In  an  interview  with  the BBC, Samuel Jutzi, Director of the Animal Production  and  Health  Division  of  the  FAO,  was  asked about the possibilities of fending off the dangerous bird flu Virus H5N1 that is inching into Europe, frightening meat-eaters and vegetarians alike.

He  answered  that  the availability of financial resolve to eradicate the  virus  along  with  the  animals  would play an important role in keeping  Europeans  secure.  However, there was no plan to cull wild birds:  the  flu  infecting  them  would 'taper off' after a while and remain without impact on humans.

Is it not then a reasonable conclusion that chickens raised for meat are the reason for the threatening pandemic about which everyone is so concerned?

Would  the  logical  answer  to that situation not be to avoid chicken meat, even if this may prove difficult for those who opted for chicken because  they  feared  the  consequences of BSE, other animal diseases dangerous  to  human  health and fish laden with hormones, PCBs, dioxin and mercury?

Why does  the  FAO not openly admit that in a situation of increasing transboundary animal diseases, safe meats cannot be guaranteed?

Why does no institution have the guts to admit that the safety of meat is crumbling at dazzling speed?

Why are all measures dealing with symptoms and not with the source of the bird flu problem?

Why  does  the  WHO  avoid  the promotion of vegetarianism even though every   one  of  their  nutritional  recommendations  underlines  the importance  of  fruit  and  vegetable  consumption  in  ever-stronger statements?

Why are no official health warnings issued regarding meat?

Why  does  damage  restriction so far mainly consist in the culling of millions  of  sentient beings and the recommendations to eat the flesh of  other  animals  than  those  affected,  which  happens  to  appear relatively safe at the given time (until further notice)?

Why, in the light of all present and emerging problems, is meat still heavily subsidized in the industrial world, at the expense of each and every taxpayer?

Why do international, European and national bodies ignore the fact that a vegetarian way of life is a healthy one, as scientifically proven time and again?

How bad does the situation need to get before experts will finally acknowledge the need to research the benefits of vegetarianism seriously?

There is one conclusion to all these questions: Since the production and consumption of meat is risky, puts enormous strain on global ecology, adds to the problem of world hunger and endangers the security of future generations, the price of meat has become far too high!

Renato Pichler, President, European Vegetarian Union