animals to support flesh-eating? To
grow grain and soybeans to feed to livestock so that we may eat meat, it is
necessary to farm far more land--roughly seven to ten times as much--than would
be necessary if we ate the grains and soybeans ourselves. This additional
cultivated land is thus no longer available as wildlife habitat, and many
species of birds and animals have either declined or disappeared as a result.
By feeding so much grain--about three-fourths of the all grains grown in the
U.S.--to livestock animals, we steal the lives of third-world children who need
that grain to survive. Approximately 40,000 children per day starve to
death, while countless other children and adults remain severely malnourished. "If
we use that amount of grain in order to make a piece of meat,"
writes Thich Nhat Hanh, "we waste a
lot of food, and many people in the world are starving because of that way of
eating." (3) Not only are available
supplies of grain fed to animals, but large amounts of land in third-world
countries, on which food could be grown to feed these starving people, are used
to graze cattle for the West.
We also, in eating meat, steal resources on which the well-being, and
possibly the lives, of our descendants and all other unborn beings depend. The
resource-intensive nature of livestock agriculture puts at grave risk the future
ability of the earth to sustain life at all. For example, the primary reason
that tropical rainforests--the planet's
lungs--are being cut down is to create grazing land for livestock. If there were
no demand for meat-eating, there would be much less profit in cutting down these
forests, which are still, despite widespread public awareness, disappearing at
an alarming rate.
Farmers and gardeners know that no food at all can be grown unless there is
rich topsoil, an inch of which can take 100 years to be created. Yet because of
the huge amounts of land that must be brought under cultivation in order to grow
crops for livestock, that topsoil is being eroded away far faster than it can be
created. Similarly, water from the great Ogallala aquifer, which underlies much
of central North America, and which took millions of years to form, is being
pumped out to irrigate livestock agriculture far faster than it can be replaced.
Because livestock are raised in concentrated "factory
farm" facilities, massive amounts of
their excrement accumulate in one place. As economic considerations make it
unfeasible to spread these mountains of manure back onto the land, they are held
in lagoons which may leak into rivers and streams, or overflow in times of heavy
rainfall. The resulting high levels of nitrates in the water supply kill fish
and other species and pose serious risks to human health. This contaminated
water, as it continues through the hydrologic cycle, falls as acid rain,
undermining the well-being of our remaining forests.
Livestock agriculture, the most environmentally destructive of all human
activities, causes other damage as well. Overgrazing by cattle has ruined much
formerly lush grassland in the western U.S. Cattle produce methane, which
contributes to global warming, as does the increased amount of carbon dioxide
produced due to the additional amounts of fossil fuel energy that must be used
to bring meat, as compared to grains and vegetables, to market.
The Fifth Precept
The Fifth Precept is to refrain from intoxicants which lead to carelessness.
These intoxicants have also been more broadly understood to include any food or
idea we might take in that is toxic to our physical and mental well-being. (4)
Based on current mortality figures for Western--that is, heavily
meat-eating--countries, meat qualifies as a toxic substance, and thus violates
the practice of this precept. The diseases which kill the most people in Western
countries, such as heart attacks, strokes, colon cancer, breast and prostate
cancers, diabetes, and obesity, are all highest among populations which have
high meat consumption. Conversely, vegetarians have been shown to live longer,
with a better quality of life. In addition to degenerative diseases, there have
been numerous cases of serious illness and death resulting from microorganisms
found in meat: E.coli, salmonella, listeria, and so on. We now face something
far more threatening even than these: the so-called "mad
cow disease," which may take several
decades to develop in humans, is always fatal, and which cannot be prevented by
cooking the infected meat.
The high cost of health insurance figures in here as well. Why is health care
costing so much? Because so many people are sick. Why are they sick? Because to
a large extent, even in Western countries in which most people could purchase
the most wholesome food available, people still choose to pursue unhealthful
lifestyles, in which meat-eating figures prominently. When we choose to eat
meat, and thus increase our chances of contracting a disease that will be
chronic and expensive to treat (for example, a heart by-pass operation costs an
average $45,000), we drive up the cost of health care. High health care costs
put pressure on our economy, taking funds away from other needed services, and
drive the cost of health insurance so high that lower-income people cannot
afford it. These people, who have no choice but to live without health
insurance, are thus forced to risk being denied health care, or to incur massive
costs that can plunge them into debt for years. So for us to eat unhealthful
foods and get sick, when we might have been healthy, is to take health care away
from those who can least afford it.
Often people say that they eat only a little meat, and therefore are not at
increased risk for the major killer diseases. In a similar situation concerning
another toxic substance, alcohol, Thich Nhat Hanh was asked what is wrong with
drinking two glasses of wine per week, since someone at this level of
consumption will not incur health damage from the habit. He replied, "It's
true that two glasses of wine do not harm you. But are you sure they do not harm
your children?" He concluded by
saying, "If you give up wine, you'll
be doing it not only for yourself, but also for your children and for your
society." (5) Regardless of the kind
of consumption we participate in, our participation itself serves to encourage
all those who observe our consumption to act likewise; in this way, we foster
habits that, while we may manage them acceptably, may have painful and
destructive results for others.
Meat-eating also necessitates the violation of another aspect of the Noble
Eightfold Path: Right Livelihood. Among the five kinds of livelihood
specifically excluded as harmful to the spiritual aspirant, two have a
relationship to meat-eating. The five excluded livelihoods are the trading in
weapons, human beings, animals for slaughter, alcohol, and poisons. Not raising
animals for slaughter or trading in meat is clear; although most people who eat
meat do not raise the animals, sell, or kill them. However, if these occupations
are clearly specified by the Buddha to be harmful, ought we to live in a way
that requires other people to engage in these livelihoods? If not, then
we cannot eat meat.
One type of livelihood related to providing our meat is often overlooked:
that of meat packers. These workers, who have the highest injury rate of any
factory workers, (6) must endure hellish conditions--stunning, killing, and
dismembering mammals and birds, standing on floors covered with blood and
grease, being forced to use very sharp tools at high rates of speed, and working
in refrigerated environments, to give a partial description. It is usually the
very poor, including recent immigrants, who must do our "dirty
work" for low pay, yet we could free
them all, and the animals as well, by simply changing our diets. "If
slaughterhouses had glass walls," says
longtime vegetarian Paul McCartney, "everyone
would be vegetarian." (7)
An Animal Killed Especially For You
In addition to the Noble Eightfold Path, what other teachings of the Buddha
bear on this subject? One of the most commonly cited is the Buddha's
statement to his monks that it is acceptable to eat meat unless you suspect the
animal was killed especially for you. First of all, we cannot be sure the Buddha
actually said this, as several hundred years elapsed between his lifetime and
the first written compilation of his teachings. One Buddhist author, Dr. Tony
Page, asserts that the Buddha did say this, but that it has been mistranslated.
Page quotes the Buddha's statement
from the Jivakasutta as: "I, Jivaka, say that in three cases, meat may not be used: if it is seen, heard,
suspected." He says the "killed
especially for you" meaning is a later
addition, and that what the Buddha meant is that meat may not be used if it is "seen,
heard, suspected" to be meat. In
other words, if a monk unknowingly eats food that contains meat, there is no
fault in that, but if he suspects in any way that the food contains meat, he may
not eat it. Immediately following the "seen,
heard, suspected" teaching, the Buddha
goes on to say that a monk should live with a mind filled with friendliness (metta),
suffusing the whole world everywhere, in every way. "Would
this attitude of loving-kindness,"
asks Page, "be compatible with then
supporting animal butchery?" (8)
Roshi Philip Kapleau, founder and retired director of the Rochester Zen
Center, offers this comment:
If the Buddha actually uttered the statements attributed to him, what they
would mean effectively is that with the exception of a handful of persons who
were offered meat from an animal killed just for them--and, of course, hunters,
slaughterers, and fishermen--he freely sanctioned meat-eating for everyone,
including his monks. Not only does this contention fly in the face of the first
precept, . . . it also implies that the Buddha approved of butchering and the
horrors of the slaughterhouse. Yet slaughtering is one of the trades forbidden
to Buddhists, and with good reason. To say on the one hand that the Buddha
sanctioned flesh-eating in all cases except those already noted, and on the
other that he condemned the bloody trades of slaughtering, hunting and trapping,
not only denies the link between the two, it involves one in an absurd
On the other hand, what sense can we make of the "meat
eating is OK unless the animal is killed especially for you"
controversy if we assume the Buddha did make this statement? When taken
in the context of the society and time period in which the Buddha lived, it may
have actually saved the lives of animals.
Imagine a poor householder living at the time of the Buddha. He hears that
the Buddha and his monks are coming to the area, and the householder wants to
give them his best hospitality. His first impulse might be to have an animal
killed so that he can offer meat to the monks. Because of the Buddha's
rule that the monks will not eat any meat that was killed especially for them,
the householder knows the monks would not eat such meat, and therefore does not
have an animal killed. Thus the Buddha's
rule has the effect of sparing the life of the animal that might
otherwise have been killed.
Consider also how the process works in the very different way we obtain meat
today. If our householder, rather than going to a butcher to obtain meat for the
monks, goes to a supermarket instead, he--and the monks to whom it will
subsequently be served--can be assured that that animal was not killed
especially for them. The animal--let's
say it is a chicken--was dead long before the householder went to the
supermarket, and whoever slaughtered that chicken had no idea who would
ultimately eat it. Does this mean those who purchase meat at a market can have
an easy conscience about being responsible for the killing of animals? Let's
pursue this argument a step further.
Some hours after our householder goes to the supermarket and buys the
chicken, the supermarket meat buyer is compiling an order for his supplier to
restock the bin of chickens. He looks at his inventory printouts and notices
that one has been sold--the one our householder bought--and so the buyer orders
another one. It's that second
chicken that is killed especially for our householder and his guests,
because the foods we purchase determine that more of the same will appear in the
market. If our householder had decided to prepare a tofu dish instead of meat, a
supermarket buyer would order more tofu. So even though the chicken the
householder actually bought was not killed especially for him, the next
chicken to appear in the bin was. (10)
In modern society it is extremely difficult, in fact nearly impossible, to
obtain or eat meat without an animal being killed especially for oneself.
Perhaps if a person is walking through the forest, and just happens to be
approached by a hunter who offers to give him freshly-killed meat, saying that
the hunter has more meat than he could possibly eat--that might be a case in
which meat not killed especially for oneself could be obtained, but how likely
is that kind of scenario in our modern life? Yet thousands of Buddhist monks and
laypeople justify meat-eating based on the "not
killed especially for you" argument.
Other statements attributed to the Buddha are less ambiguous. In the Surangama
Sutra, we read: "How can you eat
the flesh of living beings and so pretend to be my disciple?"
(11) The Lankavatara Sutra devotes an entire chapter to the subject of
meat-eating, which includes these statements attributed to the Buddha: "For
fear of causing terror to living beings, let the bodhisattva who is disciplining
himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh . . ."
And this passionate proscription: "Meat-eating
in any form, in any manner, and in any place in unconditionally and once for all
prohibited . . . Meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I
will not permit." (12)
Although by no means unanimous on the subject, Buddhist teachers today have
made numerous statements against the practice of meat-eating and cruelty to
animals. We have, from the Tibetan tradition, Robert Thurman, who has written, "Nonviolence
against humans cannot take firm hold in a society as long as brutality and
violence are practiced toward other animals."
(13) The most prominent Tibetan teacher, the Dalai Lama, although not himself a
vegetarian, has made pro-vegetarian statements over many years. Fully 35 years
ago he wrote, "I do not see any reason
why animals should be slaughtered to serve as human diet; there are so many
substitutes. After all man can live without meat."
(14) He continues to speak out on the subject, as evidenced by this
statement published in 2001: "In order
to satisfy one human stomach, so many lives are taken away. We must promote
vegetarianism. It is extremely important."
(15) Contemporary vegetarian Buddhist teachers include Thich Nhat Hanh; every
monk and nun in his tradition vows "to
be a vegetarian for the whole of my life."
(16) Roshi Kapleau and his dharma heir, Bodhin Kjolhede, are vegetarians as
Each Person Can Make a Difference
How can we move in dietary directions more in keeping with the practice of
mindful attention and compassion? Those who have not yet begun to explore
vegetarian diets may feel overwhelmed at making basic changes in the foods they
eat. People may feel that if they can't
be completely vegetarian, there is no use in making any change at all. They
might say, "I could never give up
cheeseburgers" or "If
I didn't eat the pot roast my mother
serves when I visit, she would be terribly hurt."
Even if you don't want give up eating
the occasional cheeseburger yet, or the meat that your mother prepares when you
visit, it is extremely important that you do what you can. A gradual change may
be best, perhaps just giving up one type of meat at first, then progressing to
the next. Another approach is to have one meatless day per week, then two, and
so on. Even small changes make a difference--choosing a bean burrito instead of
a beef one, or a veggie pizza instead of a pepperoni one. Everyone can do
Many resources to support dietary change await your discovery. Find out
whether your natural foods store offers vegetarian cooking classes. Learn which
restaurants have vegetarian entrees. If there is a local vegetarian society
where you live, attend one of their potlucks or other events. You don't
have to be a vegetarian to get involved, and the more people you can meet who
support your compassionate diet, the more comfortable you'll
feel. If you can't find live people to
talk to about reducing meat consumption, find some virtual ones online. A number
of helpful books and websites may be found in the "Additional
When we bring mindfulness to the dinner table, it suffuses the rest of our
life as well. We become more sensitive to the well-being of animals, of the
environment, and of ourselves and our families. We are more aware of the choices
we make in all areas of our life. We enjoy food more knowing that, while the
obtaining of even plant foods necessitates some suffering, the amount and kind
of suffering is dramatically reduced when we leave meat off our shopping lists
and out of our kitchens. We become more aware of how meat consumption feeds
violence and anger. "We should learn
to eat in such a way that compassion can remain in our hearts. Otherwise, we
will suffer and we will make ourselves and all species around us suffer deeply."
Those nine billion animals who are killed each year are killed because
consumers demand that amount of meat. If consumers cut back their meat
consumption, fewer animals will be killed. If consumers eliminate meat
consumption entirely, the operation of slaughterhouses--and all the suffering
and devastation of meat production and consumption--can be permanently brought
to an end. The breeding and torturing of animals for slaughter will stop,
forests and grasslands vibrant with wildlife will flourish, the human food
supply will increase to an amount sufficient for all, the quality of air, water,
and human health will improve dramatically, and with renewed life energy we can
turn our attention to other ways to reduce the suffering of all sentient beings
and of the earth.
Through writing, speaking, organizing events, and cooking, Kate Lawrence
has been educating the public about vegetarian issues for more than a dozen
years, and is a past president of the Vegetarian Society of Colorado. Currently
assistant director of the Colorado Community of Mindful Living, she facilitates
the Eyes of Compassion sangha in Denver and plays banjo in a contradance band.
Additional Resources to Support Dietary Change
Books on the Issues
Akers, Keith. A Vegetarian Sourcebook: The Nutrition, Ecology, and
Ethics of a Natural Foods Diet. Denver, CO: Vegetarian Press,
Melina, Vesanto, R.D. and Davis, Brenda, R.D. Becoming Vegetarian.
Summertown, TN: Book Publishing, 1995.
Robbins, John. The Food Revolution. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press,
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books, 1977;
reprinted by Ecco Press, 2001.
McDougall, John and McDougall, Mary. The McDougall Quick and Easy
Cookbook. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1999.
Raymond, Jennifer. The Peaceful Palate; Fine Vegetarian Cuisine. Summertown,
TN: Book Publishing, 1996.
Robertson, Laurel et. al. The New Laurel's Kitchen. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 1986.
Stepaniak, Joanne. Table for Two. Summertown, TN: Book Publishing,
Wasserman, Debra, and Charles Stahler. Meatless Meals for Working
People. Baltimore: Vegetarian Resource Group, 2001 (3rd ed.).
Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians <http://www.serv-online.org>.
Vegetarian Resource Group <http://www.vrg.org>.
1. United States Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics System, Livestock Slaughter, 2001 Annual Summary <http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/pls-bban/lsan0302.pdf>
Poultry Slaughter, 2001 Annual Summary <http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/poultry/ppy-bban/pslaan02.pdf>.
2. Isaac Bashevis Singer, "The
Letter Writer," The Collected
Stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1981)
3. Thich Nhat Hanh, The Present Moment; A Retreat on the Practice of
Mindfulness audiocassette series (Boulder, CO: Sounds True, 1994) cassette
4. The Fifth Mindfulness Training includes this sentence: "I
am determined not to use alcohol or any other intoxicant or to ingest foods or
other items that contain toxins, such as certain programs, magazines, books,
films, and conversations." Robert Ellsberg, ed., Thich Nhat Hanh: Essential Writings
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 2001) 159-160.
5. Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of the Buddha's
Teaching (New York: Broadway Books, 1998) 97.
6. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry
Injury and Illness Data, Table S01: Highest Incidence Rates of Total Nonfatal
Occupational Injury and Illness Cases, Private Industry, 2000 <http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb0988.pdf>.
7. Sir Paul McCartney, quoted by the International Vegetarian Union
8. Dr. Tony Page, Buddhism and Animals (London: UKAVIS, 1999) 122-123.
9. Roshi Philip Kapleau, To Cherish All Life; A Buddhist View of Animal
Slaughter and Meat Eating (Rochester, NY: Zen Center, 1981) 31.
10. Peter Singer, "A Vegetarian
Philosophy," Writings on an Ethical
Life (New York: Ecco Press, 2000) 68.
11. Surangama Sutra, trans. Charles Luk <http://home.wanadoo.nl/ekayana/5,1.html>.
12. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, The Lankavatara Sutra; A Mahayana Text
(Boulder, CO: Prajna Press, 1978) 213, 219.
13. Robert Thurman, The Inner Revolution (New York: Riverhead Books,
14. Indian Vegetarian Congress, The Vegetarian Way; published on the
occasion of the XIX World Vegetarian Congress held in India 1967 (Madras:
Free India Press, 1967).
15.The Dalai Lama, Live in a Better Way; Reflections on Truth, Love and
Happiness (New York: Viking Compass, 2001) 68.
16. Thich Nhat Hanh with the Monks and Nuns of Plum Village, Stepping Into
Freedom; An Introduction to Buddhist Monastic Training (Berkeley, CA:
Parallax Press, 1997) 34.
17. Thich Nhat Hanh, "Cultivating
Compassion, Responding to Violence," The
Mindfulness Bell; A Journal of the Art of Mindful Living Winter 2001-2002: