What do Vegetarians Feed Their Dogs and Cats?

First, I want to make something very clear. I am not a veterinarian. I am just giving you my opinion – not medical advice, though I am telling you what I know based on research by veterinarians. I just want to make that clear. Second, all of this is just my opinion, which is why I assume many of you read my blogs and listen to my podcast – to know what I think. And I’m sure some of you may disagree with me. That’s fine. That’s your opinion – I’m not presenting doctrine here. It’s just what I think based on my research, my experience, and my own contemplation about these issues. OK?

So, here’s the scoop. Dogs do very well on a vegetarian diet – and when I say vegetarian, I mean vegan. Most dogs thrive on a plant-based diet. And I say “most dogs” because there may some issues with allergens; some vegetarian dog foods may contain allergens such as corn or wheat, so it’s just a matter of finding the right food if that issue arises. But in general, dogs do great and any vet who tells you otherwise is misinformed. I’ve heard from some people who were actually surprised that their vet recommended a vegetarian diet for their dogs; that’s great. Find a vet who will support your decision and stick with him or her, and explore the information together. If your dog is eating meat, I would transition him or her slowly, by incorporating the vegetarian food into his or diet little by little. But there really isn’t much else to say. There are many brands of vegetarian dog food, some of which are sold at vegancats.com, and many are even in your larger and smaller local pet supply stores.

Cats, on the other hand, are a different story. Unlike humans or dogs, they are strict carnivores and have very high protein requirements. They do not require plant products in their diet, though they do tend to consume some when they eat the stomach contents of their prey. However, this doesn’t apply to my cat Simon. So, just so you know – I have two cats: Simon and Schuster. Simon is funny and spunky and manipulative and social and demanding and fickle and gorgeous and long and sleek and skinny and full of energy with a great sense of humor. He also LOVES vegetables – LOVES them. Whatever I’m eating, he wants, especially if it’s chick peas or quinoa or broccoli or asparagus or fava beans or kale or corn or Brussels sprouts. I kid you not. The other day he started eating my salad –carrots, crisp lettuce, celery – vinegar and all. He’s a nutty nut bar. The salad did have nutritional yeast on it, so I’m sure they helped mask the vinegar taste, but still.

Schuster, his brother – they were the only two in the litter – just the two of them, and they’re still very much in love. They groom each other all the time, cuddle into a ball to sleep, and are just inseparable. Schuster is the opposite of Simon – as opposite as you can get. He’s gentle and sweet and mellow and quiet and obedient and round and paunchy and adorable and trustworthy and predictable and never gets into trouble. If there’s trouble somewhere, we know who to look for, and let’s just say it’s not Schuster.

And, as much as I hate it, I feed them meat. I know there will be people who disagree with me, but I feel as comfortable as one can in this crazy world of ours based on some close calls and years of contemplation. While there are many anecdotal tales of cats thriving on vegetarian and vegan foods, let’s just say it makes me nervous based on my own experience. I’d also like to see more long-term studies of vegetarian cats. I, like I advise others to do “never say never,” so perhaps if I adopted other cats in the future, my opinion would change, but I advise people to make this decision on a case by case basis.

I fed my cats a 100% vegetarian diet awhile ago, and I’ll never do so again – not with these guys. I’m not saying this was a direct cause and effect situation, but Schuster developed Addison’s Disease, which his incredibly, incredibly rare in cats. Our vet had the hardest time diagnosing him, because it’s just so rarely seen in cats. I was doing everything that was recommended, and around that time, he developed this disease just out of the blue. (Addison’s is when your adrenal glands don’t work, so you don’t make adrenaline. Schuster will be on prednisone the rest of his life.) Again, I’m just saying this was definitely caused by the lack of meat in his diet, but this was my experience, and as much as I hate supporting the meat industry, I’m not going to put my cats’ lives at risk, especially when I couldn’t put enough nutritional yeast on Schuster’s food to get him to take his meds, and he will die without his medication.

One of the potential problems that we do know about regarding feeding cats a 100% vegetarian diet is the risk of what’s called Feline Urologic Syndrome or feline urinary tract disease. Male cats are more prone to this than females and it occurs when crystals form in the bladder and are unable to be passed through the urethra. It’s more common in males because their urethras are more narrow than that of females, and I’ve witnessed cats passing these crystals (these stones) and it’s not a pretty sight. It’s fatal if it’s not caught, because infection can form and basically back up into the cat and kill them. In an emergency situation, a cat can be catheterized, which is quite an ordeal in itself. A 100% vegetarian diet – even using the commercial cat food that’s supplemented with taurine and other essential nutrients – often means that their urine is more alkaline than acidic, which can lead to the crystals forming. Both my cats are prone to this – they both developed it years ago when I decided to foster a kitten I had fallen in love with at the shelter I was volunteering at. The problem is I didn’t ask Simon and Schuster if this was okay. Anyway – their little bodies rebelled, and they both got blocked. I know now that it happens to Simon (it’s happened several times since to him – but never again to Schuster) if he eats dry food or is under severe stress, but this is something to know if you’re considering feeding your cats a 100% vegetarian diet.

I do think there can be a compromise solution, and I really like the suggestions at http://www.vegancats.com/. They suggest you supplement their meat with vegetarian food to at least cut down on the amount of meat you feed them. They do differentiate between what’s good for males vs. females because of the former’s propensity for urinary tract disease, but personally, I would do no more than a quarter of their food with veggie food, and that’s just my opinion. But see what they have to say. I think it’s sound advice. So you can try 25% vegetarian food, and 75% meat – that will definitely cut down on the amount of meat you have to buy.

In terms of the food I buy for them, as I said, they eat only canned, and my first criterion for their food is that it not contain by-products. If there are by-products in your cat (or dog) food, then I recommend switching brands, especially if by-products appear first in the ingredients list. A lot of the cheaper, lower-grade, generic brands and other brands use a lot of by-products (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture grade 4-D meat, which stands for dead, dying, disabled and diseased animals, as well as filler (usually in the form of corn which is difficult for many cats to ingest). So, I do recommend a “higher quality” brand. I’m not saying it’s higher quality from the standpoint of the animal who was killed; I’m saying higher quality from the standpoint of what I’m feeding my cats.

Many commercial foods are contaminated by antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, heavy metals, and other potentially hazardous materials. So, I do highly recommend checking out some brands that have the least amount of crap in them – and considering organic if you can afford that. There are many people who also make their own food, and if you want to purchase whole chickens, etc. and make your own food, you can do that, too. Dr. Pitcairn’s Guide to Dogs and Cats has some recipes for doing so.
The other issue for me is buying food that’s from a company that doesn’t use animals as research tools. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is totally on top of this, and I recommend visiting their website http://www.iamscruelty.com/ – where you can find out about IAMS (owned by Procter and Gamble) and the horrific conditions of the animals in the Iams-supported laboratories – as well as a list of companies that sell food not tested on animals. It also indicates which of those brands offers vegan dog food, so it’s a great resource to check out. BTW, I’ve mentioned nutritional yeast already; I sprinkle nutritional yeast on their food at every meal. They love it. I’ve actually busted Schuster more than once on the counter reaching his paw into the jar and scooping out the nutritional yeast and eating it. Did I say that Schuster never gets into trouble? LOL – well, it’s actually really cute. He doesn’t get in trouble for that. Anyway, if you need to get meds into your dog or cat, try sprinkling nutritional yeast on their food, and save some for your own popcorn. J I never eat my popcorn without it.

There are some other issues related to dogs and cats I’d like to talk about. It’s something that has been very difficult for me to talk about, but I want my experience to help others so it’s really necessary that I share some information with you. There is a cancerous tumor that’s seen in dogs but most frequently in cats; it’s called Fibrosarcoma. It’s so commonly attributed to vaccinations that it’s also called Vaccine-Associated Sarcoma.

In 2001, I brought Simon and Schuster in for a check-up to a vet that we had been using for a little while. This vet said we needed vaccinate Simon and Schuster, and I was really surprised. They’re indoor cats and hadn’t had vaccinations for years, because the risk of them contracting anything was so low. She said “nope – gotta vaccinate.” I said, well you know I don’t really feel comfortable; I know there are risks involved, but I’m not clear about what they are. Can you tell me?” she mumbled, “but the risk of a mouse coming into the house and them getting rabies” blah blah blah she started spouting off pretty much WHILE she was taking my cats in the back to be vaccinated. This is the moment for which I feel so much guilt. It’s the moment I wish I could return to. If I could turn back, I would have walked out that door with my cats and found a new vet. I didn’t know any better. I trusted her. I trusted her expertise – she was the vet. But I really didn’t have time to process what she was saying. Before I knew it, they were back with me, and we went home.

Not long after that – a couple months MAYBE – I was petting Simon and I noticed a bump on his upper hip – pretty much right near his spine at the top of his right hip. I know their bodies reeeally well, so I immediately called the vet in a panic and made an appointment. I brought Simon in, and the vet felt the lump. She looked up and said “this is fibrosarcoma. It’s caused by vaccination needles. I’m taking him into the operating room right now.” My heart sank. I was stunned. I really was still in shock. I didn’t know what she was talking about. I left hysterically crying, and I got a speeding ticket on the way home. I still think about that day when I’m on that stretch of road going from Berkeley to Oakland, which is pretty frequent. I remember the exact spot where the cop stopped me. Anyway…

When we picked him up from the vet, the vet showed me on his X-ray where the tumor was – like I said way up high on his hip near his spine. I didn’t know at the time what she meant when she said “he struggled so much when we were trying to vaccinate him; he just made it really difficult to do it lower.” But I know now why she said that.

You see, in Vaccine Associated Sarcoma, a malignant tumor forms exactly in the spot where the vaccination was given. These tumors have been most commonly associated with rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines, but other vaccines and injected medications have also been implicated. These tumors have become so common that vaccine protocols have changed. I’ll tell you what they recommend and what I know so you can avoid going through what we have and so you can pass this information along to your vet. They recommend that the vaccine for feline leukemia be given only to kittens and very high-risk cats. The other vaccines, including rabies, they say should be given every three years to adult cats. They also recommend that the vaccination be given in a location that allows for easy removal should a tumor occur. In other words, they recommend vaccinating very low on the limb (as opposed to between the shoulder blades where they used to give them), because if a tumor does occur, they can remove the limb or foot and thus eliminate the chances that the tumor will recur.

Fibrosarcoma is an aggressive tumor with rapid growth, but it tends not to metastasize. So, if you remove it – along with a VERY WIDE MARGIN on all sides, you virtually eliminate the chances it will recur. On one hand, it’s good that the cancer doesn’t spread – Simon never knew anything was wrong. He was never, ever sick. On the other hand, people have euthanized perfectly healthy cats who had this tumor that caused distress and pressure on vital organs. It’s heart-breaking. The tumor doesn’t metastasize, but it sends out little tendrils and spreads and grows very rapidly, and if you can remove a wide margin of tendons, etc. – anything it can grab onto – then you have a better chance at stopping its growth.

When I learned all this, I realized that’s what the vet meant when she said that Simon struggled when they gave him the vaccination. She was essentially blaming him for the fact that they gave him the vaccine on his hip – by his spine – as opposed to low down on his limb. She blamed Simon. She called the next day after the surgery to confirm it was indeed fibrosarcoma, and all she said was “my instinct was correct. It’s fibrosarcoma. You have two choices: you can amputate or you can radiate. But the odds of survival are slim.” So, you can imagine that by now I was out of shock. I was enraged. I told her I did have a third option: to find a new vet, which is exactly what I did.

And it’s this vet to whom I owe everything. If you’re in Oakland, her name is Dr. Jenny Taylor, and her practice is called Creature Comfort on Macarthur Ave. She’s a holistic vet, which is where I should have gone in the first place. The tumor returned 2-1/2 months later, and everything I read told me Simon would be dead in a few months – that’s how quickly this tumor grows. Read anything on it, you will learn that the prognosis is sooo poor for this tumor – especially if you can’t remove the limb. (I know that sounds horrific. What a horrible way to treat this tumor.) Dr. Taylor and I have spoken a lot about this, and she said she never would have vaccinated these cats. I’m not saying there’s never a time to vaccinate, but the protocols don’t take into consideration individual needs. My cats are indoor cats and really didn’t need to be vaccinated. So, do talk with your vet about making assessments on a cat by cat basis – not according to some general protocol. And of course – I would recommend that you be present if you do vaccinate and make sure they do it very low on the limb.

So, Simon’s tumor came back, and Dr. Taylor went back in to remove it. At that time we had already started him on some Chinese herbs as well as what is called Immpower – a supplement used for humans that is basically made from Japanese mushrooms. The idea is that these mushrooms increase what are called Natural Killer Cells – these are the cells that destroy cancer cells. Now, we’ll never know what actually did it, but the tumor stayed away. It stayed away for TWO AND A HALF YEARS. The odds of it coming back after TWO SURGERIES was very high. If it’s removed once and returns, the odds that it will come back right away are very high. But for 2-1/2 years, it was gone.

Sadly, though, it returned. The entire time, I kept him on Immpower, but it returned 2.5 years later. So, we removed it again. And it returned right away. We were faced with a very difficult decision, and our wonderful vet referred us to the best surgeon in the area. He did a major assessment and was so dismayed that the tumor was so high up. If it were just a little lower – just a little – he felt confident that an amputation of Simon’s entire hip and leg would have taken care of it. But as it was, the tumor was very high. So, he recommended doing a major, major surgery, which consisted of removing a lot of tendons and tissue and ligaments – just as much as he could without compromising his quality of life. Then, after a short healing process, we would do localized radiation for 7 weeks – 21 sessions, 3 times a week. We felt had no choice. We had to give it a try. And our odds: 50/50 that it would still come back.

What I haven’t mentioned is that Simon’s personality played a huge role in our decision to do this. Immediately following his surgeries, he would bounce around like the maniac he is. He’s so strong. He gives me so strength, and making this decision was a lot easier because he’s got so much life in him. He never ceases to amaze me – and everyone who knows him. So we did the surgery – it was so aggressive. He looked like Frankenstein’s monster when he came home. It was the only time in his life he didn’t want Schuster around. But after a couple days, he gave Schuster the signal, and I have a photograph of the first time he let Schuster come over and groom him. Schuster’s the best brother anyone can have. We did the radiation, and he was great. Three times a week, I’d put him in his carrier and drive him down to the specialists. After awhile, he’d go right into his carrier. They brought him right in, I’d go to a café for an hour, and I’d pick him up.

In just a couple months, it will be two years since the radiation ended. The only effects were that the fur on that part of his body grew back very thin and a light gray. Both Simon and Schuster are tuxedo cats – they have gorgeous black coats, except for white on their chests, bellies, and paws. Now Simon also had white on his hip.

So, that’s our story, and it isn’t over yet. The surgeon told us that the worst case scenario was that the tumor would return after 1 year. The fact that we’re almost at two years is a very hopeful sign. We will continue to hope we’ll never see it again. That’s all we can do. I still give him Immpower and lots of love.

Finally, if you don't already have a holistic vet, you can find one by visiting http://www.ahvma.org/. It stands for the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association. If you can’t find a holistic vet, I just hope your vet listens to your concerns and questions. When I had mentioned to the vet who gave my cat cancer, she very smugly replied “good luck – you can do what you want, but I doubt it’s going to work.” She was just so horrible. So, do find one who will work with you and be open to alternative methods. It’s true that they’re the experts, but that doesn’t mean we have to trust them implicitly. Our instinct counts for a lot, and I curse the day I didn’t listen to mine.

But I know that all we can do is do the best we can with the information we have. And that’s related to my feelings about feeding cats a 100% vegetarian diet. Based on the information I have, I’m not confident it’s the right thing for them. As far as dogs, based on the information I have, I think it’s the best thing for them. I hope this helps somewhat. I realize it’s not a perfect situation, but this is a pretty imperfect world.

Fish Consumption and By-Catch

Most of us don't think too much about it and the rest of us are unaware that our consumption of fish leads to the demise of other fish, cetaceans (such as whales, dolphins, and porpoises), birds, and ecosystems. Now, for me – like for many people – fish were the last animals I stopped eating. First were land animals (though hoofed animals did come before birds), then aquatic animals and their secretions (ya know fish eggs), then the secretions from land animals – chicken’s eggs and cow’s milk. So, at the time I was still eating fish – and mind you, I was an animal advocate at the time – totally missing the boat on my role in the suffering of aquatic animals – I remember starting a conversation with my now-husband, who joined me on this journey when we met over 12 years ago. I wanted to explore why we – not just us specifically but humans in general – could eat certain animals and be appalled at eating others. Was it the cute factor? Was it size? Was it their similarity to – or lack thereof –humans? Our ability to identify with them? Have relationships with them – or not? What was it?

As David and I talked about this, we tried to come up with a reason we were able to justify eating aquatic animals and not eating land animals - insofar as we were even doing it consciously. Every avenue we went down, we just couldn’t do it. We just couldn’t find a good enough reason. Excuses? Yes. Justifications? Yes. Solid reasons that were good enough to make us feel comfortable eating them? No. And I remember saying – damn, well, we can’t keep eating them. That’s it. I just can’t do it. And so we stopped. That was it. Fish were out.

I mentioned in another episode that one of my blocks – even though I was eating other fish – was lobster, because I could see the whole body and had to break the body myself in order to eat it. Couldn’t do it – I could see it for what it was – ya know a body – a head, eyes, legs. And now, when I think back to eating shrimp – the idea of just biting into their entire body – just breaking the body with my teeth is repulsive to me. I just hate thinking about it. But I did it for a long time. And now I’m glad I don’t do anymore.

So, we have a lot to talk about, and I thought we would start with one of the aspects of fishing that we don’t think about a lot – we don’t hear about a lot, and that’s the inevitable, expected, inherent part of commercial fishing called by-catch.

I had been planning on covering this topic for a long time, but it was an email I received that inspired me to put it at the top of the queue. I’ll just read you a bit of the email – it’s from a gentleman named Karl, who lives in Arizona.

“Since in every podcast you ask about topic suggestions I will mention something that was one of the hardest things for me personally to give up: Sushi. I thought I would never give up fish until I saw a video podcast by Greenpeace, called “Thanks for all the Fish,” which shows a legal fishing boat as they pull up their catch. In the podcast, they show how many endangered animals they legally pull up and kill. This podcast above all other arguments changed my mind about eating fish.”

We often hear the quote: "10 billion animals are killed for human consumption every year in the United States. Worldwide, I believe it’s 45 billion," but it’s more accurate to say that “10 billion LAND animals are killed for human consumption every year in the U.S. Otherwise, we’re just disregarding the billions of aquatic animals killed for the same purpose – human appetites. Although the number of aquatic animals killed for consumption in the United States goes unreported, annual estimates are more than 17 billion in the U.S. alone, and sport fishing and angling kills another 245 million animals annually. So, basically, we’re talking about over 27 billion animals – both land and aquatic – being killed every year in the U.S. so we humans can eat them. We’re not talking about survival – we’re talking about appetite. And these numbers don’t count the millions of aquatic animals killed as incidental catch.

By-catch refers to unintended or unwanted animals caught by the fishing industry. It is estimated that by-catch-related mortality is causing population declines in 13 out of the 44 species of marine mammals that are suffering high death rates from human activities. Commercial fishers use a number of techniques for ensnaring animals, from setting miles of line and baited hooks (called longlines) to catch animals such as sharks, swordfish, and tuna; to using large nets to catch schools of fish. These large nets are towed underwater by what are called trawlers. A trawler is a fishing vessel designed for the purpose of operating a trawl, a type of fishing net that is dragged along the bottom of the sea (or sometimes just above the bottom at a specified depth).

A single pass of a trawl removes up to 20% of the seafloor fauna and flora. And the fisheries with the highest levels of by-catch are shrimp fisheries: 80%-90% of a catch may consist of marine species other than the shrimp being targeted. I just wanna make sure you heard that: 80%-90% of the animals caught in these nets that are targeting shrimp and prawns are actually non-target animals – they’re by-catch.

Shrimp are bottom-dwellers, which is why trawling nets are used to – remove them from the ocean. Since even jumbo shrimp are really small, the nets used to catch the shrimp are very fine, which means these nets scoop up all the animals – all the life – found on the ocean’s floor. According to a 2003 U.S. News and World Report article on fishing and its detrimental affects on the oceans of the world, every pound of shrimp that’s caught results in the killing of ten pounds of other marine life. According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, in the Gulf of Thailand it can be 14 pounds of by-catch per pound of shrimp.

Now, a lot of the dead by-catch is made up of tiny animals that people don’t have emotional attachments to – you know, they may not be cute like baby seals or dolphins – but they contribute to the oceans’ biodiversity and they have a right to be there – to live.

The other thing to consider is that the dredging along the ocean floor also breaks up coral and the habitats of bottom-dwellers. And because the same areas are dredged again and again, it’s not like these habitats and inhabitants have time to recover before being destroyed again. So, if you consider yourself an “environmentalist,” and most people do - it’s something to consider. Fish populations, communities, and ecosystems are being destroyed so we can have shrimp cocktail – and I used to eat that. I used to eat shrimp cocktail.

Now - by-catch is often discarded back into the ocean already dead or dying. Many are half-alive and die slow, unnecessary deaths. Trawl nets in general, and shrimp trawls in particular where the discard may be 90% of the catch, have been identified as sources of mortality for many species of concern, including endangered animals and cetaceans, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises. Sea turtles, already endangered, have been killed by the thousands in shrimp trawl nets.

Another way to put this is anywhere between 6.8 million and 27 million tons of fish could be being discarded each year. It’s hard to get exact numbers, but part of the problem is that we tend to have pretty myopic vision. We may be looking at the one fish on our plate or the 5 shrimp in our seafood salad, but countless numbers of animals were dredged up and killed for the individuals we see on our own plates.

Now, we’ve been talking primarily about the by-catch caused by trawling nets and shrimp nets, but there are other commercial fishing methods that also result in by-catch. Nets tend to kill cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises and whales), and longline fishing kills birds, for instance. As for the first group, an estimated 300,000 cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) die as by-catch each year, because they are unable to escape when caught in nets. So, you may not think cod fish are particularly cute, but most people get pretty emotional about whales, dolphins, and porpoises. So, if we don’t consider the cod, perhaps we can consider the animals for whom we do have sympathy.

It has been estimated that a staggering 100 million sharks and rays are caught and discarded each year. Tuna fisheries, which in the past had high dolphin by-catch levels, are still responsible for the death of many sharks.

Again, sharks don’t inspire warm cuddly feelings and they’re perceived as a great menace to humans. In reality, sharks typically attack fewer than 100 people per year, killing fewer than 20, and it’s not because they’re evil; it’s because they think we’re prey, because, as noted by the International Shark Attack File, human population growth means more people in the water every year. And, continued human pollution means less habitable water for sharks. In addition to the millions of sharks we kill each year as by-catch, we kill between 26 to 73 million sharks for their fins alone. It’s common practice to catch the sharks, cut off their fins, then throw their dismembered bodies back into the ocean. Just the thought of that is so, so disturbing to me. So, even if you might not want to cuddle up next to a shark, it doesn’t mean they deserve what we do to them. They’re victims of our appetites as well.

I mentioned birds being killed in long lines, and I just wanted to follow up on that. Birds dive for the bait planted on long fishing lines, they swallow the bait along with the hook, are pulled under the water, and drown. Around 100,000 albatrosses are killed by longline fisheries every year, particularly where tuna are fished, and because of this, many species are facing extinction. This is very prevalent in the waters off Chile, where sea bass is aggressively hunted by boats towing fifty-mile longlines. 50 miles long!

DOLPHINS
The public became aware of the problems of by-catch in the 1980s when campaigns were led against tuna companies for harming and killing dolphins when tuna were the targets. The relationship between dolphins and tuna is that yellowfin tuna follow and school beneath dolphins, so fishing fleets would look for dolphins on the surface, herd them and encircle them and set out the nets to catch the tuna – ensnaring the dolphins at the same time. An estimated 7 million dolphins have been killed by this fishing method over the past four decades, the largest marine mammal kill in history.

In 1986, the International Marine Mammal Project organized a campaign, including a consumer boycott of tuna, in order to urge U.S. tuna companies to end the practice of intentionally chasing and netting dolphins and to adopt "Dolphin Safe" fishing practices to prevent the drowning of dolphins in tuna nets. Dolphins are mammals and don’t have gills, so they drown while stuck in the nets underwater. There are other standards that a company must adhere to in order to label their tuna “dolphin-safe,” but it’s worth noting that just because it says “dolphin-safe” or “dolphin-friendly,” its doesn’t mean that dolphins were not killed in the production of a particular tin of tuna. It means that the fleet which caught the tuna did not specifically target a pod of dolphins.

Though the numbers are down since new techniques are used to catch tuna (400,000 dolphins killed annually in the 1960s and 100,000 in the 1980s), several thousand dolphins are still killed each year to satisfy our appetites for tuna. Dolphins, social, playful, intelligent animals, are also killed as by-catch in nets targeting trout. According to a 2003 BBC story by Alex Kirby called “Nets Kill 800 Cetaceans a Day,” more than 800 dolphins, porpoises, and whales die every day as they get tangled in fishing nets – that’s 300,000 every year.

TURTLES
Turtles are also common victims. Sea turtles are killed by the thousands. It’s estimated that more than 20,000 sea turtles die each year after getting hooked on longlines. Six of the seven species of marine turtles are listed as Endangered or Critically Endangered, and the outlook is increasingly grim. In the Pacific, leatherbacks are heading for extinction, fast, and in the Mediterranean, green turtle numbers have plummeted. Though pollution and disease contribute to this, the nets and long-lines of fishing fleets play a major role in their demise.
According to Duke University who recently conducted a global assessment of the problem, more than 250,000 loggerhead and 60,000 leatherback turtles are snared each year by commercial longline fishing, and tens of thousands die. The authors estimated that longline fleets from 40 different countries set about 1.4 billion hooks in the studied year of 2000 the equivalent of about 3.8 million hooks each day.

Again, longlines are fishing lines that can stretch for 40 miles and dangle thousands of individually baited hooks. They are set at optimal depths and times to catch tuna and swordfish, shark, and other fish, and according to the data studied, the turtles most often die – not by drowning by some kind of injury related to hooking or entangling.

SEALS
Another by-product of the fishing industry is the brutal death of baby seals. Because of the Overfishing of cod by the Canadian fishing industry in eastern Canada – in the Atlantic Ocean for Newfoundland’s northeast coast, the cod population declined to such a degree that the government stepped in the late 1980s and imposed severe restrictions on commercial fishing. But it was too late. Because of overfishing, the fishery collapsed, never recovered (and never will), and the ecosystem changed such that it was no longer able to support cod fish.

What does all this have to do with the seals, you ask? Scapegoating the seals for the collapse of the cod fisheries, fishermen demanded a kill. In 2003, the Canadian government bowed to pressure from the fishing industry and ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of seals, declaring war on the seals in hopes that massive seal kills will bring back the cod and keep their disgruntled fishermen working. In fact, cod is not a major food source of the harp and hood seal diet. Further, recent evidence suggests that killing seals contributes to bacterial infestation on the ocean floor which leads to hypoxia, a condition in which patches of ocean lose all the dissolved oxygen and are unable to sustain cod or fish or marine life of any kind. However, these facts seem to have been brushed aside by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans in their efforts to justify and continue the slaughter. During the 3-year period of 2003-2005, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) allowed a kill quota of 975,000 baby and adult harp seals and 30,000 adult hood seals. When the "struck and lost" seals are included (these are the animals who’ve been hit but lost in the icy waters), the total killed exceeds one million, making this the largest marine mammal slaughter in the world.

To find as many avenues as possible to profit from the annual, government-subsidized slaughter, Canada exports sealskins (furskins/pelts and leather), seal oil, and seal meat. Unfortunately, the demand for seal pelts has sky-rocketed, especially in Europe. Though seal meat isn’t doing so well, the Canadian government is trying to find markets for the bodies of the skinned seals.

The kill continues to this day; even as I write this. The quota for the 2007 massacre is 270,000, and as I write this, 213,000 have been killed this year. Visit http://www.protectseals.org/ for more information about this horrific annual slaughter.

TSUNAMI
Finally, while we’re talking about by-products/effects (not just by-catch), there is another by-product of consuming aquatic animals that went under the radar screen when an earthquake and subsequent tsunami in southeast Asia destroyed lives and communities at the end of 2004. Over 200,000 human lives were lost and uncounted non-human lives. Experts agree that the destruction of coral reefs and mangrove trees played a significant role in the destruction caused by the tsunami. In many countries across Asia, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, mangroves stood all along the coasts in shallow waters. They offered protection against things like tsunamis. Over the last 20-30 years, they were cleared for shrimp or prawn farms. The shrimps and prawns are sold to Europeans and other foreigners at a price that does not take into account the environmental cost. The destruction of the coasts was also due to the building of large resorts where they should never have been built.

Of course, there are efforts to rebuild the shrimp farms, and we’ll see if we learn anything from the disaster. I’m a little skeptical, considering the fact that worldwide, shrimp farming has grown at an annual average of over 18% since 1970, and is the single most valuableinternationally traded seafood product worldwide, valued at an estimated $50-60 billion at the point of retail.

So the cost of our consumption of aquatic animals is extremely high. Not just to the target species who were living perfectly lovely lives before we come along and snatch them out of their homes but also to the non-target species and entire ecosystems. And this is just one aspect of this issue. We have yet to talk about all the others, including factory-farm raising fish, the pollution in the ocean, the fishing of smaller fish to feed to the larger fish we raise to eat, the toxins, such as mercury, in the fish that we consume when we eat their bodies, the research that supports the fact that fish feel pain, the human health concerns of eating fish, the problems with “catch and release sport fishing,” and more. I can do an entire podcast on salmon alone and the many problems with consuming it – from the problems with farm-raised Atlantic salmon, which is probably one of the worst choices we could make: The fish are raise in cramped pens in the ocean; their waste pollutes the surrounding water and spreads disease to wild fish. In the Pacific, escaped farm-raised salmon also compete with wild fish for food and interfere with spawning. Furthermore, salmon are fed a diet of fish meal (tinted to give their flesh that characteristic "salmon pink" color) which further depletes the ocean food chain. Wild Washington or Oregon salmon is a poor choice since overfishing and habitat destruction have endangered many species. Anyway, just some food for thought before we return to this topic. And do re-visit the podcast called "Skip the Middle Man" to answer your questions about the importance of Omega 3 fatty acids – not from fish but from plant sources. Because don’t forget: the fish have to consume the fatty acids from the phytoplankton, from the algae. If they don’t consume it, they don’t have it in their flesh.

Until next time, consider this: A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries Magazine cited more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation, punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food." With that in mind, my hope is that each of us questions what criteria we use to determine the value of an animal’s life. To determine who deserves to be spared pain, to determine who has a right to live free from harm, free from suffering, free from premature and unnecessary death.

May our hearts be large enough to include not only those with whom we can identify, with whom we can communicate. May our compassion be unbiased enough to embrace those who don’t look us, those who don’t sound like us. May we be as fascinated by our differences as we are consoled by our similarities. We don’t need to travel to other planets to find interesting, exotic, different life forms. They exist right here, right now, on the earth and in the sea. We would recognize them - if we could just get the way long enough to look through a different lens, a broader lens.

Like Animals

I feel very strongly about how our use of language reveals our prejudices and biases, particular when it comes to the oppressed, whether the oppressed be human or nonhuman. In fact, the language of oppression is fundamental to the oppression itself. In order to establish your superiority over a group, first you need to subordinate that group, and one of the basic ways we do this is through the use of language.

The Nazis knew this well. As part of their “Final Solution,” a euphemism itself for the extermination of an entire people, they used language that demonized and dehumanized the Jews and other "enemies" of the State.” The Nazis portrayed the Jews as 'parasites,' and 'disease.’ They also called them pigs, dogs, vermin, and swine.

With the subjugation and suppression of African Americans came a language which labeled them 'chattels,' 'property,' and 'beasts.’ Even earlier than this were descriptions of Africans by the Europeans who called them brutes, monkeys, animals, and apes.

Similarly, the extermination of a significant population of "American Indians" was accompanied by the use of dehumanizing language defining them as "non-persons," "savages," and "Satan's partisans." The were also called ugly, filthy, inhuman beasts, swine, pigs, dogs, baboons, gorillas, and orangutans.

Belittling humans by calling them animals isn’t reserved only for certain groups of humans. In fact, any human who acts unfavorably or violently towards another human being is called “an animal.” It’s ironic to me, because animals don’t do to each other – or to humans – any of the horrific things we do to each other – and to other animals – for fun, for pleasure. When people act violently towards one another, it seems to me that it would be more accurate to say they’re acting like humans. But, of course we don’t do that, because we’re the almighty human being, whose primary fault that separates us from all the other animals – in my opinion – is our arrogance. It is our arrogance that enables us to subordinate, exploit, abuse, and kill animals, and it is our arrogance that enables us to justify this behavior on the basis of – well, our arrogance. On the basis of what we call our human right to do so. Right, that’s called arrogance.

And so we set up this system so that humans are superior, and animals are inferior, and so if we want to deem another group inferior, all we need to do is call them “animals” as the ultimate insult. One of the problems is that we are denying our own animal-ness; we don’t like to remember that we, too, are animals, and so in reality, though we shouldn’t mind being called what we are (i.e. animals), we do mind, because non-human animals have been denigrated, beaten down, insulted, and exploited for so many centuries that it is the worse thing to be called “an animal.”

I believe that the denigration of any people as a type of animal is a prelude to violence and genocide. Many anthropologists believe that the cruel forms of domesticating animals at the dawn of our agricultural society – about ten thousand years ago – created the model for the exploitation of other human beings. In other words, in domesticating, confining, and controlling other animals, we firmly planted violence into the heart of human culture.

What really breaks my heart is when I hear people from groups who have themselves been oppressed usurp the language of the oppressor and refer to animals in a derogatory way. I was watching Spike Lee’s documentary “When the Levees Broke” about the inexcusable response to the victims of the floods caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and a few of the people being interviewed talked about how difficult it was to see their fellow human beings being treated like animals, like cattle, reminiscent of what it was like when their people were slaves. The implication is that treating animals in an insulting or abusive way is acceptable but treating human animals that way is unacceptable. To my mind, neither is acceptable, and more than that, the acceptability of one leads to the acceptability of the other. The abuse of one leads to the abuse of the other. Here’s what freed slave Frederick Douglass had to say about that.

He wrote, “There is no denying that slavery had a direct and positive tendency to produce coarseness and brutality in the treatment of animals, especially those most useful to agricultural industry. The master blamed the overseer, the overseer the slave, and the slave the horses, oxen, and mules, and violence fell upon the animals as a consequence.”

In order to prove your superiority, you have to establish that you’re superior over someone else. You have to set it up so that there is someone underneath you. It’s not enough to just say “I rule!” “I’m the best!” You have to rule over something, over someone. And so humans have created a very convenient dichotomy between ourselves and the rest of the natural world. If we could tame the wild, then we do rule – literally. And so that’s what we’ve done. Animals have been put under our heels and are at the mercy of humans and our centuries-old inferiority complex. That’s what it comes down to. It comes down to arrogance and lust for power. And in order to keep up this pretense, we have to control the public perception so that it’s aligned with us. This is where our use of language is particularly helpful. The other way this is done is through fear.

By painting a picture of a savage, wild, vicious, unpredictable, violent animal kingdom, who is in every way inferior to the civilized, intelligent, rational, predictable human, you convince people that to NOT control, tame, and kill animals is a very dangerous prospect. It’s set up such that it seems like we’re actually protecting one another from the dangerous, wild animal. And then we create even sillier justifications for our speciesism by saying that those crazy animal rights activists want rights for animals at the expense of humans – as if we’re asking for driver’s licenses for dogs and political positions for cats.

In reality, it is not our fear that animals will take over the world that compels us to keep them down. It’s our fear that we won’t be able to keep controlling the world if we stopped enslaving them. It’s fear – not strength – that drives us to eat animals, make them perform for us, give them diseases and break their bodies in the name of science, wear their skins, wear their fur, put them in cages. It doesn’t take strength and courage to do these things. It’s our fear that we’re not adequate enough – just as humans – not better but part of. Imagine that. Imagine a world where human beings were humble enough to recognize that we all play a part in this world. That we all contribute and that we don’t have to keep others down to demonstrate how strong we are. We have many, many other reasons to believe we’re strong. We are strong. But in our treatment of animals, we continually display how weak we are. We continually demonstrate the worst of what humans are capable of.

So in addition to painting animals as wild and dangerous, we say all sorts of other things about them, using ourselves as the barometer. They’re not intelligent like we are. They can’t empathize like we can. They don’t have the complexity of language we have. They don’t have the ability to reason like we can. They don’t have souls like we do. And all sorts of other nonsense to keep us propped up and to keep them down. The funny thing about all of this is that we’re writing this story. And as long as we want to keep the power we’ve created, we have to keep telling this story. But what would happen if we were to create a different set of criteria to judge the value of non-human animals? What if we stopped measuring them against humans, in which case they’ll always fall short. We’re the authors of this story.

What if our criteria were different? I mean imagine if we determined your worthiness by how fast you could run. On how high you could fly. On the ability to climb mountains without rope but only four hooves. Depending on who’s telling the story and what the focus is, there are so many ways in which animals are superior to humans, and I don’t mean that in such a way as to suggest that we should let non-human animals run for President (um…I take that back). But that is to say, if we changed the story, changed our criteria, and were willing to humble ourselves a little, our relationship with animals would be very different. We would be much happier. The Earth would be much healthier. And the animals would be at peace.

Now perhaps some of you are saying that I’m envisioning some Utopian society where lions starve rather than kill gazelle. If that’s what you think I’m saying, think again. There is no breach of ethics when a carnivore kills his prey. But there is a breach of ethics – our own ethics – to have the choice to kill or not to kill and to choose the former. To have the choice between hurting someone and not hurting someone and choosing the former. There is a breach of ethics in a thought system that believes everything and everyone is here for us.

There is an essay written by Laura Moretti I would like to share with you. It has been a favorite of mine for many years, and I hope you’ll appreciate it as much as I do. Laura Moretti is a long-time activist and writer. Her website is http://www.lauramoretti.info/, where you can read her work and see some really amazing photos and videos, including video of the replacement calves for dairy herds confined outside in little pens in 100-degree heat and some other videos. She’s also the publisher of Animals Voice Magazine at http://www.animalsvoice.com/, and I recommend you check out this information-packed website and subscribe to the magazine if you can.

Here is Laura’s essay called Like Animals:

"Why do you suppose you like animals so much?" was the million-dollar question put to me Christmas Eve (and one I hadn't provoked). I knew my family was expecting me to say something like, "I like animals because they're cute and cuddly and furry and fun to play with." But instead I said, "I like animals because they are honest."

My observation triggered a facetious comment from one of my brothers. “About what?"--as if honesty were merely about telling the truth, and everyone knows animals can't talk! His notation was met with hearty laughter; for once, they thought they'd repaid me for all the discomfort I'd caused them at other family gatherings.

"I like that animals don't pretend to be someone they're not," I continued in my reply, hushing the crowd. "To quote a phrase, 'Dogs don't lie about love.' Animals don't fake their feelings. I like that they're emotionally fearless."

We were lounging on sofas and armchairs after our feast and present opening. Coffee was being served, so I seized the opportunity. "I like animals," I added, "because they only take out of life what they need. They don't abuse their environment, annihilate species, pollute their water, contaminate the air they breathe. They don't build weapons of mass destruction and use them against others-particularly members of their own species. I like animals because they have no use for those things, or for war or terrorism. They don't build nations around genocide."

My uncle seemed momentarily lost in thought. He had been born and raised in New York City. "That's because they don't know any better," a brother-in-law argued. "They don't do those things because they don't know how."

"A pride of lions doesn't get together," I countered him, "and decide how to exterminate zebras-their very source of nourishment. I don't think it's because they don't know how. I think it's because it's counter-productive." They laughed. "

I also like animals," I continued," because they don't punish themselves for their perceived inadequacies. They don't dwell on things of the past, nor use them as excuses for behavior in the present. And they don't plan to live some day in the future, they live today, this moment, fully, completely, and purely. I like animals because they live their lives with so much more freedom than humans live theirs."

"That's because they don't think," one of my cousins offered.

"Is that the difference?" I wondered. "'I think therefore I'm cruel, destructive, insecure, abusive?' You meant to say they don't think the way we think." The room had become strangely quiet. I was amazed at how closely my family was listening, despite the occasional grunt to the contrary.

"I like animals because they don't bow down to imaginary gods they've created, nor annihilate each other in the name of those gods; gods, they say, who are all-knowing and all-loving and just. I like animals because they only know how to give unconditional love and implicit trust. I mean, animals either extend those things to you or they don't; there are no shades of gray. They have the best of what makes us human and, as one observer put it, "none of our vices.'" "And thank God," someone injected.

"Lastly," I added, remembering why I was an animal rights activist, "Animals are the most victimized living creatures on earth; more than children, more than women, more than people of color. Our prejudice enables us to exploit and use them, as scientific tools and expendable commodities, and to eat them. We do to them any atrocity our creative minds can summon. We justify our cruelties; we have to or we can't commit them. I like animals because they don't do to themselves or to others the things we do to them. And they don't make excuses for unethical actions because they don't commit unethical acts."

"And finally," I finished, "I like animals because they're not hypocrites. They don't say one thing and do another. They are, as I've said, honest. Animals-not humans-are the best this planet has to offer." And, interestingly enough, despite my soapbox rant, not a one of them made a snide comment or a hint of laughter. The conversation actually rolled into shared stories of animals they've known, stories of animal loyalty and intelligence, their humor and innocence. And it was me who'd become the listener with the occasional comment: "Now, if only humans could only be, well, like animals." And that is why I fight the good fight; I rise on behalf of the best among us.”

Vegan in Italy (Mostly Florence and Umbria)

With an emphasis on fresh local produce, olive oil instead of butter, and pizza without cheese, eating vegan in Italy is a breeze. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t require a little effort, because meat is definitely on all the menus, but once you know what to look for, you’ll have no problem enjoying local Italian cuisine as a joyful vegan.

EATING AT RESTAURANTS
*I have found that it’s less helpful to sit down at a restaurant and declare that you’re vegetarian. It almost seems to ignite indignance in the server, since many Italians just don’t understand not eating meat. I find it’s more helpful to scan the menu for what obviously looks like vegan dishes and just confirm with the server that it doesn’t have cheese. Most menus translate the Italian menu item name into English, so it’s easy to determine that something is vegan. And I’ve noticed that when a menu says “White beans in tomato sauce” or “Bruschetta with olive oil, garlic, and salt” that you can be pretty sure they don’t add something else that they didn’t list. So there are generally no surprises, But, to be sure, you can always order something like the dishes I mentioned above and just say “no formaggio, vero?” (“No cheese, right?”)

*When you see a sign for a Trattoria, it indicates a smaller family-owned restaurant with a more limited menu, so we didn’t generally eat at any.

*It’s pretty easy to tell which restaurants are the “fancier” ones that are a) overpriced and b) meat-heavy. It’s no different than the more upscale restaurants in the U.S. that think haute cuisine need include meat and dairy dishes. These more upscale restaurants have a lot less to offer.

*The vast majority of restaurants in the larger cities will reflect a traditional Italian menu, which consists of Antipasti (appetizers), Primi (first course), Secondo (main dish), Insalate (salads), Pizza, and Contorni (side dishes). Unless we were at an all-vegetarian restaurant, we never chose anything from Secondo, which were always meat- and dairy-heavy.

-Under the Antipasti section of the menu were often:
-bruschetta (either with just oil and garlic; garlic, oil, and tomatoes; or oil and mushrooms)
- “antipasti,” which you can often find vegetarian versions of, which consists of olives, roasted peppers, tomatoes, zucchini, mushrooms – just ask for no cheese.
-focaccia with oil, rosemary and salt

-Under “Primi” is where you’d find the pasta dishes – they’re pretty much first-course – not second-course dishes, so they’re smaller than you’d expect a main dish to be (because it’s supposed to be just a first course).
-my favorite pasta dish, which I make at home a lot and seems to be on every menu is Penne Arrabbiata, which is a spicy tomato sauce. Delicious. Again, ask for no cheese (“senza formaggio”), but I find they don’t put it on the pasta like Americans do.
-you’ll find other pasta dishes as well, such as spaghetti with pomodoro (tomato) sauce as well as spaghetti with olive oil and garlic.

-Under “Insalata,” there are a number of options, and even if they have meat or cheese in them, just find one that you can ask to have the meat and cheese removed.

-Under Contorni, you’ll find a number of dishes. We often ordered one Primi and two or three Contorni.
-White beans (Cannellini), either in olive oil or in tomato sauce, seem to be on every menu, and they’re just delicious any way they’re prepared.
-Grilled vegetables were always in this section of the menu – always great.
-Asparagus (often steamed – not grilled) was often on menus and prepared with just olive oil and served with lemon.
-Roasted potatoes – again with olive oil – were on almost every menu.
-French fries are on all menus, too.
-Long beans with lemon and olive oil are a standard, too.

-Pizza – Italians invented pizza, and one of the standards is Pizza Marinara, which is just basically tomato sauce and oregano. Even if you don’t see it on the menu, ask for a pizza with no cheese. The size of pizza is for one person, so don’t worry about ordering a whole pizza – it’s not that large.

*As far as desserts in restaurants, Macedonia di Frutta seemed to be an option almost anywhere, as was strawberries (either plain or in Grand Marnier). Unless you ate at a restaurant like il Vegetariano in Florence, where there are delicious vegan desserts a plenty, I think most pastries will have been made with egg or milk. There is a traditional Italian dessert (which originated in Siena and can be found in almost shop there). It’s called Panforte, and I actually include a recipe for Panforte in my cookbook. It’s basically just a culmination of dried fruit, nuts, and sugar (sometimes honey) and is delicious. “Margherita” is the standard, but there is also chocolate and other flavors. Some restaurants may have Panforte on their menus, but because it’s more of a confection than a dessert in the strict sense of the word, you may find it mostly in Siena or in shops to go.

*When ordering water (natural or with gas), the server will often ask you if you want just a glass or a bottle. We usually got a bottle. If you often do this, just order “acqua per due” (water for two), and they’ll just give you a bottle and two glasses.

FOOD TO GO
*You probably won’t want to sit down for every meal; it gets expensive, and it takes a long time. There are lots of options for quick meals on the go, and you’ll notice a lot of people snacking on pizza and panini as they walk around. Again, ask for pizza with no cheese, and though many panini places have sandwiches in the case already made, you can just ask for those that don’t have carne, formaggio, or pesce (meat, cheese, or fish). There were times they didn’t, and I just moved on if it was really crowded, but I also found places who were just willing to make me one with zucchini, eggplant, tomato, and oil and vinegar. Voila – instant yumminess.

*A lot of places also just have foccacia either plain (well, with olive of course) or with veggies baked right into them – such as roasted red peppers, tomatoes, or red onions. Really simple and delicious.

*Many places ask if you want something (like Focaccia) “caldo” (hot). It’s obviously much more delicious if you say “si!” whether it’s a Panini sandwich or just plain ol’ Focaccia.

*There are many street vendors that sell “macedonia di frutta,”which is fruit salad. It’s so pretty to see all the cups filled with strawberries, bananas, kiwi, apples, and pineapple. Those same vendors also sell freshly squeezed (right on the spot) orange juice. They do also make smoothies with the fresh fruit, but I noticed only cow’s milk (latte) – not any non-dairy milk. By the way, when you order the “Macedonia” from the street vendors, it seems that you can choose either two different fruits (not three or four) OR the fruit mix they already have combined.

GENERAL TIPS
*Butter (burro) isn’t really used in Italian cooking per se, so I never really worried about it; it was really only cheese I asked about. But feel free to say “no formaggio e no burro.”

*In terms of learning Italian, in preparing for your trip, I think it’s helpful if you learn some “food” words – not just “I would like,” which is “vorrei,” but what certain words are in Italian so you can identify them – words such as onion, pepper, garlic, zucchini, eggplant, etc. It’s also helpful to know the words for eggs (uove), milk (latte), meat (carne), and fish (pesce). Carry around a little reference guide so you can quickly identify these words. The guide I used and liked very much is Harper Collins Language Survival Guide – Italy. ISBN: 0060536934. It’s in my store at http://astore.amazon.com/compassiona02-20/detail/0060536934/002-1175387-3308023.

*If you have kitchen access, there are a number of produce stands with incredibly fresh fruit and vegetables.

*If you want to pack a couple vacuum-packed boxes of almond, rice, or soy milk, it’s not a bad idea. We were able to find almond milk in Florence, and though it was good (and fine for the cereal I had at our bed and breakfast), it doesn’t taste like what you’re used to in the U.S. It doesn’t taste like Almond Breeze. It tastes more like almond extract or marzipan. But this is also the case with something like orange juice, too. We bought a quart of it (vacuum-packed) at the store because my husband was still recovering from a sore throat), and something was just off about it. Rely on the freshly squeezed juice that the vendors sell.

*I’m an incurable Green Tea drinker, but you won’t find any here! I always travel with my own tea and little spoon strainers (perfect for one cup of tea), but sometimes I had to settle for bagged English Breakfast. Italy is a favorite destination for Brits, so Earl Grey is also on almost every menu. You will invariably be asked if you would like lemon with your tea. Milk (latte) isn’t served with the tea, but sugar is.

*As far as breakfast goes, we were always fine with some fruit before we hit the road; though I was happy when we discovered the cereal at the first B &B we stayed at in Florence. We didn’t even bother looking to see if any of the pastries (which is a traditional Italian breakfast) were vegan; we just assumed they wouldn’t be. The bulk of our visit was at Montali (http://www.montalionline.com/), where we were served a gourmet vegan breakfast and gourmet vegan dinner every night. Its location is very central (to lots of amazingly beautiful medieval Umbrian towns, and the property itself is breathtaking. I highly recommend making this place part of your stay. Tell them Colleen from Compassionate Cooks sent you. (They do charge 20% extra for vegan.)

*When you’re going to be out and about, especially in the smaller towns and roads, it’s helpful to have some nuts or granola with you just for a pick-me-up when needed.

FLORENCE RESTAURANT SUGGESTIONS

*il Vegetariano – We went here twice when we were in Florence. It’s about a 15-minute walk from the Duomo, and it’s worth it. Really good food, sizable portions, mostly vegan options. It’s helpful to know the system before you go: when you arrive, just scope out a table for the number of people in your party. Throw your jackets down on some chairs, and head to the front of the restaurant. Check out the options on the board (the vegan options have a green or red dot – it says), and decide what you want. Again, there will be Antipasti, Primi, Secondo, and Dessert options. We often got one primi and one secondo each, and it was PLENTY. The dessert usually put us over the top. Go to the guy sitting at the little desk and place your order. Then grab a tray, some flatware and a glass (if you ordered water), and get in line at the food counter. They’ll look at your slip of paper, and put everything you ordered on your tray. Return to your seat, and mangia!

*The market in front of San Croce church had lots of different types of bread and fruit. I don’t know if the market is there every day, but it was full of options. (Also, the church itself was really fantastic. It contains the monumental tombs of Galileo, Michelangelo, Machiavelli, Dante (actually a cenotaph), and many other notables.)

*Vegetus was a super casual place with good homestyle food. We had a really nice bean soup, a cabbage roll, and minestrone soup. The food was good (though a little oily), but we wish they didn’t serve the food (and heat it up) in plastic to-go containers. It was a nice lunch after walking for hours, and if you’re near the Boboli gardens and want to stop for a bite, it’s nice to support the vegetarian restaurants. Just don’t have high expectations about presentation. When we were leaving, they had just taken some homemade Focaccia out of the oven, which we took to go. Yum.

*B. Gallo was a traditional restaurant on the square that the Duomo sits on. The food was really good (it was a bit of a fancier place, and it was nice to sit right on the square), and besides the fact that our waiter had a snooty attitude, I would recommend this place. We each had the Penne Arrabbiata, and we shared the White Beans in Tomato Sauce, and Grilled Veggies. I was still a little hungry at the end, since I had burned a lot of calories walking all day! Next time, I might have ordered my own beans. Good food.

*Buca Niccolini was a traditional restaurant we found the first night in Florence, and the food was really good – and reasonably priced. It’s located on via Ricosoli – and when you’re seated, you’re staring right at the north side of the Duomo. There were several options of what they called “stuffed Focaccia,” which really wasn’t stuffed but rather more like “Focaccia pizza.” We each ordered our own and enjoyed them very much. One was olive tapenade and tomatoes, and one was just mushrooms/lettuce; they were both delicious. We also ordered grilled vegetables and white beans in olive oil, and everything was just yummy. In fact, these were the barometer by which we measured other beans we had the rest of the trip. A little salty but really yummy! J I highly recommend this place.

EATING OUTSIDE OF FLORENCE
*We visited a lot of small towns when we were in Umbria, and my general suggestions will suffice when traveling in these areas. If you want to stay in the most magnificent place in Umbria that is essentially a magical retreat that serves gourmet vegetarian breakfast and gourmet vegetarian dinner every day as included in the price of your stay (20% extra for vegan), you absolutely must visit Montali (http://www.montalionline.com/). The hosts/owners Alberto and Manu were born to do this work. They bought the land 20 years ago and built almost everything from scratch, including planting the 25 acres of olive trees on the property. They view is breathtaking – absolutely indescribable, and the food is divine. Chefs trained at the most highly regarded culinary schools come here to train. It’s just amazing, and I wish we could have stayed longer than the 5 nights were here. There’s so much to see in the surrounding area, and we did spend one day on the property just taking it all in, but it is truly a magical retreat. A private cookery course is also an option.

*Because we had breakfast and dinner every night at Montali, we only worried about lunch in the smaller towns, and we always found panini with veggies, pasta, pizza, Focaccia, etc. The menus in Umbria were a little different than those in Florence in that we didn’t find a lot of the white beans that we loved so much; plus, we were always looking for a quick lunch since we wanted to take in as much of the sites as possible. But, refer to my “GENERAL SUGGESTIONS,” and you’ll be fine.

No matter where I travel and whether or not I was vegan, I always find it a little exhausting eating every meal out. It’s not exactly how I eat when I’m home, and of course, it’s a little trickier when there’s a language barrier. So, just lighten up and be careful not to think there’s something wrong with being vegan having to navigate every meal in a restaurant. I think it’s par for the course when traveling.