10 reasons for tomatoes

Tomatoes have many health benefits. Make it an integral part of your diet.

Good for the skin

Tomatoes are high in lycopene. Lycopene is one of the basic ingredients in the most expensive facial cleansers. If we want to use tomatoes for skin care, we need eight to twelve tomatoes. Peel them and place the shell on the skin for ten minutes. Make sure that the inside of the peel touches the skin. After ten minutes, wash the skin and the face will be clean and radiant. Redness may appear, which eventually fades.

It prevents several types of cancer

The high content of lycopene in tomatoes reduces the chances of developing prostate cancer, colon cancer and stomach cancer. Lycopene is a natural antioxidant that slows the growth of cancer cells. There is even more lycopene in cooked tomatoes, so tomato soup should be on the menu at least twice a week.

Maintains strong bones

Tomatoes are high in calcium and vitamin K. Both nutrients make a significant contribution to strengthening bones and bone tissue.

It reduces the damage caused by smoking

No, eating tomatoes is not the latest method to help you quit smoking. Tomatoes effectively reduce the damage that smoking does to the body. Tomatoes contain cucumber and chlorogenic acid, which protect the body from carcinogens caused by cigarette smoke.

Full of antioxidants

Tomatoes are high in vitamin A and vitamin C. Together with beta-carotene, all three act as antioxidants that neutralize harmful free radicals in the blood. Free radicals in the bloodstream are dangerous because they can damage cells. The more red the tomato, the more beta-carotene it contains. Let’s not forget that cooking destroys vitamin C, so let’s eat tomatoes raw if we are deficient in this vitamin.

It benefits the heart

Vitamin B and potassium in tomatoes help lower cholesterol and blood pressure. By including tomatoes in our diet, we can effectively prevent heart attacks, strokes and many other heart problems that can endanger our lives.

Maintains beautiful hair

Vitamin A in tomatoes helps keep hair strong and shiny. It is also useful for eyes, skin, bones and teeth.

It benefits the kidneys

Seedless tomatoes have been shown to reduce the risk of kidney stones.

Good for the eyes

Vitamin A in tomatoes is amazing for improving eyesight. In addition, tomatoes are one of the best dishes to eat to prevent night blindness. Tomatoes are full of valuable minerals, including chromium. It helps diabetics regulate blood sugar.


Selling animal products and medicines that people have to use as a result of eating inappropriate food is a huge business. Businesses often invest large sums of money in political campaigns and media advertisements and studies that do not demonstrate the detrimental effects of their diet or are designed to portray it as beneficial, so neither will openly and strongly oppose these industries. directly dependent on them. The media, governments and doctors will only advise you to eat white meat or fish instead of red meat, to use semi-fat instead of fatty dairy products, and to eat this food in moderation. What moderate means can be very relative.

If you follow these recommendations, your diet will not really be much different and as a result, your health will not (significantly) improve. Then you will believe that diet has no effect anyway and you will throw the gun in the corn.

I tell you that there is a diet that can significantly change your health, body appearance, energy and well-being, but it is important that this diet is diametrically opposed to the diet that originally put you in trouble. It is a diet rich in carbohydrates, water, vitamins and minerals, and poor in fats and proteins: starchy foods, fruits, vegetables are the basis of this diet, and nuts and seeds are an occasional supplement.

It is important for people today to gain relevant knowledge and information on how a herbivore’s day or plate should be composed.

Will we be driven by a vegan diet in the future?

Awareness that we need to put an end to energy-intensive agriculture also requires a major departure from our eating habits, which are still largely based on meat choices. So what will make up the diet of our future? Will we be driven by a vegan diet?

Is the solution in veganism?

Depends on how we look at it. If we opt for veganism for ethical reasons and prepare our own food to the greatest extent, and in all steps, this is certainly a very good long-term strategy. Let’s leave aside the opinion on whether a vegan diet is actually healthy or not, as we can find evidence that speaks in favor of both the first and second claims.

Just as we find vegans who are still full of health at a late age, there are also those who suffer damage at a young age because of skipping all the basic steps. If we go into veganism well-equipped with knowledge, and above all we are ready to prepare meals ourselves, and not resort to pre-prepared vegan versions, we are certainly on the right track.

Veggie everything: steaks, burgers, hot dogs, ham, eggs, cheese, milk…

The food industry is well aware that hard meat spins. That is why the offer of vegan substitutes for meat and dairy products is more diverse every year, and the shelves are better stocked. Veganism is also a fashion trend that does not necessarily stem from ethical principles. This type of consumerism is the most wasteful. The products with which the producers try to get as close as possible to the color, smell, taste, structure, shape… of meat are equally energy consuming and often quite unhealthy.

How are animal tests performed ????

Lethal dose testing: this test has been performed since as far back as 1927! The substance to be tested is forcibly poured or even “pumped” into the animal’s throat and stomach. This often results in death as a result of injury to the throat or stomach with tubes pushed by animals to the stomach, or actually due to a lethal dose. Another variant is to inject them with deadly substances by injection under the skin, into a vein, etc. and then observe how and for how long the animal suffers before being rescued… Often, however, these substances are also applied to the animal’s eyes, anal or vaginal opening, or forced to inhale through an attached mask. The quantities they use are often so high that they have nothing to do with reality and therefore do not give any useful results. Animal reactions include convulsions, vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth, and buttocks. However, these tests can last for 3 months and longer! However, in long-term testing, animals are poisoned in these ways on a daily basis, and such torture continues even after 2 years… Of course, no painkillers are used, as this could interfere with the results…

On top of all this, however, these tests are not reliable. Man is not an animal and his body reacts differently. Therefore, there have also been various scandals with some drugs, which, despite being tested on animals countless times, have had severe side effects and have left irreparable consequences in humans. The lethal dose in animals also depends on several factors: the type of animal, sex, age, diet, time of year and method of testing, and many others. Eg nicotine is lethal for humans at a dose of 0.9 mg / kg, and in rats as much as 53 mg / kg! Alternatives to these atrocities, of course, exist; computer simulation, cultivation of tissue from a few removed cells, which can then be tested…

Eye irritant testing: This method has been in use for over 4 decades. In these tests, 100 milliliters of the substance in the form of liquid, granules or powder are injected into the eyes of experimental animals, usually rabbits. They are immobilized so that they cannot escape or move, and many of them even break their necks during such attempts. They have their eyes forcibly opened with staples. When these harmful substances are applied to them, the animals roar in pain, and the “scientists” observe how and for how long their eyes fail. This “observation” lasts up to three weeks, and the declining eye condition is recorded at intervals. The rabbits are, of course, fully conscious and do not receive any painkillers, as this is supposed to “disrupt” the course and results of the tests. The consequences of this torture are severe swelling of the eyelids, inflammation of the iris, pus or ulceration of the eyes, bleeding and blindness. Also, the results of these tests are not reliable, as the human eye is completely different from the rabbit. Uncertainty was also confirmed by subsequent studies: they compared the reaction of the human eye to accidental contact with an irritant and the results of these tests. The differences between the reactions of humans and rabbits were as many as 250 times! After the tests are completed, these rabbits are killed and used for further tests.

In addition, these tests do NOT protect users, but manufacturers. The fact that the rabbit will go blind within 72 hours after the anti-dandruff shampoo was applied to his eyes does not help anyone. We all already know that such things are not noticeable, and in case the substance accidentally gets there, we immediately wash it with water and seek medical help. No one will just leave it in her eyes and suffer severe pain!

More and more companies are opting for a less harsh and more reliable method of testing irritants; with volunteers, cultured tissues, corneas from “eye banks”… These tests are of course also much more reliable.

Skin irritant testing: Bunnies, monkeys or guinea pigs are usually used for these experiments. The irritant is applied to shaved or often even intentionally damaged skin. The results are skin irritation and redness, skin irritation, rash and swelling. Test animals are immobilized in devices that prevent them from escaping, while “scientists” repeatedly apply substances that irritate and burn their skin. However, because their skin is different, these tests are not reliable, as their skin reacts only to a limited extent and no difference can be observed between mild and severe irritation. Which, of course, does not mean that they suffer less… In addition, there are differences between individual species: when testing anti-dandruff shampoo, rabbits reacted very strongly, while baboons are barely noticeable.
An alternative is testing on cultured skin, which would also give reliable results.

How much substance penetrates the skin: These tests are used to determine if a substance can penetrate so deep that it enters the bloodstream and thus the whole body. It is performed as described above, but the uncertainty is very high here, as the difference in absorption of the substance is as much as 5 times between individual species of animals and humans.

Allergy testing: the likelihood of developing an allergy is tested. There are as many as 15 species of these tests and each requires as many as 20 to 40 animals !!! The substance is applied several times in a row to bare or even damaged skin, usually in a few times too high doses to be able to get a realistic estimate at all. In addition, of course, there are big differences between the reactions of different species of animals and humans.

Phototoxicity and photosensitivity: this is a test of skin reactions to chemicals under the influence of UV rays and light. Guinea pigs, mice, rats and rabbits are the most common victims of these tests. The irritating substance is applied to shaved skin. The results are skin irritation and redness, skin irritation, rash and swelling. In addition to the fact that the reaction on the skin of each animal and human is different, these results are also not recognized by international standards. So why implement them at all?

Carcinogenicity: Tests are usually performed on rats and mice. Not because they would respond to such substances much like humans, but because they are practical: small and cheap. These carcinogens apply to them everywhere: on the skin, under the skin, in the body… The value of these tests is very limited, because too high doses are used here to get a realistic estimate, and it takes quite some time for cancer to develops. However, the differences between the reactions of these animals and humans were one of the biggest, as the results of animal tests were similar to the reactions of humans in only 37% of cases!

Effects on reproductive ability: substances that are used only on the skin and there is almost no possibility of them being ingested in large quantities should not be tested at all.

Testing whether a substance can affect the mutilation of offspring: these tests are very expensive, time-consuming and unreliable. Eg a substance causes congenital mutilation in humans at a concentration of 0.5 mg / kg body weight, and in rabbits 30 mg / kg! In addition, aspirin causes deformity in rats, mice, cats, dogs, and monkeys, but not in humans.

Testing the effectiveness of the final product: in the vast majority of cases, the effectiveness of the final product can be determined on the basis of tests of the individual ingredients it contains. As many as four European countries have banned such testing, namely Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Alternative methods
For all these tortures of helpless animals, of course, there are alternative methods. These methods are very effective and reliable for testing both cosmetic and household products, as well as for other tests and trials. In addition, they are usually shorter and significantly cheaper, and they are not disturbed due to different results between different species of animals and other disturbing factors. If we take cancer experiments as an example: animal testing can take up to 8 years, the results are very unreliable and cost $ 400,000. The same test with alternative methods is completed in a few days, the results we get are accurate and cost only 200 to 4,000 US dollars!

These methods include in-vitro tests, computer simulations, data from tests already performed (so as not to duplicate tests), and with the help of volunteers. Thus, the Eytex method has been adopted for testing eye irritants, in which instead of applying harmful substances to animals in forcibly opened eyes, they grow the necessary tissue on the membrane and apply the irritant to it and observe changes. In addition to this, some other in vitro methods are available. Skintex, Corrositex, Testskin…, use of dead and animal skin, cultured or cloned skin and other tissues from cell and other cultures, with the help of Corrositex volunteers, are used to test photosensitivity, skin absorption rate and other skin tests. is an in vitro method that uses a protein membrane that is designed to react like human skin. This method gives results in just a few hours and one test costs only $ 100. The Eytex and Skintex methods (also called the Irritation Assay System) can be used to test as many as 5,000 different substances.
Then we have computer and mathematical simulations based on the physical and chemical structures and properties of matter. These are very clear and precise. But various methods in the field of molecular biology, biochemistry… In short, the possibilities do not run out.

From all that has been written, we can therefore conclude that TESTING ON ANIMALS IS NEITHER NECESSARY OR ACCEPTABLE from an ethical, scientific, health or economic point of view. Just why should these creatures suffer so much if we have a myriad of other methods available that are significantly faster, more reliable, and even cheaper? In short, there is NO apology.

More than 2,500 scientists sign: Intensive agriculture is destroying our nature!

Populations of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects across Europe are declining sharply due to harmful intensive farming practices. Europe’s leading scientists are therefore calling on the European Union to reform the currently destructive Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and, consequently, to halt its, often irreversible, eradication of nature.

Organizations across Europe and beyond, represented by 2,500 scientists, addressed the European Parliament for the first time today in an open letter. The letter emphasizes the common scientific recognition that the growing loss of biodiversity is strongly linked to the intensification of agriculture, adding that the European Union should adapt agricultural policy, currently a key driver of nature destruction, to climate change and biodiversity loss in the future.

At present, the citizens of the European Union pay almost € 60 billion in taxes for the payment of subsidies under the common agricultural policy, most of which finances intensive and industrial agriculture. However, this type of farming model directly leads to the loss of biodiversity, water and air pollution, excessive water abstraction, a drastic increase in pesticide use and contributes to the climate crisis.

In a letter to scientists agree that the aforementioned way of farming has led to a steep decline in European populations of farmland birds. The latter was between 1980 and 2015 is more than 55%. Similar trends have been detected in other plant and animal species that are tied to the agricultural landscape. In nature reserves Germany has been in 27 years, recorded a 76% decline in populations of insects. The above trends are worrying, because they are less numerous existing population more vulnerable to extinction. The key reasons for the decline of biodiversity in the agricultural landscape, the scientists exposed the removal of certain landscape elements (eg. Hedges and trees), the use of pesticides, the spread of irrigation systems and the loss of grazing land.

In support letter to Harriet Bradley, associate in the field of agricultural policy, BirdLife Europe, he says: “Scientific evidence speak for themselves – intensive farming kills nature. If the common agricultural policy will comprehensively amended – if we do not make room for nature – then the promise of the Green agreement for Europe in relation to biodiversity and the climate just empty words on paper have one additional

Why is a ketone diet dangerous?

Not all gold shines: not only will it not give you lasting results, a ketone diet can potentially harm your health. While the world is crazy about the star-studded diet, and Instagram is flooded with #keto tags, check out the facts on why the ketone diet is NOT good.

Stars such as Halle Berry and Kourtney Kardashian swear by the ketone diet, which in 2017 also ranked among the top ten most searched diets on Google. A ketone diet is based on causing a condition in the body called ketosis. It is a metabolic process in which the body prefers to consume fat instead of its favorite source of energy, sugar. Fans of this low-calorie and high-fat diet boast that they have more energy, less appetite and fairly stable weight loss – all while chewing bacon, heavy cream and butter.

It was invented in hospitals

The ketone diet is used in hospitals as a nutritional therapy for the seriously ill, in whom all medications have failed. This diet represents the last hope for difficult neurological patients and is carried out under strict medical supervision. There are many studies that confirm that the ketone diet is successful in treating some devastating neurological diseases. But how does it work in the long run for the average person who wants to lose weight and live a healthy life?

Let’s first look at how it works…

In the ketone diet, carbohydrates make up only 10 percent of all daily calories and 20 percent protein. The remaining 70 percent of the calories we consume during the day are derived from fats. Our body produces energy for its functioning mainly from carbohydrates and when we reduce their intake greatly, it begins to consume glucose, which is stored in the muscles as glycogen. We need to know that about three grams of water are bound to one gram of glycogen, which means that with this diet we do not actually lose weight, but mainly water.

When someone loses a few pounds in just one week with the help of a ketone diet, it is because they have most likely lost a lot of fluid and not fat, so the result is not lasting. Many use a ketone diet in combination with an extremely low-calorie diet of less than 1000 calories a day, so it is sometimes difficult to determine what caused weight loss in a particular case.

What are the consequences of a ketone diet?

You don’t have to be a scientist to figure out: if we stick to a ketone diet in the long run, it can be potentially very harmful, as long-term consumption of saturated fats doesn’t benefit our heart in any way. Not to mention how boring it is to eat only coconut oil and butter for months and months! A ketone diet can quickly cause constipation, but in the long run it weakens the immune system and increases the risk of bowel cancer.

In addition, following a long-term ketone diet takes away all the joy of life: who can plan anything with others, go on vacation or dinner without putting in a mouthful of more carbohydrates than prescribed by this strict diet? So this diet robs us of many pleasures in life, not to mention the joy of food and a healthy lifestyle. The next time someone crosses your path, convincing you that the ketone diet is the right thing to do, a bit of common sense will not be superfluous.


Shops are becoming more and more stocked with vegan products, and restaurants are trying to add as many vegan dishes as possible to attract more and more vegans to our places. We find loads of vegan recipes and tips online that give all kitchen enthusiasts new challenges. For many people, these things help a lot in the transition, because suddenly it is no longer impossible to find a vegan restaurant, or at least a restaurant with a vegan offer. even lifestyle, as diet is only one part of a vegan life.

However, with this increase, we occasionally witness various conflicts in society. Journalists are very happy to report on this or that protest, especially if it is the occupation of a farm in the middle of Ljubljana or a protest rally in front of a delicacy in a shopping center. While reporting on veganism is good in principle, in these incidents I always wonder if such acts are good for the whole movement in the long run or not. Far from claiming that I disagree with the argument put forward by the protesters, I also admire their courage to dare to expose themselves in this way. I must say, however, that I have not yet met a vegan who would say that he opted for veganism because he witnessed such a protest. Maybe there really is one, but there is certainly a much higher proportion of those who saw the whole thing as a personal attack on their way of life. As a result, these people come to know veganism as something that is directed against them, and you need to have a lot of luck in the debate with such a person, because for them the matter is decided. Unfortunately, the media mostly only covers such things, and you rarely hear stories about the positive aspects of veganism. In most cases, when the topic of conversation is vegan, sooner or later questions arise about this or that protest, because people who do not know much about veganism do not know anything else. If I were to express support for the occupation of farms in such a situation, the conversation would be over immediately, and all my arguments already stated would be null and void. By doing so, veganism is placed on the fringes of society and shows people a picture of incompatibility.

Our task, in my opinion, should be to promote a vegan lifestyle by example. And that must include respect for fellow human beings. Who am I to accuse someone of being a bad person because he lives a life like he was taught from a young age and veganism is unknown and foreign to him? Such things should be dealt with systemically, which unfortunately requires political will. This political will will be hard to find if public opinion on veganism is negative, as there is no heroic politician who would risk his electoral base in order to support such a group.

Leather – the problem of today’s world

The production of leather products has a similar concept as the dairy industry, namely that it is a by-product of the meat industry. It is often assumed that leather is only a by-product of meat and that buying and wearing leather does not contribute to this industry. This is actually a misconception, as leather contributes to the profitability of the meat industry and animal husbandry, and much of the leather sold around the world comes from animals killed primarily because of their skin.

Unlike some animal ingredients, leather can usually be spotted quickly. It is found in clothing, shoes, belts, gloves, handbags and other accessories, and in jewelry. Unexpectedly, they can also appear on certain non-leather products, e.g. leather buckles on a canvas bag, or on a leather label on jeans. Leather is also often used for upholstered furniture (sofas, chairs, deck chairs, car seats).

Most leather is obtained from cowhides. Leather is also obtained from other animals; pigs, goats, sheep and lambs, cats and dogs, deer, moose, buffalo, oxen, horses, kangaroos, snakes, lizards, alligators, elephants, ostriches, fish, sharks, and even sharks are all among the victims in the leather industry . Products resulting from their deaths are commonly used as clothing and many of them are advertised as “exotic” materials.

Cows killed for their skins in the leather industry are exposed to unbearable pain; cutting, third-degree burns, tail and horn removal – all without painkillers. In slaughterhouses, they are often cut up and skinned while they are still alive.

Pigs killed for their skins spend their lives overcrowded in dirty cells and most of them never see the light of day. Their testicles are cut out of their testicles, their tails are cut off, their teeth are cut in half, their ears are mutilated – all without painkillers. Many pigs are steamed alive in cisterns with boiling water to make their skins softer and hairless.

Millions of kangaroos are shot every year in Australia because of their skins. According to the proposal of the Australian government, orphaned young and wounded adult kangaroos should be killed by beheading or shot in the head in order to “destroy the brain”. When hunters kill a kangaroo mother with a kitten in a bag, they simply pull the puppy out of the bag of the mother’s dead body and walk it to death or let it die in pain.

Despite its prevalence, leather is easy to replace with either natural or synthetic alternatives such as e.g. cotton, hemp, rubber, acrylic fibers, artificial leather.

And what are new vegans supposed to do with the leather items they already have at home? Many firmly believe that the only appropriate measure for these items is a decent burial. After all, these are the body parts of once living beings.

Veganism: what to eat and what are the benefits?

Vegan diets have become very popular and more and more people are opting for veganism for ethical, environmental or health reasons. If done properly, such a diet can have a number of health benefits, including weight loss and improved blood sugar control. At the same time, a diet based solely on plant foods can increase the risk of nutrient deficiencies.

What is a vegan diet?

The vegan diet, which excludes all animal products, including meat, eggs and dairy products, has gained in popularity in recent years. The reasons why someone chooses this diet are different. They can be ethical, ecological or health. And while a vegan diet based solely on plant foods can have many benefits, in some cases, nutrient deficiencies can occur. Therefore, it is very important that you decide to consult your personal physician and nutritionist before deciding to become vegan, who will be able to advise you on what your diet should be to provide your body with all the nutrients it needs. Namely, a poorly planned vegan diet in some cases does not provide sufficient amounts of vitamin B12, niacin, riboflavin (vitamin B2), vitamin D, calcium, iodine, selenium or zinc.

What do vegans eat?

Vegans replace animal products with plant foods and foods such as:

Tofu, tempeh and seitan

Soy and wheat gluten substitutes are high in protein.


Foods such as beans, lentils and peas are an excellent source of many nutrients and beneficial plant compounds.


Especially unbleached and unroasted varieties, which are a good source of iron, fiber, magnesium, zinc, selenium and vitamin E.


Especially hemp, chia and flax seeds, which contain a good amount of protein and beneficial omega-3 fatty acids.

Plant types of milk and yoghurts enriched with calcium.

They help vegans achieve the recommended calcium intake in their diet. It is good to choose varieties that are also enriched with vitamins B12 and D.


Spirulina and chlorella are excellent sources of whole protein and iodine.

Whole grains, cereals and pseudo-cereals

They are an excellent source of complex carbohydrates, fiber, iron, B vitamins and many minerals. Pir, tef, amaranth and quinoa are especially rich in protein.

Hardened and fermented plant foods

Ezekiel bread, tempeh, miso, natto, sauerkraut, pickles, kimchi and kombucha often contain probiotics and vitamin K2. Germination and fermentation can improve mineral absorption.

Fruits and vegetables

Eating fruits and vegetables is also a great way to increase your nutrient intake. Leafy vegetables such as spinach, kale, watercress are especially rich in iron and calcium …

Different types of vegan diet

There are different versions of the vegan diet, the most common being:

A vegan diet with whole foods is based on a wide range of wholesome plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds.

A raw vegan diet is based on raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds or plant foods cooked at temperatures below 48 degrees.

The 80/10/10 diet is a vegan diet with raw foods that limits the intake of high-fat foods such as nuts and avocados, and relies primarily on raw fruits and soft greens.

The starch-free diet is a vegan diet low in fat and high in carbohydrates, similar to 80/10/10, but instead of fruit it focuses on cooked starch such as potatoes, rice and corn.

Raw food up to 4 is a low-fat vegan diet inspired by the 80/10/10 diet and the starch-free diet. Raw food is enjoyed until 4pm, with the option of a cooked meal for dinner.

Junk food is a vegan diet without wholesome plant foods that relies heavily on meat substitutes and vegan cheeses, fries, vegan desserts, and other highly processed meatless foods.

The benefits of a vegan diet

A vegan diet is supposed to help lower blood sugar and improve kidney function.

Several studies have shown that a vegan diet is usually richer in fiber, antioxidants, beneficial plant compounds, potassium, magnesium, folic acid, and vitamins A, C, and E.

Several studies suggest that a vegan diet can help reduce the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, including pain, swollen joints, and morning stiffness. These benefits may be due to higher levels of antioxidants, probiotics and fiber in the vegan diet, as well as a lack of certain foods that cause this pain.

It can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Vegans tend to have lower blood sugar and higher insulin sensitivity, and may have a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

May reduce the risk of heart disease. According to some research, vegans have up to a 75% lower risk of developing high blood pressure compared to vegetarians and a 42% lower risk of dying from heart disease. A vegan diet is also effective in lowering LDL (bad) cholesterol and total cholesterol levels.

animal experiments-why?

What are animal experiments

Animal experiments are horrifying, painful and deadly. Animals are exposed to unimaginable suffering and pain, they live in fear, shock, they are helpless and frightened. The consequences are long-term, with most attempts causing extreme suffering that often ends in the death of the animal. Even when not directly exposed to tests, animals suffer from loneliness, fear, pain, complete isolation, lack of food and water, in laboratory cages or. metal containers. After the experiments, the animals are usually killed.

When reality is scarier than fiction

The “Draize” test is used to test eye and skin irritation, especially in the cosmetics industry. Completely immobilized animals apply the chemical directly to the eye. In experiments, rabbits are most often used because they form very few tears, which prevents the test substance from being washed out of the eye. The staff then monitors the eye’s response to the substance for a longer period (up to 7 days). The animals do not receive any painkillers. In this way, cleaners, shampoos, pesticides and weed killers are most commonly tested. To test for skin irritation, the animal is picked up and the substance applied to the bare skin and reactions monitored. Despite various reactions – from swelling to inflammation and ulcers – animals do not receive any painkillers.

LD50 test. The abbreviation LD stands for “lethal dose” – a lethal amount, and 50 indicates a one-time amount of a substance needed to kill 50% of all animals abused in an experiment. The test is most often performed by inserting a tube into the animal’s throat, through which the animals then inject a toxic substance. Other methods of implication include injection, forced inhalation of vapors and application of the substance to animal skin. The LD50 test is performed on rabbits, rats, mice, birds, fish, dogs and monkeys. LD50 is widely used to test the toxicity of household products (eg cleaners), pesticides, cosmetics, medicines, weed killers. Animals can be tortured for up to 14 days. Any execution out of pity can affect the test result, so it is not performed.

Vivisection is a research method that uses live animals for biomedical development. Animal testing is mandatory by law for any substance or medicine before it is placed on the market. The citizens’ initiative “Stop Vivisection!” Is currently underway. – an initiative by European citizens calling for the repeal of a specific European directive on the protection of animals. If you are interested in more, you can find the information on the website: http://www.stopvivisection.eu/en/content/faq.

Animals are not only abused in institutions for experimental purposes, but are also subjected to inappropriate treatment and neglect. Daniel B. Moskowitz reports a case from Harvard University, specifically from the New England Primate Research Center, where a monkey died in June 2010 because he was forgotten in a cage sent to the dishwasher. Since then, four more monkeys have died in the same institution due to neglect. The latter was euthanized in February 2012 due to severe, fatal dehydration. This is not an isolated case.

The purpose of animal experiments

The main purposes of animal experiments are:

acquisition of basic biological knowledge,

basic medical research,

research and development of medicines,

toxicity testing of drugs, other chemicals and chemical products,


On 11 March 2013, following 23 years of efforts by the European Association for the Prohibition of Animal Testing and other organizations, the EU finally banned the sale of any cosmetics or ingredients tested on animals, including those produced outside the EU.

Which animals are the most common victims of experiments


(SOURCE: REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, Sixth statistical report on the number of animals abused for experimental and other scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union SEC (2010) 1107, Brussels, 8.12.2010)

Rodents, including rabbits, account for more than 80% of abused animals for animal experiments (white mice – 59% and rats – 17%). They are followed by:

cold-blooded animals: fish, reptiles and amphibians (9.6%),

birds (6.3%),

cattle, horses, donkeys and hybrids, pigs, goats, sheep (1.4%),

carnivores (0.3%) – mostly, but not exclusively, cats and dogs,

animal primates (0.08)%.

The total number of animals abused for experimental and other scientific purposes in the EU is over 12 million.


According to data from the VARS website, a total of 41,600 animals were abused in experiments between 2007 and 2010, mostly mice (33,159), rats (7,031) and rabbits (926). For the purpose of basic biological research, 5,468 animals were abused, for research and development of products and resources for human medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine (excluding toxicity and other safety assessments) 9,630 animals, for the manufacture and quality control of products and resources for human medicine and dentistry 21,613 animals, for the manufacture and quality control of veterinary products and devices 972 animals, for toxicity assessments and other safety assessments (including safety assessment of products and devices for human medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine) 2,855 animals and for disease diagnosis, education and training and other, undefined purposes a total of 1,062 animals.

http://stoptestinghouseholdproductsonanimals.com/info/ld50test (11-04-13)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/reports_en.htm (10/04/2013)

http://stoptestinghouseholdproductsonanimals.com/info/ld50test (11-04-13)

Moskowitz, Daniel B. (2012): Harvard Halts Animal Research After Fourth Primate Death, http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Harvard-Halts-Animal-Research-After-Fourth-Primate-Death/biotechniques-327669. html (11-04-13)

Taylor, Katy et al. (2008): Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005; in: ATLA, no. 36, 327-342; http://www.animalexperiments.info/resources/Studies/Animal-numbers/Worldwide/Global-nos-Taylor-et-al-2008-ATLA.pdf (11-04-13)

Reasons for veganism-if you didn’t know

Do you know what binds Tobey Maguire who played Spiderman, actress Mayim Hoya Bialik from The Big Bang Theory, singer Ariana Grande and athlete Carl Lewis? They all made the decision to eat vegan. Veganism is spreading across the planet. Millions of people today are vegans, and thousands of people join them every week. Be one of them!

There are many reasons for veganism: it is healthy, it is good for our planet, it helps reduce the number of hungry people in the world, it is good for animals and it is very tasty! Changing our diet is the best way to show that we care about animals and to oppose cruelty to animals.

Anyone who is vegan can rightly be proud because it contributes to their health, the environment, the well-being of other people and saves the lives of animals. By not buying animal meat, eggs, dairy products and products of animal origin, you show your compassion for everyone around you. The most important thing is what each of us can do to make the world a better place. To Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The time is always ripe to do something good.”

Can a consumer society become responsible for animals, their own health and the environment?

Slaughterhouses are death factories. We all know they exist. Those who buy their products support them to continue their work. Slaughterhouses are not to blame for killing animals, livestock farmers are not to blame, for them it is just a matter of survival. It is the fault of the consumers to whom this business is provided. How to make changes in consumer society, how to raise consumer awareness, make them critical and create a fairer society for people and animals?

The problem with violence in modern societies is that it is systemic. This means that violence is embedded in society and its functioning, such as violence against the environment, migrants, the economically weak and, of course, animals. Simply put: if you want to buy tomatoes, you’ll have a hard time getting them without plastic packaging; if you flee to a safer country as a victim of war and want to work honestly there, you will not get a work permit; and if you’re hungry, you won’t get a vegan sandwich at the gas station. Violence is systemic and thus normalized – it seems that “it cannot be otherwise than it is”, that “we will not be able to change anything” and even that it is so “right”.

Let’s look at this problem in a different way: we humans are mostly very kind to each other today. We greet each other nicely if we accidentally walk to the store, apologize politely, write kind mail, and even if someone gets on our nerves, we are patient. So the problem is not interpersonal relationships, but the system. A system that produces butchers, both butchers and professional soldiers, who are then burdened with “ugly work”, losing the responsibility of the individual consumer. A lot of people say, “It’s not just me doing this. Everyone does that. If it weren’t for me, it would be for others. ”In this way, we transfer the responsibility to professional life-takers, and we wash our hands, saying that they are to blame for everything and we are to blame for nothing. But in reality, people who pursue these professions are often victims themselves: victims of their demographic circumstances, as they usually do not even have the right career choice for economic or perhaps some other reason.

In fact, I myself am convinced that the prospects in terms of increasing systematization and automation of violence are poor. In my opinion, civilization will increasingly resort to devices that will do ugly work instead of man. This can already be seen today: large farms with tens of thousands of animals can be managed, so to speak, remotely, without humans, just as we can shoot people from drones on another continent. I see a great danger for humanity in the process, which will increasingly leave killing to robots and automated devices, and thus encourage it, as it will somehow sweep it under the rug. I am convinced that in ten or twenty years there will be no more people employed in slaughterhouses, except, of course, operators of fully automated conveyor belts, who will not have any physical contact with “livestock”. How to change that? As far as animals are concerned, the story is very simple: stop eating meat and use as few animal products as possible. As far as the military industry is concerned, unfortunately, I do not see such a simple solution on the horizon

The importance of values

We are part of a consumer company that approves of all of the above. Every society is made up of individuals and many disagree with the generally accepted practice of the Holocaust over animals. What values ​​does an individual need to develop in order to be touched by such events, to understand that it is about killing innocent animals, to finally realize that this is not right? How are these values ​​formed?

I think that the problem is not that we do not have or know these values, but that we put them in brackets, precisely because the above-mentioned systematization and automation of violence allows us to escape from direct cruelty we effectively distance ourselves and at the same time avoid responsibility. People say, “Ah, since this sausage is on the shelf anyway, why not eat it?” ). They also say what I mentioned above: “What can I do? If I don’t eat chicken, someone else will! ”Another way: there is no problem with slaughter and suffering not touching us – everyone, except for a really negligible percentage of the pathological population, is slaughter accompanied by blood, dying and the screaming of animals, a force disgusting, so he wants to avoid it. The problem is that smart monkeys have invented a way to force others who are less fortunate into ugly work to do it for us, while connecting a bandage over our heads that prevents us from seeing and hearing bad things. around us so we can dine on our steak in peace with musical accompaniment. It is a phenomenon I call “intentional ignorance.” My thesis is that the problem in ethics is not a lack of information and empathy, but the deliberate avoidance of information and the learned restraint of compassion or numbness.

Extending compassion to all animals

Those of us who have dogs and cats at home find it easier to imagine the suffering of farm animals. We know how to empathize with them and we know how they feel when cruel livestock practices happen to them, e.g. when mother cows are deprived of a newborn calf, when they have to die so young, they would like to live… What about those who have no contact with animals? How should you extend your compassion to all animals?

I see a problem here. Namely: if I have pets, I may be more susceptible to the direct suffering of other animals, but the problem is that I put a blindfold around my eyes again and give these pets these slaughtered animals as food… This is a great moral for me personally. a dilemma as I am a big dog lover. In short: I think those of us who have pets have the same problem as those who do not extend their compassion to animals. Sorry. We just have to be consistent in our thinking and admit everything, even what we don’t want to hear and know. The fact is, however, that the planned breeding of large dogs that eat large amounts of meat is just as problematic as human consumption of meat. I try to compensate for this at least a little by having chihuahuas… But the paradox that on the one hand we are lovers of domestic animals – especially dogs and cats – among those who do not extend compassion to all animals, remains and is not so easy to solve … Of course I understand that dogs and cats do not have the same dietary choices as humans do. They just need meat more. However, this fact does not justify the systematic breeding of such animals. Rescuing them from shelters may still be somehow compatible with the idea of animal ethics, as we help survive creatures that were born by chance and are just here with us in the world. However, producing such creatures that have to eat other animals for their own pleasure and prestige is almost even more controversial than if we simply ate the meat ourselves. The institution of the “pet” is so full of traps and very enigmatic moral dilemmas, including the objectification and commodification of animals, which in the eyes of the owner often becomes a toy, which in my opinion contributes little to the actual moral attitude towards all living beings. After all, we all know the scandals with dog dealers and the conditions in which these animals live – and die -. All because of our “love” for small, fluffy, cute lumps… In short, the path to compassion for all living things is sometimes more a matter of rational argumentation than partial feelings, which are unreliable because they are attracted to what is here and close, meanwhile when they forget the distant and the hidden, which are precisely the animals in industrial meat production.

Overcome selfishness and comfort

Many people are selfish and think only of their own comfort. Is it even possible to move you out of your comfort zone?

I don’t know if I can totally agree with that. I think the appearance of being selfish creates just a distance from violence, that we have deliberately distanced ourselves from anything that would cause discomfort. Namely, if we personally witness some bad things, such as an accident, the vast majority will help us spontaneously, even though we will be at a “loss” because of it. In short, egoism may be in the fact that we close our eyes. However, I doubt that we can say that when we are faced with concrete situations, we are also completely insensitive. These may be just certain soldiers and police officers who are pre-trained in such a way that they must not show compassion, even though there are more benefactors and soft-hearted people than brutalists in these types – I am sure. People are people and it is difficult to find someone with a stone instead of a heart. These are only rare pathological specimens. The problem, as has been said, is that we are systematically hiding violence. Look, after all, how the system has eliminated aging and dying people from our lives, who exhale quietly and silently in overcrowded nursing homes, so that their slowness and the end of life do not “spoil” the youthful atmosphere that our culture favors. . It’s not that we don’t like older people as persons; the point is that the system is set up in such a way that it easily excludes the elderly from the fast pace of today’s life.

Transcend traditions, customs and religious practices

Ingrained traditions, customs and harmful religious practices (eg on religious holidays, when – despite the commandment Do not kill! – most animals are killed) we have lived since childhood. What needs to happen for us to be able to critically reevaluate and transcend them?

I have a feeling that these practices have less to do with religion than with the simple customs that are intertwined with consumerism today. You yourself have pointed out the unbearable tension between principles and practice, between the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill!’ And religious customs. But as I said, this is, in my opinion, a matter of habit rather than religion. I know a lot of religious people who don’t eat meat or avoid it very much – they are usually really religious, deeply religious people. Perhaps customs are actually followed more by those who do not think much about religion and basic religious messages and understand their “faithfulness” more in terms of blindly following habits.

But you ask me how we can overcome this integration into the environment and customs… Perhaps the answer to this critical thinking or critical revaluation you mention. Of course, this immediately raises the question of what makes such thinking possible. In my experience, this is on the one hand courage, and on the other hand a social climate that at least allows deviation from the average if it is not already actively encouraging it. In a society where there is strong conformism, ie the pressure to adapt to others, it will be very difficult to develop critical thinking, as this will mean isolation for anyone who dares to do something a little differently. However, if we create such conditions to promote diversity, then it is easier. I am a lecturer myself and in the lecture hall the difference is immediately seen between a teacher who wants everyone to agree with him and one who accepts different opinions. Only in the latter can we hope for the emergence of critical thinking, because only there will people get the feeling that they will be accepted even if they think differently and that no one will judge them for it. It is important, in short, to try to allow ourselves to be different, even though it often goes to our noses and even though we are sacredly convinced that we are “more right”. Of course, this is much easier said than done: I find myself practically daily in my own confusion…

Animal education system and ethics

Given that children are extremely compassionate towards animals, we can talk about child abuse. Parents, school, and society make emotional robots out of them out of compassion. This could also be prevented in schools, but even these are only a reflection of society. However, when they are taken to livestock farms in schools, they only further strengthen the belief that the exploitation and killing of animals is normal. What do you think the school or. what can teachers do to preserve children’s compassion for other living beings and to raise awareness of animal rights?

Above all, we need to focus on teacher education. I teach myself at the Faculty of Education and it’s really amazing how stereotypically future teachers and educators sometimes think about animals. Often the activity for kindergarten children is to take them to the farm, where the farmer then explains “what” is an animal, and no one even notices that we are the ones who “made” animals for food and that it could be otherwise. Anthropocentrism, according to which everything in the world is for the benefit of man, is a very widespread view and sneaks into every pore of life. Already at the level of picture books and toys for the youngest children. Think, for example, of toys in the sense of “farm” – in addition to the barn, tractor and tools, there are also chickens, pigs and cows in the packaging, as if in this case it is the same as in the first one. We already teach children with toys what “farmed animals” are for. In this way, we socialize children into violence against animals. Gene Myers has successfully shown that younger children are more empathetic to pigs and cows than older ones, because we already teach older people what cows and pigs are “for” and that it is perfectly normal to slaughter billions of them. summer. These are exactly the systematization and distancing from violence that I talked about earlier.

Much like prejudice against animals, it is prejudice against people. In fact, specism (discrimination based on type) and racism are very similar. Sometimes geography is taught in such a way as to show, say, the difference between Slovenia and Africa, without even noticing that the former is a country of two million and the latter of a billion continent! How the hell can you even compare the two? This is much worse than comparing apples and pears – it is more like comparing apples with the whole fruit and vegetable department, and with household appliances on top, or comparing one color with a rainbow that contains all the others. Absurd… In fact, this is the same as finding the differences between “man” and “animal”, not noticing at all that we have one species on one side and 7.77 million species on the other, many of which are more human-like. than each other. Such teaching is possible only and exclusively because of prejudice, and it is unfortunate that these prejudices in educational institutions are sometimes reinforced rather than disintegrated. You see, that is why it is so important that we have quality teacher education and that we work with colleagues at pedagogical faculties to open the eyes of future teachers at least a little and make them aware of what they uncritically accept from the environment and then spread. in classrooms.

Political system

Radical changes in society could be made by the politicians or state bodies we elect (especially the National Assembly and the Government). We should take the right decisions to promote health, promote healthy plant nutrition for citizens at all levels and shift state subsidies from the livestock sector to organic plant farming. The fact is, however, that the political orientation of politicians and their subordination to lobbies (especially livestock) under the guise of profit are often more important than the common public good. Probably only determined politicians could resist this. What personal qualities should politicians have in order to do more for the common good? How should we recognize them before the elections?

I personally think that it is better for politics if it is not based on strong and charismatic personalities, but on sober, rational arguments and conscientious, diligent and responsible officials. I would rather have quiet and collected political speeches than performances, as we can see in our National Assembly, where we really witness below-average rhetoric – I can’t imagine what it would be like if, for example, I lectured at such a low level of speech. I think students would justifiably leave the lecture hall… Well, I want to say that politics should be guided by arguments, not charisma. For charisma is a double-edged sword: if you are lucky, a strong, hard, relentless charismatic politician will stand up for the right things, but what if you don’t have it? Then you will have to deal with all sorts of Trump, Putin, Erdogan and similarly suspicious personalities who are not committed to the right things. In fact, it will happen to you much sooner that a charismatic person will be charismatic in the wrong, populist way. Think about how many historical political figures were charismatic in the “right” way. Maybe Gandhi, Mandela and Luther King – I don’t remember the fourth, and the third was more of a preacher than a politician. However, it is as problematic as you want… You do not get to know a good politician after his performance, but after a political program that you read carefully and shake. The less bombastic promises there are and the more arguments you find there, the better. I think Merkel is a good politician precisely because she is not bombastic and because she is quiet, committed and sober. Now compare her to Salvini. Disaster… So: don’t trust quick feelings! Rely only on arguments!

In short, sobriety is needed in politics, but also more foresight than it is today, but by no means appearances and promises. The problem of profit and capital flow that you mention is related to foresight. If we were far-sighted, of course, we would not hesitate to switch to a plant-based diet, and livestock farming would be just a sample. Now, however, we are forging earnings at the expense of future generations by throwing manure on the shoulders of another. In general, it seems to me that this is the main injustice of forging today’s profits: the cost of production in terms of the absorption of by-products is simply externalized and placed on the shoulders of others. It would be right for those who pollute the environment the most to pay for it… I myself mentioned in my book that the problem with implementing animal ethics is that its ideas are detrimental to the millions of financial flows that will need to be redirected. Of course, this is not impossible – money turns quickly – but it will take some time and effort. Again, a significant part of the responsibility for this lies with the consumer. Someone once said that in democratic societies, we don’t just have elections once every four years, but every time we go to the store. We actually vote with what we buy.

The media

We know that the media have an enormous influence on shaping public opinion, and they depend on the capital that finances them. Therefore, in the meantime, the state should intervene and ban harmful advertisements that mislead and direct people away from health, environmental protection and animal welfare. Any advertisement for animal products should be warned that this is harmful to health, similar to tobacco products. Do you think that such a measure of the state would guide people on the right path?

No. I think that such state interference in the lives of individuals is a very bad idea, as it smells of totalitarianism and ideological control of citizens. Personally, I am against the persecution of smokers and I do not see why I would then advocate an institutionalized persecution against those who eat meat. All these arguments of “health” are very suspicious to me personally and smell of moralizing, of puritanism, of ideological purity. After that, the “unhealthy” need to be cut off. Already Foucault has shown how dangerous state interference in people’s bodies can be in order to ensure “health”. This was done, among other things, by the Nazis, who wanted to have a “healthy” population.

The main feature of the notion of the state after the new century is that its task is not to help people achieve good, but to protect citizens from evil. Although the two seem very similar, they are in fact a big difference. The first understanding of the state presupposes that we know what is good for people and that we also prescribe it to them by law. Another way: it assumes that we impose our view of happiness on others, e.g. in the form of a “healthy lifestyle” or “utility”. This, as history has taught us, is very bad: just look at the religious wars in seventeenth-century Europe, where each side was convinced that it knew what was good for the other. A related problem today, in my opinion, is that part of the Islamic world that is fundamentalist and conservative, where in endless civil wars each side claims to know what true doctrine is and is consequently imposed by others who misunderstand the Prophet. . Of course, it is true that there are often strategic and financial interests behind these wars, but we cannot ignore the fact that they are justified by a “true interpretation” of religion. It seems to me that this is a general problem of monotheism, which, due to its insistence on the “true and only God”, is easily radicalized. Much better than imposing our view on healthy living, we simply leave the pursuit of happiness to the individual to decide for himself whether he wants to live healthy, faithful and useful or not, and we make sure that no one interferes in his choice of happiness. So I think it’s much better to simply write in the constitution that ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE PROPERTY – in this way we don’t rape people with our ideas about what is “good”, “healthy” and “useful” to them, but only we protect animals from violence or encroachment on their well-being

Deficient ethics

The anthropocentric attitude towards farm animals shows the extremely moral shallowness of society and citizens, as they do not understand that animals are sentient living beings who want to live just like us. What we cause them as a society is completely unnecessary, because it does not only harm animals, but also the environment or. the planet as a whole, and through unhealthy diets to yourself and your health. How could society change to prevent this from happening? Who are the actors who would contribute to this?

As I said, I don’t think it’s about not wanting to understand that, it’s about avoiding that understanding. Everyone knows that a cow and a pig feel pain. You will not find a person in his right mind to doubt this. At best, people think that the slaughter process is painless, although in my opinion they do not believe in it at all: they know that they are fleeing from the truth.

Who can change society? I think you can do it yourself, because we are the company after all. People who enjoy a social reputation, of course, have a special power, as they can be role models, and from Bandura onwards, we have also been proven to know that people learn by example. But our celebrities are not necessarily the only celebrities. In fact, we are all a constant role model to each other. If, for example, someone in a family of four decides not to eat meat strictly, it will affect the whole family sooner or later, and it is very likely that the other three members will eat at least some less meat and save some lives. Cumulatively, the effect will be as if there were two vegetarians or vegans in the family. This may not seem like much, but grain by grain cake, stone by stone palace… I want to say that individuals, however, have a greater impact than we are aware of. Of course, it is true that we have to be very persistent and principled, which is certainly difficult, especially at the beginning of the path we have chosen, because at that time we are often lonely, often even isolated. It should be noted that many people who opt for a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, after a certain more or less long period, fall back into the carnivore regime. Why? Because their reasons were too weak, or because society with systemic violence is geared so that these reasons fade over time: if animal suffering is hidden and bad information is actively avoided, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember the original reasons why we gave up the meat diet.


If we were kind to all animals, we would have a good feeling, a clear conscience and a good opinion of ourselves as a person and of the society in which we live. We would know we are doing good for ourselves, for the animals and the planet. What else would you add to this thought?

In fact, it is difficult to add anything to this thought, except that in such a world we would also feel safer and more accepted. Among the more interesting facts, it seems to me that, for example, those who are among the most demographically endangered are almost the most anti-migrant – less educated, poorer, more vulnerable. The paradox is that it is precisely these people who would benefit most from the systematic defense of human rights, as they would have a solid foundation on which to base themselves when demanding more rights for themselves. That the violation of the rights of migrants is related to the violation of the rights of their own citizens can be clearly seen in Hungary, where the criminalization of refugees was followed by an attempt to criminalize the poorest and most vulnerable people – the homeless. In other words, human rights violations will always affect the most vulnerable first, so it would be most logical for them to come together and loudly defend strict adherence to international law on the fundamental rights of all. The same can be said by this logic for animal rights: in fact, defending animal rights also means defending human rights. Animal ethics is therefore not only “friendly” to animals, but to all beings. That being said, everyone would feel safer in such a world. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the arguments of those who argue that animal rights are defended at the expense of human rights and that people should be taken care of first, then animals. These people do not realize that the cause of the suffering of both humans and animals is very similar, and that eliminating it would actually eliminate the suffering of all.