Joaquin Phoenix during his Oscars speech this month, in which he decried fact that people feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and steal her baby. Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

He has been called a diva and pretentious, and there are even those who dont like his acting but never before has Joaquin Phoenix been accused of causing mental health problems for British livestock farmers.

On Tuesday, the National Farmers Union (NFU) president, Minette Batters, changed all that, opening a new front against the US actor by claiming that he and other celebrity campaigners for veganism had played a part in demonising the UKs meat producers and doing enormous damage to their wellbeing.

Days after the Joker actors Oscars speech attacking the meat industry, Batters said farmers fearing the imminent loss of their livelihoods and family holdings were in a state of stress and anxiety.

Asked at the unions annual conference who she thought was driving the view that meat was bad and plants were good, she said: A lot of people who seem to hit the red carpet at the Bafta awards.

She added: Celebrities have to be careful [because] there are real-life consequences for others Joaquin Phoenix, hes had a really challenging life, and you really feel for him and a lot of the things he was saying, but he has to remember there are people at the end of this, there are small family farms and they get hurt too.

Her comments were immediately criticised by vegan and animal rights groups, who accused Batters of making claims without evidence and ignoring the ethical problems posed by meat production.

Veganism is something of an easy target at the moment and Im not sure that we are the cause of farmers problems, said a spokesperson for the Vegan Society. There are many causes of mental health issues and stress in farming and I havent seen evidence, a piece of research, showing that veganism is one of them.

Phoenix, who has been a vegan since he was three, made a plea for tolerance and equality in his acceptance speech for the best actor award at the Oscars, saying no race, gender or species had rights over another.

I think weve become very disconnected from the natural world, he said. We go into the natural world and we plunder it for its resources. We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakeable. Then we take her milk thats intended for her calf and we put it in our coffee and our cereal.

Veganism continues to grow in popularity in the UK, with supermarkets clearing shelf space for plant-based ready meals, and meat-free dining in restaurants and pubs now commonplace.

Other celebrities who have spoken about the health benefits of plant-based diets are Benedict Cumberbatch, Ellie Goulding and Beyonc, with their support credited with aiding a rise in veganisms popularity.

Batters said she was not saying veganism is wrong, but argued that the debate around animal products had become so binary that meat was being put in the same category as tobacco.

I remember the interview I did with Evan Davis on PM to talk about the governments new food strategy and he said: Is eating meat the new smoking? He compared us with the tobacco industry and you think, Whoa, just think about all of this.

But the Vegan Society questioned whether its members were really so influential, pointing out that the total number of vegans in the UK was still only 600,000, and saying: The fact is 99% of the population are still eating animal products. There might be a lot more meat reducers, but this is not an industry that has been threatened by veganism.

Dawn Carr, the director of vegan corporate projects at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), said farmers were not the only ones feeling anxious.

We cant turn a blind eye to the visible fear and distress shown by animals raised for their flesh, milk and eggs, she said. They have no choice, but farmers do: instead of sending sentient animals to slaughter, they can sow oats or soya beans or grow vegetables, grains, nuts or fruits instead, depending on the quality of their land.

Batters called for kindness to be shown to farmers and an understanding that they were human too. Its very polarised and its doing enormous damage to the mental health of livestock farmers, she said.

Its just about instilling this philosophy and being kind and farmers need we all need to think that too in this world of social media, we just need to take a step back sometimes.

Read the original post:

Veganism row breaks out after Joaquin Phoenix is told: be kinder to farmers - The Guardian

caption Ikeas new vegan meatballs. source Courtesy of Ikea

Ikeas is rolling out a vegan version of its iconic Swedish meatball dish that is served in its restaurants in stores around the world.

The company, which is best known for its inexpensive furniture, confirmed last week that the plant-based meatball dish will hit stores in August of this year.

The news that it was testing this vegan alternative was first announced in May 2019.

Its Swedish meatballs, which are typically served with cream sauce, mashed potatoes, and lingonberry jam, have been offered in its stores for more than 35 years and have become an iconic part of the company. According to Mashed story from 2017, two million meatballs are eaten every day across its stores worldwide.

Ikea already offers alternatives to its original beef-pork blend meatballs. These include veggie balls, chicken balls, and salmon and cod balls, which were launched in 2018.

It is a really exciting industry! Looking at the quality of the products that we have been tasting I am looking forward to serve a delicious plant based meatball made from alternative protein at IKEA, Michael La Cour, managing director of IKEA Food Services AB said in a statement to the press in May. I hope that the many meatball lovers out there will like it as well.

Ikeas move to launch plant-based meatballs is part of the companys broader plan to become more sustainable.

On Thursday, Ikea updated investors on its progress toward becoming more climate positive. The company said that during the 2019 financial year the climate footprint of the chain had decreased for the first time by 4.3% in absolute terms. This decrease was driven by its increased use of renewable energy resources to produce Ikea products as well as increases in the energy efficiency of the lighting and appliances range, it said.

Read this article:

Ikea is launching a vegan version of its widely popular Swedish meatball dish in August - Business Insider

Liverpool will be welcoming back a massive vegan festival on Saturday 28rd March.

The Live A Better Life Vegan Fair, Liverpools biggest vegan event, will return to St Georges Hall offering delicious food and advice for those interested in all things vegan.

The Live A Better Life vegan fairs have been running in Liverpool since 2013 and have been attended by more than 26,000 people.

Event Manager Emma Cox said: Our last event at St Georges Hall attracted over 3,000 people. With so many new foods to try and things to see, we are expecting our next event to be even more popular.

A total of 130 stalls will be selling everything from vegan food to cruelty-free beauty products. A massive range of delicious food will be on offer as well as natural products, fashion, jewellery, gifts and much more.

Event Manager Emma added: Interest in veganism is higher than ever in 2020.

There are already a growing number of people in Liverpool who are vegan, vegetarian or on their way to a plant-based diet.

For the increasing numbers of people who want to find out more about improving their health, saving animals and protecting the environment, this is an amazing event which will entertain and inspire.

For the first time ever we will have a live musical theatre show inside the vegan fair. Live singing and dance performances will take place on the Great Hall main stage for visitors to enjoy. Fantasy Performers will be providing a spectacular 2 hour live show, starting at 1pm.

Showcasing the best vegan food and natural products in Liverpool, the Live A Better Life event will be a great day out that all the family can enjoy.

The Live A Better Life event takes place at St Georges Hall, Liverpool, L1 1JJ.

Its happening 28th March from 10-5 and entry is 3 on the door (under 10s free).

Go here to read the rest:

Liverpool's massive vegan fair is coming to St George's Hall this month - The Guide Liverpool

Taco Bell is slated to add vegan meat options to its menu next year, according to new CEO Mark King. Under its previous leadership, Taco Bell eschewed adding vegan meat to the menu and instead leaned into its existing meatless menu items to embrace the plant-based trend, creating dedicated vegetarian menus and guides to help customers order vegan options. We definitely see that plant-based protein has a place on the menu, King told Bloomberg. King has already met with plant-based companies Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat but has not yet determined which brand to partner with on the menu update. I tried all the food which was really exciting, and way beyond my expectation, King said about the Beyond Meat products he sampled last week. Last year, competing chain Del Taco added Beyond Meat vegan options to all 580 of its locations nationwide.

Want more of todays best plant-based news, recipes, and lifestyle? Get our award-winning magazine!

Go here to read the rest:

Taco Bell Will Add Vegan Meat to Menu Next Year - VegNews

Plant-based meat has officially infiltrated pretty much every fast food restaurant in the game. Burger King has the Impossible Whopper, White Castle has Impossible Sliders, Dunkin has the Beyond Sausage Sandwich, and, now, even KFC (a fast food chain that's literally all about chicken) has hopped on the bandwagon.

Recently, KFC started testing out plant-based chicken nuggets and wingswhich they call Beyond Fried Chicken (a.k.a. fried chicken made with Beyond meat)in certain parts of the U.S.

It was a BFD. One Atlanta restaurant sold out of Beyond Fried Chicken in less than five hours. People lined up before the restaurant even opened, and the drive-thru line wrapped around the parking low twice.

Now, KFC has expanded their Beyond Fried Chicken test to more than 70 spots in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Nashville, Tennessee, throughout February, according to a press release.

"We've really pushed the limits to develop plant-based chicken that I think will have KFC and plant-based protein fans saying, 'That's finger lickin' good, Andrea Zahumensky, chief marketing officer at KFC U.S., said in the release.

How exactly does this whole chicken-less fried chicken thing work, though? Here's everything you need to know about KFCs new Beyond Fried Chicken.

KFC shared online that Beyond Fried Chicken primarily gets its protein from soy, wheat, and pea proteins.

Want more specifics? Heres the full ingredients list:

Water, Enriched wheat flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Soy Protein Isolate, Expeller Pressed Canola Oil, Enriched bleached wheat flour (Bleached Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Wheat Gluten, Natural Flavor, Yeast Extract, and less than 2 percent of: Breadcrumbs (Wheat Flour, Distilled Vinegar, Sea Salt, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Inactive Yeast, Spice Extractives), Chili Pepper, Citric Acid, Garlic Powder, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate, Sodium Aluminum Phosphate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Modified Wheat Starch, Onion Powder, Pea Extract, Rice Flour, Salt, Spice, Titanium Dioxide (for color).

Yeah, it's longbut, plant-based or not, this is fast food, after all.

Here's the kicker: According to KFC, their Beyond Fried Chicken is 100 percent plant-based, but it's prepped in the same fryers as KFCs actual chicken. So, it could get contaminated with residue or fat from that real chicken, and therefore isn't technically even vegetarian, let alone vegan.

KFC says they bread their Beyond Fried Chicken in a mixture similar to their popcorn nugget breading, meaning that the plant-based option is not gluten-free.

Real Talk: Is Beyond Fried Chicken healthy?

When we talk about eating more plant-based foods, this isnt what we mean, says New York City-based dietitian Samantha Cassetty, RD. Just like regular fast food, this isn't an everyday food.

Jessica Cording, RD, nutritionist and author of The Little Book of Game-Changers, agrees: Fried chicken is still fried chicken. Just because something is plant-based doesnt necessarily mean that its healthy.

Theres some difference in nutrients, but its still fried protein at the end of the day, says Cording. If a regular part of your diet, fried foodswhether plant- or animal-basedcan have a negative effect on your health.

31 Plant-Based MealsEven Carnivores Will Enjoy

Plant-based faux meats are also often made with heavily processed ingredients and contain excessive amounts of sodiumneither of which are great for you, adds Cassetty.

Still, youre not going to torpedo your healthy eating goals by treating yourself once in a while. If youre curious about plant-based foods and you want to give these a try, they can fit in a healthful diet, Cassetty says. As long as 75 percent of your eats come from minimally-processed plant foods, such as beans, nuts, seeds, whole grains, and avocados, you're good.

As of right now, KFC doesn't have any other plant-based meal options on the menu.

However, certain KFC side orders, like green beans, coleslaw, mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and sweet kernel corn, fit the bill.

Read the original post:

KFC's New Plant-Based 'Vegan' Fried Chicken: Everything You Need To Know - Women's Health

Serena Williams is one of the greatest tennis players to ever play the game. Shes got the second-most Grand Slam titles for a woman (23 and counting). And shes not done yet. The mom to two-and-a-half-year-old Alexis Olympia is also a fashion icon (she actually went to fashion school in 2000). And she took to New York Fashion Week earlier this month to launch her newest S by Serena collection, including a vegan leather range.

The S by Serena Spring 2020 collection features on-point dresses, pantsuits, and jumpsuits in vegan leather and bold prints. Williams says the new collection is a fashion passport. She was inspired by her travels around the world, in particular, by Africa.

Thats where I got the giraffe print from, she told Essence. I just feel like giraffe is the new leopardI mean, at least Im trying to make it the new leopard! Williams told Vogue about her favorite design. I am loving it.

Williams also says she was extremely motivated to include vegan leather in this collection. I feel like a lot of things are being killed and were not saving the earth, she said. We can all just do one small thing and help out so that was also a lot of our inspiration.

The collection also gives another nod toward the planet with a bold emphasis on green, the de facto color of environmentalism. One of the hottest colors this year on the runway for spring and summer is green, Williams said.

Williams herself eats a mostly vegan diet. Her husband, Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, is also vegan.

My first come-to-Jesus moment was when we found out that Serena was pregnant, he told GQ. Thats when it really hit me. I dont want to be an unhealthy, lethargic dad when Olympia wants to practice soccer in the backyard.

Ohanian says things really changed after he watched an early cut of The Game Changers. He was so impressed by the film, which busts the myth that athletes need meat, that he signed on as an executive producer. Around the same time, I tried the Impossible Burger, and I was like, Damn! This is good! It wasnt long after that I invested in it. Now Im whole-hog, so to speak, on the plant-based revolution.

Williams says her outlook changed too after their daughters birth. And it has informed her designs.

After having a child, I was like, My heroes are moms. Women are superheroes. To have a baby and have to go work two weeks later or three weeks later, or even to go to a 9 to 5 [is incredible], she said to Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour.

For me, its all about creating that message of inclusivity, and inclusivity is everything.

Summary

Article Name

Serena Williams Just Launched a Vegan Leather Line to Help Save the Planet

Description

Tennis legend Serena Williams is a GOAT on the court and off. Her latest S by Serena Spring 2020 Collection focuses on vegan leather and animal prints.

Author

Jill Ettinger

Publisher Name

LIVEKINDLY

Publisher Logo

See the original post:

Serena Williams Just Launched a Vegan Leather Line to Help Save the Planet - LIVEKINDLY

Of course, I understand that the two need not be mutually exclusive.Yet, when one reads an appeal to libertarians, it seems reasonable to expect that the issues presented have something to do with libertarianism.

Recently a friend of mine sent me something written by an outspoken and reasonably well-known libertarian; I think it is fair to describe this individual as a left-libertarian.I am not comfortable offering the name of the author as the original reference is to a Facebook post; as I am not on Facebook, I cannot directly verify the source.Further, I am unable to offer a link.I suspect someone with a Facebook account can find this pretty easily.

So, why do I bother addressing this?Two reasons, I guess: first, the comment is on a topic that I have written about recently (more than once), one on which I place some value; second, it offers a case study to the question posed in the title (and clarified in my opening paragraph above).

Time to buy old US gold coins

Here is the post, in its entirety (based on the email I received):

Jordan Peterson is a huckster and charlatan and if you take him as a serious scholar you should not be taken seriously. Hes a slicker, more credentialed Molyneux, and real scholars know that he is misrepresenting those he disagrees with and offering a one-sided take on the issues hes discussing.

To those libertarians, young and old, who are fans, you are hitching yourself to a doomed train. We can and should do much better than this nonsense. Find and follow real scholars who treat the left the way youd want the left to treat you. Spit out this poison before it destroys you and the case for liberty. Seriously.

What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness. Petersons sole discovery is that postmodernism can be usefully exploited alongside the more familiar, established populist scare tactics.

As a description of what the postmodern thinkers actually wrote, it is very flawed. If all of Derridas and Foucaults writing can be made to support one sweeping claim, it is not that interpretation is potentially infinite and therefore meaningless. It is that interpretation must be socially and historically contextualized in order to become meaningful. Much art that we now deem canonicalJackson Pollocks drip paintings, for instancewould have struck nineteenth-century art patrons as incomprehensible garbage. The point is simply that artistic values are not universal but produced by historically situated communities of people.

Lets be clear: Peterson doesnt understand the major thinkers in the postmodern tradition who he libels for money. His grotesque caricature and slander of the humanities is very different from what actually happens in humanities classrooms.

Lets examine this.First note, the appeal is to libertarians:

To those libertarians, young and old, who are fans, you are hitching yourself to a doomed train.

With this as the authors concern, you would think that the reasons behind the attack would have something to do with the non-aggression principle.But I find nary a criticism on this basis; instead, the author offers:

Find and follow real scholars who treat the left the way youd want the left to treat you.What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness. As a description of what the postmodern thinkers actually wrote, it is very flawed.

I have no idea if Petersons views on post-modernist philosophy are accurate or not.But, as a libertarian, what do I care?I dont.I dont pay attention to Peterson because of his analysis and conclusions about post-modernism.

While offering no reason for libertarians as libertarians to reject Peterson, the author admonishes libertarians, young and old to:

Spit out this poison before it destroys you and the case for liberty. Seriously.

But what poison must I,as a libertarian, spit out?I receive not a clue from this rant.I might, as a historian or political philosopheror a leftistfind reason to spit out something that Peterson offers, butwhy as a libertarian?Silence.

So, Whats Really Going on Here?

I cannot speak to why other libertarians have been drawn to Peterson.I can speak as to my interest.

I believe Petersons popularity first soared when he began his fight regarding the compelled use of gender pronouns compelled by law.

I became aware of him some time after this, when someone pointed me to Petersons lectures and discussions regarding the value of culture and tradition in society, and specifically the value of western, Christian tradition.After this, I have also spent time on his gender pronoun topics.

That Peterson bases his views on his interpretation of post-modernism whether a valid interpretation or not is irrelevant to meas a libertarian.

I believe it is safe to say: if Peterson is well-known to a public broader than his university students and to libertarians in particular, it is for these two reasons:

1)He is against being compelled by law to use made-up words; he is against compelled speech.

2)He recognizes the value of the western tradition that has been developed and refined through the millennia.

Thats it.

So, why would a libertarian as a libertarian have a beef with these?

A libertarian should be fully supportive of Petersons stance on the first item.Government limitations on speech (on or while using my own property) are bad enough; governmentcompelledspeech is unbelievably horrendous.

The government is forcing you to say something.If you dont say it, you could go to prison.This is about as anti-libertarian as it gets.

To the second point: it seems to me that as a libertarian, the most one could say is he is neutral on this matter.When it comes to traditions and norms, these are all outside of the non-aggression principle (although I believe that libertarianism can only survive and thrive in a certain cultural soil).

So, a libertarianas a libertarianwould agree with Peterson on the first point, and at worst be neutral toward Petersons view on the second.

Conclusion

A leftist, on the other hand, would really despise Peterson for both points.

So, I ask: leftist or libertarian?From which perspective would one have a complaint about Peterson?

Postscript

BTW, although I havent examined this thoroughly,I think Rothbard holds a similar viewon the topic of the post-modernists as does Peterson (I may write something on Rothbards views at some point).Rothbard might be the primary reason that this left-libertarian is apoplectic about Petersons popularity with libertarians.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Read more here:

Left-Libertarians Flip Out - LewRockwell

We havent had one of these for a while, but Professor Jordan Peterson articulates (I think) one of the reasons Slugger remains a live and lively community of unlike-minded folk who arent afraid to disagree with one another over almost everything.

This piece, recorded at the Oxford Union a couple of years ago, is worth watching the whole way through, but this section (where I hope the video link will start below, is the key passage that relates to the role which dispute plays in any democracy.

One key phrase is how he describes respect for the manifestation of the logos as the core value of free speech. In this important regard, Sluggers famous play the ball and not the man is merely an aid to the promulgation of such respect.

As my good friend and colleague John Kellden likes to say, in a network, the best place to store knowledge is in other people. Preferably folk who dont see the world in the same ways that you do

Theres dangers on both sides. One is the danger of pathological order and the other is the danger of pathological chaos and the problem with the questioning tendency is that it knows no limits and thats actually hard on people.

Its actually very difficult to orient yourself in life if you happen to be very high in openness very low in conscientiousness and very high in neuroticism because you question everything and youre not stable.

You might be wildly creative like thats a pretty good recipe for wild creativity but that doesnt mean that its tenable or sustainable because most creative ideas are not only wrong theyre actually deadly.

But some of them arent. Some of them are absolutely vitally important right and so part of the reason we have political discussion or discussion at all is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So the endless proclivity of the questioning tendency of the liberal left is that every axiom is open for infinite questioning well that leaves you bereft.

But the problem on the right is if you tighten things up too much well then you have no adaptive flexibility left and you are in a sterile tyranny of stone and then the environment shifts around you and youre not prepared and then everyones done.

So the reason that free speech is so important, well I dont think about it as free speech but as respect for the manifestation of the logos thats the proper way of conceptualizing it is that it keeps the balance between those two tendencies right.

You need the questioning and you need the order. And so you think well how much of each and the answer is the recipe changes day to day? And so you think well if it changes day to day how are we going to keep up?

And the answer is by keeping up. Right where we are. But we do that by thinking and we think by talking and we think and talk by disagreeing and were better disagree conceptually because then we dont have to act out stupid ideas that will kill us.

The abstract territory of conceptual dispute is the substitute for war and death. It can be a brutal substitute because conceptual disagreement can be very intense but compared to war and death its hardly intense at all.

You keep the landscape open for serious dispute including dispute thats offensive, obviously, because if youre ever going to talk about anything thats difficult (and why talk otherwise) then youre going to talk about things that are offensive to people.

And youre going to do it badly, youre going to stumble around when youre formulating your thoughts and thats horrible, it makes people anxious, it alienates them but its better than pain and death. And thats the alternative.

This is why eclectic mixers like Sluggermatter. As Fast Company notedpeople are much more likely to share something that accords with something they already think. They also prefer stories that come from someone within their peer group.

Photo by Pixabay is licensed under CC0

Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty

See the original post:

Friday Thread: A reminder that robust political dispute is [much] better than war - Slugger O'Toole

With our collapsing democracies and imploding biosphere, its no wonder that people despair. The Austrian psychoanalyst and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl presciently described such sentiments in his book Mans Search for Meaning (1946). He wrote of something that so many patients complain [about] today, namely, the feeling of the total and ultimate meaninglessness of their lives. A nihilistic wisdom emerges when staring down the apocalypse. Theres something predictable in our current pandemics, from addiction to belief in pseudoscientific theories, for in Frankls analysis, An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behaviour. When scientists worry that humanity might have just one generation left, we can agree that ours is an abnormal situation. Which is why Mans Search for Meaning is the work to return to in these humid days of the Anthropocene.

Already a successful psychotherapist before he was sent to Auschwitz and then Dachau, Frankl was part of whats known as the third wave of Viennese psychoanalysis. Reacting against both Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, Frankl rejected the firsts theories concerning the will to pleasure and the latters will to power. By contrast, Frankl writes that: Mans search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a secondary rationalisation of instinctual drives.

Frankl argued that literature, art, religion and all the other cultural phenomena that place meaning at their core are things-unto-themselves, and furthermore are the very basis for how we find purpose. In private practice, Frankl developed a methodology he called logotherapy from logos, Greek for reason describing it as defined by the fact that this striving to find a meaning in ones life is the primary motivational force in man. He believed that there was much that humanity can live without, but if were devoid of a sense of purpose and meaning then we ensure our eventual demise.

In Vienna, he was Dr Viktor Frankl, head of the neurology department of the Rothschild Hospital. In Auschwitz, he was number 119,104. The concentration camp was the null point of meaning, a type of absolute zero for purpose in life. Already having developed his theories about logotherapy, Frankl smuggled a manuscript he was working on into the camp, only to lose it, later forced to recreate it from memory. While in the camps, he informally worked as a physician, finding that acting as analyst to his fellow prisoners gave him purpose, even as he ostensibly assisted others. In those discussions, he came to conclusions that became foundational for humanistic psychology.

One was that the prisoner who had lost faith in the future his future was doomed. Frankl recounts how even in the camps, where suicide was endemic, the prisoners who seemed to have the best chance of survival were not necessarily the strongest or physically healthiest, but those somehow capable of directing their thoughts towards a sense of meaning. A few prisoners were able to retreat from their terrible surroundings to a life of inner riches and spiritual freedom, and in the imagining of such a space there was the potential for survival.

Frankl imagined intricate conversations with his wife Tilly (who, he later discovered, had been murdered at another camp), or of lecturing a future crowd about the psychology of the camps which was precisely his work for the rest of his life. Mans Search for Meaning with its conviction that: Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions became a postwar bestseller. Translated into more than two dozen languages, selling more than 12 millions copies, and frequently chosen by book clubs and college psychology, philosophy and religion courses, Mans Search for Meaning has its place in the cultural zeitgeist, with whole university and hospital departments geared around both humanistic psychology and logotherapy. Even though Frankl was a physician, his form of psychoanalysis often seemed to have more in common with a form of secularised rabbinic Judaism than with science.

Mans Search for Meaning is structured in two parts. The first constitutes Frankls Holocaust testimony, bearing similarity to writings by Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi. In the second part, he elaborates on logotherapy, arguing that the meaning of life is found in experiencing something such as goodness, truth and beauty by experiencing nature and culture or by experiencing another human being in his very uniqueness by loving him, not simply in spite of apocalyptic situations, but because of them.

The book has been maligned as superficial pop-existentialism; a vestige of middle-brow culture offering platitudinous New Age panaceas. Such a reading isnt entirely unfair. And seven decades later, one might blanche at the sexist language, or the hokey suggestion that a Statue of Responsibility be constructed on the US West Coast. However, a fuller consideration of Frankls concept of tragic optimism should give more attention to the former rather than the latter before the therapist is impugned as overly rosy. When he writes Since Auschwitz we know what man is capable of. And since Hiroshima we know what is at stake, its hard to accuse him of being a Pollyanna.

Some critics accuse Frankl of victim-blaming. The American scholar Lawrence Langer in 1982 even wrote that Mans Search for Meaning is almost sinister. According to him, Frankl reduced survival to an issue of a positivity; Langer argues that the book does a profound disservice to the millions who perished. A critique such as this has some merit to it, and yet Frankls actual implications are different. His book evidences no moralising against those whod lost a sense of meaning. Frankls study doesnt advocate logotherapy as an ethical but as a strategic response to tragedy.

When identifying meaninglessness, it would be a mistake to find it within the individual who suffers. Frankls fellow prisoners werent responsible for the concentration camps, just as somebody born into a cycle of poverty isnt at fault, nor is any one of us (unless you happen to be an oil executive) the cause of our collapsing ecosystem. Nothing in logotherapy implies acceptance of the status quo, for the struggle to alter political, material, social, cultural and economic conditions is paramount. What logotherapy offers is something different, a way to envision meaning, despite things not being in your control. In his preface to the books 2006 edition, Rabbi Harold Kushner glosses Frankls argument by saying that: Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation.

Far from being obsessed with the meaning of life, logotherapy demands that patients orient themselves to the idea of individual meaning, to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life daily and hourly, as Frankl writes. Logotherapy asking patients to clear an imaginative space to orient themselves towards some higher meaning provides a response to intolerable situations.

Frankl writes that he grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. It is easy to be cynical about such a claim, proving Frankls point. In our small, petty, limited, cruel era, it seems hard to come across much collective human affection, and yet our pettiness, limitations and cruelty are in their own way a response to the looming apocalypse. Every age has its own collective neurosis, Frankl writes, and every age needs its own psychotherapy to cope with it. If were exhausted, fatigued, anxious, enraged, despairing and confused at the collapse of our individual fortunes, our social networks, our communities, our industries, our democracy, our very planet, its no wonder weve developed a certain collective neurosis. Yet humanistic psychology has not been in vogue for decades; in its place, we have fashionable sociobiology and misapplied neuroscience in the form of the Panglossian Steven Pinker and the Svengali platitudes of Jordan Peterson.

In one of the books most remarkable passages, Frankl recounts how, when his work group was allowed a meagre few hours of rest, a fellow prisoner interrupted them and asked us to run out to the assembly grounds and see a wonderful sunset. With a prose style that tends towards the clinical, albeit with a distinct sense of the sacred, Frankl here gives himself over to the transcendent:

Standing outside we saw sinister clouds glowing in the west and the whole sky alive with clouds of ever-changing shapes and colours, from steel blue to blood red. The desolate grey mud huts provided a sharp contrast, while the puddles on the muddy ground reflected the glowing sky.

From this vision, here in a place whose very definition was the nullification of meaning, another prisoner remarked: How beautiful the world could be! Such is the promise of logotherapy not to ensure that there will be more sunsets, for that is our individual and societal responsibility. What logotherapy offers, rather, is the promise to be in awe at a sunset, even if it does happen to be our last one; to find wonder, meaning, beauty and grace even in the apocalypse, even in hell. The rest is up to us.

Ed Simon

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Read the original here:

What Viktor Frankls logotherapy can offer in the Anthropocene - AlterNet

What are the standards for organic foods?

Have you ever wondered why certain foods are classified as "organic"? According to surveys, over half of Americans have purchased organic food products in recent years. Since Oct. 21, 2002, any food that is sold in the U.S. -- whether produced locally or imported -- must meet specific standards defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry the label "organic."

Organic foods are grown and processed differently than regular foods. The USDA definition of organic food states that:

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.

While you may see labels that assert that a food is "natural," "pesticide-free," or "hormone-free," these terms should not be considered synonymous with the term "organic." The USDA defines organic foods as products that are at least 95% organic according to the standard usage of the term. If manufacturers wish, they may use the USDA organic seal when marketing their products. Products that contain 100% organic ingredients may be labeled as "100% organic." Use of the USDA seal is not mandatory, however, so you may not see the seal on all organic products.

In the U.S., the most commonly purchased organic foods are fruits and vegetables, which account for over 70% of organic food purchases. Because of the standards required to produce organic foods, these foods are generally more expensive than their non-organic counterparts.

While the USDA strictly regulates the use of the term organic in reference to food products, the agency itself does not make any claims that organic foods are healthier or safer than foods that do not carry this label.

For related information, please visit the Nutrition Center.

CONTINUE SCROLLING FOR RELATED SLIDESHOW

Read more here:

What Is Organic Food? Natural vs. Organic Food