The Fellowship of Life
a Christian-based vegetarian group founded in 1973



'Christian Herald' debate (1999)

Embryo research: repulsive and evil

Re: Using human embryos for tissue culture - the little human babies, for that is what they are, will first be conceived in the laboratory, then when a few hours old, macerated and the cells used, to grow into muscle cells, brain cells etc. I find this totally repulsive and evil.

Using human embryos for this research stems from the evolutionary mind-set which says we are merely animals and can be used for experimentation. It is yet another of the evil fruits of evolutionism. In fact, according to the Word of God, human beings are not animals at all. "All flesh is not the same. Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another and fish another" (1 Corinthians 15:39). Man was created "in the image of God" - so each human life is sacred.

Wendy Sharpless, M.A. (Oxon) Zoology (2/1/99)

 We are to care for all creation

I agree with Wendy Sharpless that embryo research is "totally repulsive and evil", but I totally oppose her anthropocentric view of creation.

What does she mean by saying human beings are not animals? "Animal" is our word for a sentient being other than human, so she is stating the obvious. She further states: "All flesh is not the same, man having one kind of flesh, animals have another.." Well, my flesh as a male is different from hers, but what is she trying to prove?

All becomes clear at the end when she states "so each human life is sacred", implying that animal life is not, that embryo research is only "totally repulsive and evil" when applied to human beings, but not when applied to animals.

Man was created "in the image of God", not physical but spiritual image. We were to be his ambassadors on earth, demonstrating his compassion and love to all creation. Has Wendy Sharpless, like many Christians, fallen for that godless creed which holds that humankind's selfish and material interests must be held paramount? Did not Christ warn "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" (Matthew 16:26)

Don Gwillim (16/1/99)

Are we looking after the animals?

I found Wendy Sharpless rather selective in quoting God's word with regard to our relationship to animals.

A Professor of Zoology might like to consider our kinship with other animals, also supported by Scripture. "As one dies so dies the other, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 3:19)

This rings true in the light of recent findings which suggest that human/pig hybrids would be the eventual outcome of inter-species organ transplants.

The "Frankenscience" which has evolved into human cloning and embryo research did not appear overnight. It is sadly the prevailing indifference to animals' rights, as embodied by most Christians, that has granted genetic engineers the inch they needed with which to take a mile.

We should remember that God has the right to have his Creation treated with respect, animal or human. We should therefore strive to be as loving in our stewardship of animals as God was in creating them.

J.M. Gilheany (16/1/99)

People are worth more than animals

Wendy Sharpless' views on embryo research were criticised by JM Gilheany and Don Gwillim. Do they really believe that animals are of equal value to humans?

The Bible clearly commands kindness to animals, and Jesus said that God notices when a sparrow dies, but he did go on to say: "You are worth more than many sparrows" (Matthew 10: 29-31).

The whole issue of animal experiments is a difficult one, and many animal experiments are unnecessary (eg testing cosmetics and so on). However, from a biblical point of view a human life is much more valuable than that of any animal, and if human lives can be saved only by sacrificing the lives of animals, then I can see no biblical reason to oppose it.

After all, under the Old Covenant, untold millions of animals were sacrificed as a covering for human sin. And God valued human beings so much that he sent Jesus to die for us: he did not die for animals, who have no eternal soul.

Experiments on human embryos are most certainly in a different category to animal experiments, and as Wendy Sharpless says "totally repulsive and evil".

Geoff Chapman (30/1/99)

Abuse of animals is anti-Gospel

In reply to the considerations raised by Geoff Chapman 'People are worth more than animals' (30 January).

I do not see any inference in Matthew 10:29-31 that being "worth more" than animals should give us any licence to exploit them. The premise of vivisection is that evil is permissible in the misguided hope that some little bit of good may come of it. In practice, the reverse has been reaped through human side-effects from animal-tested drugs.

Humane research charities which are opposed to animal experiments on scientific/ethical grounds deserve the wholehearted support of Christians opposed to animal abuse.

From a theological perspective, Christ was surely 'worth more' to his Father than the rest of mankind put together. Yet the 'higher' sacrificed himself on the cross for the 'lower'. In the light of this example, our use and abuse of animals is an anti-Gospel.

As candidates for a higher spiritual state, where human souls will co-exist with those of angels, our treatment of non-humans may be much more significant than we often care to consider.

J.M. Gilheany (13/2/99)

Not value, but righteousness

Geoff Chapman's letter headed "People are worth more than animals" (30 January) misrepresents the views expressed by JM Gilheany and myself. Nowhere in either of our letters did we state the belief that animals are equal in value to humans.

Jesus did say "You are worth more than many sparrows" and that very statement implies that sparrows have some value; but my letter was not about value. It was about righteousness. You cannot equate value with righteousness. Our value is based upon the responsibility God has given us towards His creation, our righteousness is determined by the manner in which we execute that responsibility.

This responsibility gives us alone a choice, to either love, nurture and protect His creation or, to be cruel, egotistical dictators, destroying His creation. This world has obviously chosen to be the latter, but surely as Christians we should not follow the world's ways.

We were made in his image to reflect his love and follow his ways. When Jesus died on the cross, he not only saved us from our sins (for man is the only part of his creation that had a choice and sinned), he also saved animals from paying for our sins.

Man once sacrificed animals to please God Almighty. He now sacrifices them to please his new God; 'man almighty'!

Don Gwillim (27/2/99)

Why we should all be veggies

Standing firmly against cruelty and violence, vegetarianism provides Christians with the practical means of fulfilling Christ's call for greater love, mercy and compassion as opposed to meat consumption which perpetuates an industry no more compatible with Christianity than murder, slavery, child exploitation or female inequality.

Christ, the Lamb of God, brings us a new kind of flesh and a new kind of blood. Christ offers us his flesh and his blood; the flesh and blood of self-sacrifice and perfect love. Christians are duty-bound not to corrupt the sacred flesh and blood of Jesus Christ with the flesh and blood of cruelty and violence. We can live healthy lives without perpetuating the horrors of the meat industry.

At the dawn of the new millennium let's bring Isaiah's vision of Christ's peaceable kingdom, where the wolf dwells with the lamb and all creation lives in harmony, a step closer. Let us say no to the slaughterhouse and yes to the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

Anthony Neesham (27/2/99)

'Everything' for food

Anthony Neesham's letter (27th February) is not scripturally-based.

He argues in favour of vegetarianism because he thinks meat-eating is incompatible with Christianity. But Genesis 9:3 (NIV) says: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

Christians surely accept the whole Bible as their basis for belief and this verse is unambiguous, isn't it?

Beryl Oram (20/3/99)

Obey God's word

I write in amazement at the dogmatism expressed by Anthony Neesham who tells us that "Christians are duty-bound..." as if eating meat is inexorably entwined with cruelty. "We can live healthy lives without perpetuating the horrors of the meat industry." Since when were we to assume that eating meat need be equated with cruelty?

Don Gwillim is generous with his liberal theology, mixing the killing of animals for food with the killing of animals for sacrifice. Nowhere do either of these gentlemen mention or choose to take note of the Christian element of obedience to our Father and his Word.

Start with 2 Timothy 3:16, then look at Genesis 9:2-3. Even verse 4, if you wish.

There is much in our Bible that on a human level is uncomfortable. It is nevertheless God's Word to us. We ignore it to our spirit's ultimate peril.

Peter Culshaw (20/3/99)

Argument lacks meat

Do we have a new apostle? Has Anthony Neesham, ("Why we should all be veggies", Your Say, 27 February), received a revised revelation regarding meat-eating? Not in any of my three Bible versions am I told not to eat meat. Indeed, I would say that Christians are encouraged, by Peter's vision in Acts 11: 5-9, to do just that.

Mr Neesham would do well not to preach his own interpretation of God's Word before pondering Romans 14: 1-4; his passion and compassion would be better spent campaigning for improved slaughterhouse conditions for animals (especially on the Continent), and for meat to be transported on the hook, rather than on the hoof, instead of leaving us wondering why God gave us canine teeth.

Annette Clarke (20/3/99)

Truth for veggies

In response to "Why we should all be veggies" (27 February). Many farmers at our church were disturbed by being likened to murderers, slave owners, and those who exploit women and children.

Anthony Neesham ignored many Scriptures, particularly Romans 14:2, "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables." Also verses 3 and 4, NIV.

Jesus in the story of the prodigal son, Luke 15:23 does not say "bring out the veggie burger to celebrate". Again Acts 10:15: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

IVP commentary (Romans 14): "There are always brethren in every church, who entertain imperfect conceptions of Christian truth - continued usually with a certain doggedness for their defective creed."

David W. Gardner (27/3/99)

Jesus ate meat

In reply to those who say we should not eat meat, Jesus never condemned it; he told Peter to eat meat. The Lord himself ate fish - some people do not read their Bibles enough!

C. Ellis (27/3/99)

Vegetarianism: God's original plan

Anthony Neesham's humanitarian plea for Christians to adopt vegetarianism was met with much indignation but little theology. There is no religion without love. The whole point of its existence within our fallen world is to guide us back to God, whose original will was vegetarianism (Genesis 1:29). This is also his ultimate hope as revealed through the prophets (Isaiah 11: 6-9).

The Book of Daniel revealed the health benefits of vegetarianism around 600 BC (Daniel 1:3-21) and it is encouraged in Acts 21:25 to develop spiritual integrity. We all pray "Thy kingdom come...", yet somehow seek to accommodate slaughterhouse bloodletting within it!

It is truly sad to hear Christians attempting to condone needless, massive violence, purely for the sake of an acquired taste. There are few places as merciless and consequently un-Christian as the abattoir. By our lifestyles, we either evangelise or turn compassionate individuals away from Christ (Corinthians 8:13).

J.M. Gilheany (3/4/99)

God loves farmers!

Contrary to Mr Neesham's understanding (27 February) farming and meat consumption are very compatible with Christianity. I am so pleased that God told farmers/shepherds when his Son had been born and that he also chose them to be the first visitors to the stable. This clearly shows that God had an immense trust, respect and love for those who care for the animals he created.

It is so disappointing that today, many people, and even some of his followers do not follow his example. Furthermore the Scriptures clearly state in Genesis 9:3 that "God gave us everything that lives and moves for food."

Remember the story Jesus told, as recorded in Luke 15. The Prodigal Son returns. His father, in a clear picture of God, throws his arms around him in an expression of his love. He calls for the best robes and sandals for him to wear, a ring for his finger and then to celebrate the return of his much loved son he decides to have a party.

What does the father do then, call for the plumpest cabbage or leafiest lettuce? No way! He wants the best for his son, so he instructs his servants to bring the fattened calf. A further indication that Jesus also considered beef to be among the finest of products!

Thankfully God's Word is clear in other respects too. There are no conditions attached to saying "Yes" to the Lamb of God. Praise God. "Whoever will, may come!"

Edward Ward (retired farmer and regular meat-eater, aged 84) (10/4/99)

Black and white in a grey world

JM Gilheany (3 April) is quite right to say that God's original will was (still is?) vegetarianism. However, in choosing his biblical references he has been somewhat selective, and thus does not present a balanced argument. For instance, "Peter's Vision" in Acts 10. But of more concern to me, is the fact that he does not place sufficient weight on The Fall.

In a perfect world all of us would be vegetarians. This is not a perfect world. While some may ignore God's will and thereby 'acquire' a taste for meat, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority, given an informed choice would not 'condone needless, massive violence' in the 'merciless and consequently un-Christian' abattoir. Does this also mean that no Christians work in abattoirs?

At least for the foreseeable future, we have to accept that eating meat is a fact of life. I commend those who can discipline themselves otherwise, and wish that I could join them, but I will not condemn those who do not. As for myself, whether it is my sin, or the corporate sin of the world, I have no choice. A severe allergy to the two main sources of protein available to vegetarians, nuts and dairy produce, bars my way. Now don't come back to me with smart ideas of how I should pray, otherwise I will bore you with the tale of how these allergies developed.

It is sufficient to say that many things in life are not black and white. What difference might we make if we concentrated our efforts on those things we can change.

Phil Griffiths (17/4/99)

Christian healing - a third avenue?

Sue Rinaldi (3 April) is right. Healing is an integral part of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ: healing of the whole person, spirit, mind, and body. For too long the Church has allowed the world and its spiritual distortions to lead the way in alternatives and complements to conventional medicine.

It seems to me that God has three main ways of physically healing people - instant miraculous healing, conventional western medicine and surgery, and via a radical change in eating habits and lifestyle. Having seen, in the Lord's wonderful goodness, all three processes since my wife was diagnosed with cancer three years ago, perhaps I can mention a few things we have learnt together.

The Britain of 1950 saw about one person in 15 contract cancer. In 1999 the figure is about one in three. And a huge increase in many other disorders also. These 50 years of increasing affluence have seen colossal changes in eating habits, the use of chemicals in growing food crops and animals, pollution of the air and water, the use of thousands of drugs in medicine, and the increased speed and pressure of everyday living. There must be a connection - and there are many healing philosophies that try to address the problems which the adverse modern influences are having on our health.

When Adam sinned and God justly punished him, sin opened the door to all manner of pain and sickness and afflictions. Would it not have been uncharacteristic of a loving God not to provide Adam with any remedies? I am convinced that God put every remedy for man's ills in the wonderful range of plants he had created. In Exodus 16 Moses is shown that a tree is able to make bad water good. Immediately God defines himself as the God who heals! And the Bible's last chapter mysteriously speaks of the leaves of the tree of life being for the healing of the nations.

In the last three years we have learnt of many people who have been healed of the most extreme physical conditions by abandoning the standard western diet and consuming almost exclusively plant food and drinks, coupled with a change of lifestyle and attitudes. We twice spent time at the Bristol Cancer Help Centre and learnt a bit more about this different approach to healing, and we admire their dedication and compassion.

But we were troubled by their involvement with eastern religions and philosophies. We came away with the question: "Is there no Christian ministry of healing via these wonderful natural remedies that our mighty Creator has provided? Is the evangelical Church stuck in the medieval rut of assigning plant remedies and alternative therapies to the realm of witchcraft and paganism?

Is there anyone out there with experience of, and interest in promoting God's third way of healing - the alternative of changing habits and lifestyle, defined in a truly Christian manner? We'd love to know. We surely must do something!

John Puckett (24/4/99)

Debate in love, please

I have been following the debate about vegetarianism, and note with sadness that people seem to be divided into two camps, both using Biblical texts which prove their argument without question, and perhaps failing to listen to the other side of the debate, and to whether God might just be saying something through people they disagree with.

Some seem to be saying that vegetarianism is an essential ingredient of the Gospel, which may remind us of those in New Testament times who believed that circumcision was essential for salvation.

Others don't seem to understand that, for some, vegetarianism is a response to what they read in Scripture, and if that is their response then we should uphold them in that, rather than seek to knock down.

Others respond to the Scriptures differently, without seeing vegetarianism as part of their response, and they equally need to be upheld in whatever form their response takes.

JM Gilheany wrote: "There is no religion without love." Sadly I know that not to be true, but what I am convinced of is there is no Christianity without love, and so when we debate these issues let us listen, learn and love.

Rev Christopher Goble (1/5/99)

Liberty to eat meat

I was pleased that Phil Griffiths (17 April) replied to JM Gilheany on the subject of vegetarianism, but feel that the Scripture is more black and white than either of them is prepared to admit.

Before the fall vegetarianism was the order, but after the flood (Genesis 9:5) God gave us liberty to eat meat.

Eating the Passover lamb however was mandatory and eating the sin offerings was definitely part of the regulations (Leviticus 6:26). All of these animals were killed by bleeding to death after throat cutting, which puts our abattoirs into some sort of perspective.

If Jesus had seriously thought vegetarianism was the diet for his kingdom, he could easily have fed the five thousand with just the loaves and not used the two fish, and in John 21 could easily have given them a nut cutlet fried in olive oil!

While Scripture clearly recognises (and we should respect) the right of anyone to abstain from doing something for good personal reasons (eg the Rechabites) and any sacrifice made for the Lord will always be honoured, we need to be careful about confusing that with Christian principles, or we might be in danger of being placed in Paul's category of "weaker brethren" (Romans 14:2).

Dr. R. J. Jameson (8/5/99)

Animals: we are without excuse

I view the recent correspondence concerning animal care with much interest. I find that each contributor has reflected his or her own degree of compassion - or limits of it - in what has been written. I have no doubt that by their own words they have judged themselves.

I am grateful to have been born a human and realise only too well that "To whom much has been given, much will be required". Consequently, my dominion/stewardship needs to be faithfully expressed in the spirit of a good eastern shepherd, prepared to lay down life for sheep entrusted to him.

It is sad to have to say it but, whereas animal activists are endeavouring to actualise a coming kingdom in which none will harm or destroy, "Christians" appear to do no more than vainly pray for its actualisation via the Lord's Prayer. Yet, still oblivious to the fact that the whole cosmos for which Christ died, groans and waits in expectancy for liberation through God's children.

I no longer weep for the unconverted, but truly weep for the arrogance of the assumed elect. Our original parents may well have been created in God's image; but we ourselves too often reflect the extent of their subsequent fall; and I sense that, unlike the animals, we are frequently without excuse!

Pastor James Thompson (15/5/99)

Jesus wasn't a vegetarian (2 letters)

It is a fallacy to state Jesus was a vegetarian. ('Go veggie for Christ', 16 October).

Luke tells us that Jesus ate fish 24:42 and 43 and Passover lamb 22:7-15. Paul also tells us in 1 Timothy 4:3-5 that it is wrong to command anyone to abstain from eating meat, which God has created for our food.

Mary Bettaney (23/10/99)

It amazed me to read that Jesus was a vegetarian. I wonder if People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals can match their so-called knowledge with the Bible? 1 Timothy warns against false teachers who order people to abstain from certain foods.

Margaret Wain (23/7/99)

Jesus a vegetarian? Hardly

PETA have no right to make their statement 'Jesus was a vegetarian' (CH, 16 October) as there are more pointers within Scripture that our Lord was anything but.

I certainly have sympathies with PETA as far as the treatment of some animals is concerned (ie mistreatment of animals for fun/sport and for cosmetic testing). We are called to be good stewards of the world God has created and placed us in, and under this we should be considerate to all creatures.

The Rev A Linzey should take note of his Bible and meditate clearly upon it.*

Jesus ate Passover meals, which have never been a veggie meal. The Scriptures also never have a veggie leaning after the first three chapters of Genesis. Indeed in Acts 10, Peter is shown that all animals (and reptiles and birds) are allowable food. Jesus tells us in Matthew 6:25: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?"

Romans 14:2 states "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is week, eats only vegetables." And Romans 14:3 points out: "The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

It's also worth checking out Genesis 4:2-5.

I believe that this campaign uses our Lord's name in a completely unethical manner. I thought we had an Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) which monitors these things.

Dave Lloyd (30/10/99)

*Rev. Linzey was quoted from a separate source which was reproduced on PETA's website:

How about the Passover?

It was interesting to read in the CH (16 October) that Jesus was allegedly a vegetarian. I checked in Luke 22:15 to see if Jesus said: "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover meal with you before I suffer, except, of course, for the lamb bit because I am a vegetarian, even though I fully recognise the significance of the lamb to the original situation and, as you will find out, it also speaks eerily of what will happen over the next few days." But it doesn't.

The risen Christ also ate broiled fish (although fish is a bit of a dubious issue as some say it isn't meat. Huh? It's still an animal.).

It could also be argued that Jesus didn't think much of the plant kingdom, judging by his cursing of the fig tree. Don't vegetables have feelings too?

Steve Temple (30/10/99)

Controversy, yes - lies, no

As Jesus clearly wasn't a vegetarian (re: PETA story, 16 October), I expect many, like myself, will take no further notice of this group.

A pity, because they probably have just about everything else correct. I've nothing against being controversial, but to run a lie as a campaign slogan, simply doesn't seem Christian to me.

My argument stems from Luke 24:42 although I see nowhere else to suggest Jesus was a vegetarian.

Alex Watts (30/10/99)

False teaching

Rev Linzey, defending PETA's 'Jesus was a Vegetarian' campaign (16 October) is giving false teaching. He starts by saying: "Animals are God's creatures..." Absolutely correct. But he goes on to say: "They are precious beings in God's sight." Where does it say that in the Bible? Wonderful sentiments, but biblical?!

If some claim vegetarianism is biblical, let's be accurate:

Genesis 1:24 (God made).

Genesis 1:28 (God gave man mastery over).

Genesis 1:29 first mention of food for man.

Genesis 9:2 and 3 second mention of food for man.

Let us not muddle the awfulness of animal suffering and God giving animals for food for man. The Bible is clear and we should be too.

Rev Linzey goes on to say: "Jesus mandates kindness..." This is quoting one of Paul's pastoral letters to early Christians and is therefore directed towards human relationships. Animal cruelty is awful, but not relevant here.

The campaign PETA is based on false teaching.

Peter Culshaw (6/11/99)

Do you abhor animal abuse?

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) may certainly have gone over the top in categorically affirming Jesus to be a vegetarian. Nevertheless, he did identify himself with the good shepherds of his day: those prepared to seek out the lambs that were lost and, if necessary, forfeit life for animals entrusted to them.

Husbandry has far removed itself from biblical times, as, today, we treat animals as bits of meat to be bartered for filthy lucre; usually denying them a free range of life before a swift end and - apart from Kosher and Halal - hopefully, humane departure.

Christ chose to be born amongst animals in preference to human royalty; and animal carers were singled out to be the first to visit him. Yet 'born again' Christians are so far back in the rearguard of animal rights issues as to be out of sight. Brethren, these things ought not to be!

I wonder how many of us (God forbid!) will be celebrating again the birth of our Good Shepherd by tucking into factory-reared fowl? Yes, birds denied the power to use their God given limbs and instincts, due to the greed and evil of human depravity?

Extremes aside, we have a great deal to learn from the ranks of animal activism, of which I'm honoured to take a leading stand. At least, there is one evangelical who abhors animal abuse and works as well as prays, for the inauguration of that Kingdom where - as in the former Paradise - vegetarianism will once again be the norm (Isaiah 11).

Rev J Thompson (20/11/99)

The issue is cruelty

As a supporter of PETA and a Christian, I reluctantly agree that their campaign to convince Christians that Jesus was a vegetarian is inappropriate and biblically unsustainable (CH, 16 October). I was, however, truly appalled by the negative Christian response to this news item (30 October).

PETA, a secular organisation, expected considerable Christian support in their fight against mankind's cruel behaviour towards the rest of God's creation. The Christian response to date, however, has completely ignored the main issue; cruelty, and shown that their compassion is ruled not by their hearts but by their stomachs.

How are we ever going to convince this fallen, hurting world, that Jesus has the answer, when we blatantly show a complete lack of compassion towards the rest of his creation? For the sake of our stomachs we are prepared to "turn a blind eye" when confronted with the terrible cruelty being inflicted on other sentient creatures. Jesus may not have been a vegetarian, but surely as Christians, we must consider what his response would be to today's farming industry; would he condone the unnecessary and excessive cruelty being inflicted on today's farm animals?

Don Gwillim (20/11/99)

Feed my sheep!

I am a very healthy 85-year old retired farmer and I have walked with Christ as my Saviour since the age of 17. I have been blessed with many friends and family who are also farmers and I have the greatest love and respect for them all. Many of the rural churches in our area have been founded by and continue to be supported by farmers and their families.

My Christian life has been greatly influenced by farmers who have been called by God to preach and teach his word and I am greatly encouraged that a local Sunday school which has been held in a farmhouse for almost 100 years continues to attract and nurture over 40 young people every week. What a heritage!

I have been a loyal reader of Christian Herald (and Sunday Companion!) since I could read. My farming parents and grandparents before me and two generations after me have also been readers, but I now find myself wanting to cancel my subscription and definitely not recommend it to others.

To find out why, you only need to look at recent issues where the content of some of the readers letters has cut me to the heart. They know who they are and I believe they will be judged for their misguided and hurtful comments about those who have fed our nation and cared for our countryside since time began. In fact, if such people loved and cared for others as much as farmers love and care for animals, the world would be a better place to live in!

Edward Ward (18-25/12/99)

I condemn cruelty, not farmers

I was sorry to read Edward Ward's letter "Feed my sheep" (18/25 Dec). I am however, very confused. How can farmers who "love and care for animals" be "cut to the heart" by letters from those outraged at the extreme cruelty being inflicted on animals by factory farms?

My own letters are written to condemn cruelty, not farmers. I admire and fully support all farmers who reject factory farming methods, who love and respect their animals.

I write only to encourage public support for organic and free-range farming.

Don Gwillim (10/1/2000)

PS I would like to take this opportunity to say how much I enjoyed a great Christmas edition

Return to Letters


Homepage/About Us







Your comments are welcome

This site is hosted and maintained by The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation
Thank you for visiting