Lierre Keith Gets a Cayenne Laced Pie in the Face During San Francisco Book Fair Speech

And here’s the gloating over it.

Bound Together Books and PM Press continue to try to prop up and foist veg*n antagonist Lierre Keith onto the radical community in the Bay Area. Today, at the 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Bookfair, where she was scheduled to be a featured speaker, Keith was served her just deserts for her obnoxious attacks on veg*ns in The vegetarian Myth. She was pied in the middle of her speech in the main auditorium at the SF County Fair Building in Golden Gate Park.

According to the various reports by eyewitnesses — many who have now commented at that link and condemned the actions of the three young "men" who assaulted Ms. Keith — she was just beginning the part of her speech critical of factory farming.

While I’m tempted to rage a bit about this and call names, I think the assault & battery speaks for itself and is an excellent representation of vegetarianism and veganism in general. They deserve those three "gentleman" as their standard bearers.

Here are my past posts about Lierre Keith and her excellent book, The Vegetarian Myth. It would be great to see a good spike in orders for her book, so if you’re inclined to help out, please do so. You can also listen to Lierre’s recent podcast interview with Jimmy Moore.

Update: Jimmy Moore has now published an extensive entry on this incident. And when I exchanged an email with Lierre last night, she echoed the same thing she wrote to Jimmy: that the worst part was hearing the cheers of onlookers in the audience as the assault took place. Shameful.

Update 2: Now Tom Naughton has weighed in.

Update 3: Lierre Keith responds. This is a 15-minute interview with Keith in the beginning of Jimmy Moor’s normally scheduled podcast for today.

Update 4: Comedian Tom Naughton has a new post on True Believerism using the attack on Keith as inspiration.

Update 5: A Local News report on the incident.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Dan Linehan on March 14, 2010 at 21:03

    1. Is there any actual evidence that there was Cayenne in the pie? The point of a pieing is generally to embarrass, not to cause harm.

    2. Lots of assumptions being thrown around about who did this. Do we know that the men were vegans? Lierre is also an anti-porn proponent, ) so it’s not like there aren’t other groups in SF that might be against her message.

    3. As far as the book being “excellent,” I always wonder if people who say that actually read it. She uses herself as a clinical example of just how unhealthy a vegan diet can be and yet she refuses to give the reader any data on what she ate, how much she ate, or how she lived. It sounds more like she starved herself. In a recent podcast she didn’t seek treatment until she was unable to climb a flight of stairs for months. Veganism is a complete strawman for her health (and mental health) issue.

  2. Sarah Madden on March 14, 2010 at 12:48

    This is utterly sickening. Lierre Keith is one of the most softly spoken person out there, this kind of action is the antithesis of her message.

    I hope she is ok, is there anyway of contacting her to offer a message of support.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 14, 2010 at 14:17

      Sarah, I believe Lierre has contact info on here website where the book link above goes to.

  3. Michael on March 14, 2010 at 13:00

    Ah yes, when our ideas can’t hold court, lets physically assault the person instead. Brilliant.

    • Jesrad on March 15, 2010 at 00:57

      Right, but only when the person is an old crippled lady. I guess any other sort of target would be too hard to chew for vegans.

  4. Sylvie O. on March 14, 2010 at 13:14

    But if I may play devil’s advocate for a moment, if this can help put her on the news and get more publicity for her book, so much the better…

    Although I agree that she doesn’t deserve such treatment.

    I wonder if anyone defending vegetarianism has ever been pied by omnivores? I would think this is unlikely.

    • Aaron M Fraser on March 14, 2010 at 17:41

      While I would not bring myself to their level, I would use a meat pie for sure.

      One could argue I was trying to save them from obvious malnourishment 😛


      I do agree with you – it is good publicity at least, and after reading her and Jensen’s work I can believe that she’s been anticipating this as an inevitability that she can use. Doesn’t make it suck any less, though.

      “First they ignore you.
      Then they laugh at you.
      Then they fight you.
      Then you win.”

    • Johnny on March 15, 2010 at 05:46

      What about hosing some blood in the face of a vegan speaker in a conference? How would they feel about that? Bringing a fucking fire truck filled with beef blood and smother a whole room of vegans with them. Better yet, do it on live TV.

      Now that would be vengeance.

      But I hope no one does this and goes down to the level of these vegan-nazi radicals. The hypocrisy of these lunatics is idiotic, I wouldn’t be surprised if they started suicide bombing animal farms, just do “end some pain”.

      A couple of quotes from the link:

      “Weston A. Price was a dentist who traveled the world measuring people’s noses to develop his own bizarre phrenological theories about what he called “primitive” peoples and nutrition.”

      “The pies used to attack Lierre Keith were heavily laced with hot pepper and effectively she was pepper sprayed in the eyes, etc.”

      • Leah on March 16, 2010 at 03:13

        That’s right, because a few radicals got out of hand and physically assaulted someone, let’s extrapolate and assume that all vegans are capable of mace-pieing someone in the face, and spray them with blood. While we’re at it, arrest all of them because they’re probably smoking weed and not paying taxes. And let’s burn down all churches because, you know, I’m sure someone in at least one of them will have an agenda that I don’t agree with! Actually, I’m too nonviolent to burn it down, so let’s go have gay premarital sex in a Church just to piss of everyone who is opposed to it.

        Grow up.

      • Ryan on March 21, 2010 at 13:39

        While I agree with you that violence doesn’t solve violence I’ve never met a vegan who wasn’t political about their food. Veganism = Politics. Paleo = Health

      • David on March 30, 2010 at 02:31

        I don’t know where you live or who you’ve met, but there are vegans who aren’t political about their food. I know some who are and some who aren’t. (Of course, you get different responses depending on why and how they are “vegan”.)

        I was a dietary vegan for a few years, and that ain’t easy. The personal attacks against you are frequent. Snarky comments are abundant. You deal with bizarre questions. (Ever had a morbidly obese person ask you if you get enough protein?)

        I haven’t met any over the top paleo dieters, but I have met plenty of obnoxious SAD people. And some worse general low-carbers.

        Apparently, this sort of sad behavior is all universal.

        For the record, I don’t find Keith’s book all that compelling. Parts of it are, but to me those parts aren’t anything new.

        She certainly didn’t deserve what happened. Obviously. And I feel quite sorry for her.

        American society has become very polarized. There’s so little discourse anymore. So be careful that you don’t stray into that territory yourself. Try to remember that a lot of vegans keep to themselves and are good, well-intentioned people.

      • Johnny from The Lean Saloon on March 21, 2010 at 17:10

        Good grief, Johnny… Your generalization of all vegans based on a three-person representation is as logical as someone saying that meat-eaters are as mad as Jeffrey Dahmer, Hannibal Lecter, and Ed Gein.

    • Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 17:20

      “I wonder if anyone defending vegetarianism has ever been pied by omnivores? I would think this is unlikely.”

      Are you serious? We’re a minority that is intensely disliked, disrespected, bullied, and ridiculed by a huge segment of the population. We don’t need a pie in the face.

      • Melissa on March 18, 2010 at 15:49

        Really being a vegan gets you bullied?
        Hhhmmm I was never bullied when I was a vegetarian at all.
        Interesting. In fact I never felt marginalized either.

      • David on March 30, 2010 at 02:33

        You were lucky. Very lucky.

        I’ve been there and was persecuted a lot.

        Depends on where you live and who you come into contact with.

  5. Trish on March 14, 2010 at 13:17

    Ooh, look at them being all edgy and shit. So fucking punk, man. Three against one, what bravery!

    • Ryan on March 21, 2010 at 13:43

      I agree, f-ing hipsters. My buddies wife is vegan. She’s also edgy and decided to stop shaving her legs and pits and who knows what else after they got married. Such a rebel, I’m sure my buddy is loving it (sarcasm)

      • a.l. on March 22, 2010 at 11:18

        I agree. When a woman gets married, she’s signed a contract to please her husband. If I marry a girl with her pubes shaved, I expect her to keep doing it. It’s like false advertising. Can other products get away with that? I think not. We men should be able to sue wives for false advertising. Oh well, we all know how women let themselves go. I’m very sorry for your friend. He expected a WIFE, and got stuck with a human being.

  6. Heather Lackey on March 14, 2010 at 13:24

    “But today, anonymous masked peoples stood up and…”


  7. Melissa on March 14, 2010 at 13:29

    It’s a simple fact that most of these activists
    1. do not recognize humans beings as being any more than roaches
    2. do not like humans
    3. do not understand nature
    4. do not view humans as being part of nature, instead we are a pestilent scourge

    It’s actually quite tragic and often has profound effects on his people’s personal lives.

    • tim marshall on March 19, 2010 at 01:06

      three people , three people .. ok ? representative of nothing!

      some corrections for you

      1. afford humans a different set of rights to roaches
      2. are human, like other humans, respect all humans as sentient beings.
      3. understand that nonhuman animals in nature lack the ability and the moral agency to assess their food choices ethically
      4. View human beings as part of nature but view “keeping” and hunting nonhuman animals as an unnecessary and cruel violation of rights.

      what they did to her was remarkably lame but three people dont represent and cover the views of a community of millions – it would be a less ridiculous notion for me to speculate that they were guys from this website posing as vegans to win more people to the caveman agenda

      • Richard Nikoley on March 19, 2010 at 12:02

        “nonhuman animals in nature lack the ability and the moral agency to assess their food choices ethically”

        Jesus Christ already.

        So a lion takes down a gazelle in a brutal bloodbath rather then graze on grass because it’s unable to “assess [its] food choices ethically”?

        And here all this time I thought they simply evolved to eat that way.

        “Caveman agenda”? Yea, it’s such an “agenda” to simply eat in the way we evolved to eat.

      • tim marshall on March 19, 2010 at 15:45

        I dont believe there is a caveman agenda, that portion of my post was satire as should be the idea that three guys represent veganism (especially as we know nothing about them and havent confirmed they are actually vegan)

        and yes thats exactly why a lion does it , its why i DONT take down a gazelle but some hunters do, humans have the capacity for moral agency whether or not we exercise it, this is not ridiculous, more ridiculous would be the notion that they have contemplated not eating the gazelle .

        men have evolved to exploit as many opportunities to reproduce as possible , so have we evolved to be rapists and should we form a community embracing this idea and *taking back rape* as the way we evolved to act ? no . but thats the notion this community exists upon. it ignores ethics and embraces and has deified our DNA .

  8. Rick on March 14, 2010 at 13:30

    These people are only shooting the messenger. Funny how they consider it an attack on vegans/vegetarians. She is simply informing everyone that regardless what diet you eat, you’re going to kill some animals for it. May as well accept it and get healthy eating meat.

    You don’t see me freaking out when she cuts down men in there. Things are the way they are.

    • Josh on June 28, 2015 at 17:34

      Lierre isn’t privy to some top secret government information. She has nothing new to say. She’s not “telling the truth”. She’s just expressing HER opinion. It’s no better than any other person that read a lot of books and decided which side to believe.

      Next, 3 people (whoever they are) did the attack. Why should I be the subject of hostility because I don’t consume animal products. It’s ridiculous.

      It’s actually ridiculous what they did in so many ways.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 28, 2015 at 18:10

      Oh, while Josh is privy to such TS govco info.


  9. Megan on March 14, 2010 at 13:40

    Absolutely horrible.

  10. ChrisG on March 14, 2010 at 13:45

    I’m happy to note that the overwhelming majority of commenters to the entry heartily condemned the attack.

  11. Steve on March 14, 2010 at 13:59

    What’s with typing “veg*ans” instead of just “vegans”? Is that like “G*d” for “God” with Christians? It bet it is; both ideas share the same epistemology – and that epistemology is coming up with an idea out of thin air.

    • gallier2 on March 14, 2010 at 14:13

      No, it’s a computer geek thing, the * is used as a place holder, it replaces the empty space for veg{}an or veg{etari}an.

    • Matt on March 15, 2010 at 04:52

      I thought that as well, and like it. It’s a word that should not be spoken.

  12. Paul on March 14, 2010 at 14:10

    Damned violent meat eaters……….oh, wait…….

    BTW & FYI, it’s Jews that do the G*d thing, not Christians.

  13. Laurie on March 14, 2010 at 14:23

    While I didn’t always agree with Ms Keith’s stand on issues other than vegetarianism in her book, one thing that consistently came across is that she is a caring, sincere woman willing to take a stand to say and do what is right to help others., in spite of making herself a possible victim to thugs like these. Reminds me of those abortion clinic bombers. Hypocrisy at its finest. I have a copy of her book and have been pushing it like crazy. I’ll get the school librarian to buy a couple for the school library this week.

  14. Bryce on March 14, 2010 at 14:47

    Thanks for the heads up Richard. I’ve voiced my opinions, and hope everyone else does the same.

    And I’m with Sylvie O. This sheeple have shot themselves in the foot by giving Lierre free publicity. Publicity she well deserves. Hopefully she spreads the word to even more lonely, misguided vegans before these militant vegan nazi’s sew their seeds.

    Bryce Lee

  15. William on March 14, 2010 at 15:04

    My rage, and pissin’ ‘n’ moanin’ over this has calmed down. The best thing one can do is send Lierre an e-mail of support… which is exactly what I just did.

  16. Kurt G Harris MD on March 14, 2010 at 15:10

    Like Anthony Bourdain said, Vegans are the Hezbollah of vegetarians.

    Why expect them to behave differently?

    • Organic Gabe on March 15, 2010 at 09:48

      Yeah, fanatics full of fallacious dogma.

  17. Skyler Tanner on March 14, 2010 at 15:47

    Total fucking pussies.

  18. Cynthia on March 14, 2010 at 15:58

    Thanks for the heads-up. I left a very unkind comment I was so furious.

  19. Laurie on March 14, 2010 at 16:05

    You know, I had no idea what craziness existed in the vegan community until I read the article and comments that Richard linked to in the post. If there is any more evidence against the vegan diet needed, just show someone the comments from the people supporting the pie-ing. And then go to Mark Sisson’s site on a Sunday to see the angry vegan troll rant for a couple of hours until he/she gets banned again. Somehow, I don’t think these people will stop at pies. I would be very wary of public appearances (at least in SF) if I were Ms Keith. Zealots are not pretty in any cause and I could see how one of those on the very fringe would think that shooting or bombing a reformed vegan is worth the death of a “sentient being.” Scary.

  20. redcatbicycliste on March 14, 2010 at 16:11

    This sickens me: three young men vegan fucks violently throw a pie in the face of a middle-aged and sickly woman. I read her book, and she talks quite a bit about men and violence. So, they have done nothing but prove her point!

    Not only that: the pie is laced with cayenne pepper, which burns the eyes.

    If I had been there, and if I were a man, I would have clocked (which means, beat the shit out of) one of those guys.

  21. Tim Rangitsch on March 14, 2010 at 16:31

    Has anyone seen the contents of the pie, other than the cayenne? Not to take away from the seriousness of this (Lierre’s book is one of my most prized). It’d be quite ironic if there was dairy in that pie. I will buy 6 copies of “The Vegetarian Myth” to give out, 2 in honor of each thug.

  22. Yep, real men « The Quick and the Dead on March 14, 2010 at 16:47

    […] I guess it was all those soy phytoestrogens that gave three y-chromosome bearers the cojones to attack Lierre Keith with a cayenne-laced cream pie. Certainly their mamas didn’t teach them how to treat womyn, or invited guests, or much of […]

  23. William on March 14, 2010 at 17:30

    To be honest, this person who commented at the site Richard linked to, wanted to hear Lierre’s talk, even though he/she disagreed. But their closing statement had me reeling my jaw from the floor. “Please do us a favor, and leave the anarchist movement so the rest of us can get on with saving the planet from capitalism.”

    Saving the planet from capitalism? My goodness, this leaves me speechless… almost! 😉 This person obviously subscribes to the Noam Chomsky flavor of anarchism, rather than Murray Rothbard’s.

    • Ed on March 14, 2010 at 20:24

      Great pickup on the group-thinking “anarchists” William. Ann Coulter sold a lot more books after she got pied. I hope the same happens to Lierre.

    • Chaohinon on March 14, 2010 at 21:08

      Capitalism, historically, has always involved big business colluding with the state to suppress free enterprise and render us dependent on mandatory “services”.

      It just doesn’t make any sense that someone would equate “capitalism” with “free markets”, as the term capitalism implies preferential treatment of capital at the expense of all other factors of production.

      • Marnee on March 15, 2010 at 14:12

        Get a dictionary!

      • freeman on March 15, 2010 at 14:31

        Oh lordy…

        Words don’t have fixed, static meanings, something even those who produce dictionaries admit.

        Truth is, political terminology, such as “capitalism” often has numerous meanings, some of which are mutually exclusive in nature. Just because you and your pals define X one way doesn’t mean others do, nor do you or the others have any sort of monopoly on terminology that you can impose on others.

        Many freed market advocates recognize this, and many have thus rejected the C word altogether. Roderick Long is one example:

        Sheldon Richman is another example, and he recently gave a speech titled “Capitalism versus the Free Market”:

  24. Dave on March 14, 2010 at 21:01

    In honor of Lierre, I will increase my meat intake this week even more than usual. I would go out and hunt it down myself but they frown on that here in urban Baton Rouge. They might not miss a squirrel or two, though.

    I’m just waiting for the next emo fad to replace Veganism: Oxytards. They will hold their breath until they pass out so that the animals will have more air to breathe.

  25. Dan Linehan on March 14, 2010 at 21:20

    One more point on the book — Lierre writes that she nearly died from a lack of tryptophan, an essential amino acid.

    She says it can only be found in animal protein. Which is simply not true — unless as a vegan she avoided soybeans, rice, bananas, potatoes, tomatoes, most grains, etc.

    If you fact check her book it’s just one made up, irrational thing after another like this.

    She tried to be a locavore in Massachusetts (where you can’t grow any fatty foods) then she refused to kill slugs while they ate her entire garden. Obviously there are going to be health issues if you simply don’t eat, but that’s anorexia, not veganism.

    • Johnny on March 14, 2010 at 22:48

      Dan, I haven’t read the book yet. Can you link to a fact check of it? Also, what do you mean that you can’t grow any fatty foods in Massachusetts? Not clear.

      • Dan Linehan on March 14, 2010 at 23:23

        It was an outdoor garden used to grow lettuce, as she describes it. Point being, she wasn’t eating avocados, peanut butter, almond butter, or other nutrient dense vegan foods, because anything that used petroleum for transportation was against her ethics.

        Yes, there is a fact check of the book floating around. I’ll post a link here shortly.

      • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 06:58

        You can grow fatty vegan foods in MA. It just takes a REALLY long time to plant and grow nuts.

        Unfortunately, like all vegan sources of calories, nuts do not have an optimal fatty acid balance.

      • Dan Linehan on March 15, 2010 at 21:43

        You’ve sent me down an internet rabbit’s hole trying to research this. If I blended a half cup of coconut milk and a half cup of peanut butter what would the fatty acid balance be?

      • anand srivastava on March 18, 2010 at 07:32

        What about Vitamin K2? What about D3? Or do you take supplements.
        What all supplements do you take?
        Do you do any farming?
        Why are you Vegan? Are you trying to save animals? Which ones do you care about and which ones you don’t? You said already that you don’t care about Slugs. What others you wouldn’t care about?
        Do you care only about not eating animals, then you should be vegetarian. If you care about not hurting, then its a myth.
        Vegetarianism (not eating meat) is possible, but Vegan (not hurting any animals) is an impossibility.

  26. Griff on March 14, 2010 at 21:36

    I hope that the “men” (and I use the scare quotes quite deliberately) who did this got arrested for criminal assault and battery, since that’s exactly what this is under the law.

  27. Lowell on March 14, 2010 at 22:08

    Lierre should not have been embarrassed in this way. In as much as she has based her vegan-critical writings her own absurd behavior while trying to ride what she thought was a band-wagon fad, she would have simply reinforced the validity of veganism had she been allowed to continue her talk.
    The idiots who perpetrated the incident are also zealots, perhaps reacting to some of her other misguided beliefs having nothing to do with the vegan ethic. Lierre is wrong. So are the three fools who have now tarnished a valid and long overdue trend.

    • vegimator on March 14, 2010 at 23:45

      I agree. This is how most vegans I talk to feel about the incident. Lierre, I don’t think it was fair for you to be hit with a cayenne pie and to the rest of you, please don’t use the actions of three unknown individuals to stereotype all vegans.

  28. Lierre on March 14, 2010 at 23:02

    Thank you all for your support. It really helps.

    To answer some questions: I know my assailants were vegans because they shouted “Go vegan!” and “Don’t eat meat!” as they hit me. As to the cayenne, what proof would you like? I still have my soaked clothing, and my cayenne-stained paper talk, and there were a whole lot of witnesses in the bathroom who tried to help me flush my eyes. My eyes are still puffy and blurry, though the pain has subsided.

    • Rick on March 14, 2010 at 23:22

      The fact that some are trying to condone this behavior just shows how desperate they have become.

      You definitely have plenty of friends here Lierre, and you should know that your passion and courage are very, very inspiring.

  29. Byron on March 15, 2010 at 04:39

    Well, everlasting facts; a lack of fatty acids and too much sugar makes most people aggressive and mindless. Also anemia affects the brain deeply.

  30. Paul Verizzo on March 15, 2010 at 06:39

    Will you be pressing charges, Lierre? Presuming the perps can be ID’d of course. While they might then become vegan heroes, I think it is important to not let something like this slide. It will only encourage more of this sick behavior.

    Sometimes I am truly embarrassed to be a male. Which is the term that should have been used for your assailants. They certainly weren’t men.

  31. Steve on March 15, 2010 at 07:37

    I’ve been a vegan for 15 years and a vegetarian for 30 years. I thought the pie throwing was juvenile at best. Cruel, if the allegations of lacing the pie with cayenne pepper are true.

    I think some of the comment authors here should reflect on their level of intellectual honesty. They seem to be as bad as Keith in wanting to enforce a stereotype against vegans. If you only look at or interact with people on the fringe, you only going to meet certain types of people. IMHO, that is the essence of Keith’s impressions. Vegans come from all walks of life people.

    I haven’t been getting a good impression of the fans of Keith’s book. In various book review sections I keep reading them pointing out factual errors in her book, but praising her book and giving it positive ratings all the same.

    That gives me the impression that her fans don’t care what the truth is, they just want to justify their habits and smear people who disagree with those habits.

    As I am seeing on blogs like this one, with the general sentiment: “Ah Hah! Look, 3 childish individuals, this proves everything Keith writes about vegans”.


    Again, I fully condemn what happened.

    Please don’t add to the stupidity, by adding to the stupidity.

    • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 08:48

      I think there is a huge difference between different types of vegans. I have no problem and work with daily vegans who are vegans for ethical/spiritual reasons or because they firmly believe it’s healthiest diet. Most vegans I know don’t care what I eat. They eat their diet and try to spread the word about it gently and through example.

      Personally, I don’t think Lierre Keith’s book is perfect, but you will find that same phenomenon with popular vegan books. “This book is awesome even though it makes obvious factual errors” is a common review for books like Healthy At 100, Eating Animals, The China Study, etc. It’s pretty rare to find a book propounding a particular diet with passion that doesn’t have errors though.

      Vegans for health reasons or because they are uncomfortable with the idea of slaughter are far away from animal rights activist vegans. I think being on guard against the latter is important because they are engaged in activities that threaten the right to chose. Whether they are AR terrorists threatening scientists or peaceable lobbyists banning various animal products, they are a definite threat to those of us eating the diet propounded on this blog and possibly to humans in general. While many comments here are excessively angry, AR poses a real threat to us.

      • Michael on March 17, 2010 at 18:11

        Yes, I think we need to be careful that we don’t become “mono-nutritionists” writing as if everything can be boiled down to diet. There has always been plenty of aggression in the world regardless of diet and such aggression is well documented even in hunter gatherer groups. I think these folks most likely did what they did not because they are vegans but because they are true blue dyed in the wool vegan activists. There is a difference.

    • Rick on March 15, 2010 at 09:03

      Any book challenging a politically acceptable lifestyle like veg*ism is going to have a problem with “facts.” You know, “facts” like saturated fat and cholesterol are poison, soy is a health food, etc. etc.

      You can stereotype many of those who follow a paleo/primal lifestyle as well. They are usually male, independent, and on the right side of the political spectrum. Their diet and lifestyle are the end results of their world views and thinking patterns. Are all who follow this lifestyle this way? No, but if I were betting I’d put money on one of those three characteristics.

      Same goes for veg*ns. One has to see the world a certain way in order to come to that kind of decision about their diet and lifestyle. One likely has to see human beings generally as a force for evil, and think them no better than insects. Some are arguing here that this sort of mentality is fertile ground for sadism and masochism, as evidenced by the damage Lierre has done to her own body, and the willingness of certain practitioners to assault a defenseless woman.

      • Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 15:57

        “One likely has to see human beings generally as a force for evil, and think them no better than insects.”

        That is an amazing leap you just made. Hope you didn’t fall down the chasm of insanity there.

      • sydney on March 21, 2010 at 22:34

        Those pies were throw very forcefully, they could have easily knock her over and killed her since her spine is diseased(and I am willing to bet these people knew her condition). I am writing from the UK, under the freedom of information act will US citizens be able to find out if the FBI is pursing the erpetrators under anti-terrorist legislation? Surely the FBI ,if not the local police, should have files on who in the area is advocating violence. Its not good enough to assume these criminals cannot be found by the law. It should be treated as attempted murder. I hope, Richard, you will keep us up to date on what the police are doing.
        I totally agree with most people-this is an unexcusable act of violence. BUT I have to say something no one else has mentioned in the comments, that Lierre herself advocates violence in her blog stop porn culture. She talks about bullets and guns and using them against male sexual predatores. She advocates acts of terrorism. I found her blog scary and violent. It reminded me of the crap that the weathermen and the red brigades wrote in the sixties. She writes that these people can’t change, that they cannot be educated. Maybe she wrote all that when she was a tryptophan depleted vegan, but if so why is it still up there? Apparently 25% of men get an erection from watching videos of women getting beat up-no references we’re just spose to believe this. Just read it for yourself, I don’t thinking I am misreresenting her. I’m keen to read about ideas for a new agriculture-so just hope this blog is not represntative of her current views. Maybe other people will experience her blog differently > I would be interested to know.

  32. Sue on March 15, 2010 at 09:37

    How about condemning the act, and then living your own choice while letting others live theirs. I have not fact-checked Lierre Kieth’s book, but have recommended it to friends who are vegetarians for the express purpose of having a discussion with them. I am not the stereotypical Paleo follower – middle age female who feels that CW has gone a long way to make my life harder than it had to be, fitness and health-wise. I think that we should each take responsibility for our own health and well being, and by example is the best way to spread the word. When all my old lady friends are housebound and I am still out there enjoying the world in 30 years (when I am 87), then it may be too late for them, but they won’t listen to me now anyway. Some folks will benefit from my example, and in the meantime, I am happy healthy and fit. If we were all Paleo, then there might be a lot of competition for the grass fed beef I enjoy, unless the transition takes enough time to change our (society’s) CAFO ways to more sustainable ways. Have you ever driven through South Dakota? There’s an awful lot of grass with no animals on it!

    Lierre, I hope you regain your equilibrium quickly, and whether you press charges or not (I say not, those men have to live with themselves which is evidently enough punishment), I wish you all the best in spreading your message. I’m glad I read your book and that you have achieved a better level of health than you had as a vegan.

  33. ReachWest on March 15, 2010 at 10:38

    I certainly don’t condone this pie-throwing incident. It is cowardly and despicable.

    But, I find it somewhat bizarre that Ms. Keith has become a victim of the very type of activism that she and her cohort Derrick Jensen appear to condone in their workshops for radical environmentalism and radical feminism. More here:

    According to the website for the Deep Green Resistance seminars, where Ms Keith is a speaker;

    “Please understand the nature of this event. DGR is not a festival. It is not a gathering to create a groovy subculture, to simply change a destructive paradigm, to try and escape “the system,” or to build a support system solely for personal growth. It is a serious meeting to address the destruction of our planet and potential effective resistance. It will include theoretical discussions of serious and confrontational strategies and tactics.”

    Needless to say, I have not attended one of these workshops, nor will I – but, it strikes me that this is the very type of action that they appear to be pushing.

    Perhaps I am out to lunch – but, I’m just saying – it strikes me as odd.

  34. Mark on March 15, 2010 at 10:49

    My initial sympathy for Ms. Keith evaporated considerably when I Googled her name and read some interviews with her.

    She advocates attacks on our society such as bringing down the electrical grid or destroying the financial sector. She doesn’t have a problem with destruction of private property, and she advocates doing “anything necessary” in order to achieve her political goals.

    Here is one quote of hers from an interview published online:

    But for me the moral question is not about violence or nonviolence. The moral imperative for me is to decide what is going to actually stop the war against women and the earth, and then find the courage to do whatever is necessary.

    This woman is not just some nice peaceful ex-vegetarian who’s trying to alert people to certain food issues. She is a self-described “radical” who has “broken her share of windows” and who advocates radical direct action to implement her left-wing agenda.

    Understanding that now puts her pieing in a whole new light for me. This is a person who apparently would advocate doing the exact same thing in the furtherance of her own goals.

    • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 10:51

      A few years ago I saw Derrick Jensen speak against pacifism and for eco-terrorism and mass human die-offs to “save the environment”, which really turned me off from anarcho primativism, as I am a pacifist and humanist. I think the paleo crowd which is generally pacifist market libertarian is a strange bedfellow with this crowd, but I have seen lots of people express their reservations about The Vegetarian Myth’s association with that philosophy- Eades did in his review and it’s come up on the OEvolve list as well.

      • Aaron Fraser on March 15, 2010 at 12:24

        I understand your reservations against “mass human die-offs”, and I pose some legitimate questions:

        Do you consider the current human population to be in any way sustainable?

        If so, how do you feel we will continue to be able to sustain this population with consideration to peak oil, the need for industrial civilization to expand in consumption in a finite planet, and the destructive effects of our current food system on the environment and our health?

        If not, have you considered how an unsustainable population will.. rebalance in the long term?

        I am not advocating inciting mass genocide – and neither is Lierre, as I can attest at having read quite a few of her works and interviews – but I do believe in the unsustainability of our culture, and the danger of the long term effects.

        Mass human die-offs are potentially more inevitabilites of the war and famine that will accompany our inability to feed our continually expanding population with horrifically unsustainable methods – especially when you consider that industrial civilization has essentially destroyed local economies and farming methods in overpopulated third world countries – do you recall the wave of farmer suicides in India in the past decade? – leaving them almost entirely dependent on foreign grain imports for their food production/distribution.

        What happens when oil prices rise and our petroleum-based food exports slow?

      • Mark on March 15, 2010 at 12:46

        If you advocate bringing down the electrical grid and destroying the financial sector, then you are an extremist who is severely divorced from the reality of what those actions would mean to the safety of millions of people. Lierre Keith has advocated those things; they are direct quotes from the source I cite below. In my view there is little significant difference between “advocating inciting mass genocide” and advocating such actions.

        Just read the article. Read her own words – things like “most men hate women.” This person is an extremist and the more I read of her interview the more it was obvious that she would applaud much worse things than throwing a cayenne-laced pie in someone’s face and laughing.

        Don’t take my word for it – read her interview and see what sort of person this is. I think your sympathy will dry up just like mine did.

      • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 13:55

        I was trained as an economist and studied in particular the agrarian economies of third world countries.

        I think there is a big line between advocating die offs and being realistic. Anarcho primativists are relentlessly pessimistic about these things. They don’t believe technology will solve anything, which is a little illogical if you ask me.

        You can be a humanist and still fight overpopulation, you just do it by encouraging the demographic transition that all developed countries have gone through rather than being callous about human life.

      • Verimius on March 19, 2010 at 10:52

        RE: Mass human die-offs.

        Dear Aaron,

        You first.

    • ReachWest on March 15, 2010 at 11:03

      Exactly! .. The more I learn about Ms. Keith, the less I like what I see. The final chapter of her book which was quite “odd” makes more sense when you put it into the context of her “extremism” and “radicalism”.

      • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 11:14

        Someday one of us will write an article expounding the benefits of the paleolithic diet from an ecologically-minded, but humanist perspective. The closest I’ve read was Heart and Blood by Richard K. Nelson. He is not a paleo dieter, unfortunately, but he is an ecological humanist and that book is excellent.

      • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 11:17

        The sad fact is that neither Lierre nor her attackers are humanists. Even if we don’t identify as humanists here, most of us are. We love human life and view humans as being exceptional. From a humanist perspective, both primativism and animal rights are morally bankrupt philosophies.

      • damaged justice on March 15, 2010 at 12:06

        More ironical in light of things like this:

        Also, is it pacifism to only believe violence is moral when used in defense?

    • Aaron Fraser on March 15, 2010 at 12:16

      So you put private, industrial-owned property on the same level as personal, human safety?

      That is the inference you are making.

      • Mark on March 15, 2010 at 12:59

        False choice. It’s not either one or the other.

        Without respect for private property (and there is no such thing as ‘industrial-owned’ property – all property is owned by someone, either an individual, or a group of individuals) there is no “personal, human safety”.

        Radicals and anarchists seem to think that you can destroy property owned by groups of people (a.k.a corporations) without hurting people. You can’t. That’s someone’s retirement savings you’re destroying, someone’s nest egg. Public corporations are owned by shareholders, who are everyday people – holding the stock through their retirement plans, pensions, and so on.

        If you don’t like what corporations are doing, get the laws changed. You don’t change things by destroying property. That is a lesson that should be learned before kindergarten, yet anarchists and radicals seem to feel they have some sort of moral “get-out-of-jail-free” card entitling them to destroy other people’s property because they’ve acted as their own personal judge and jury and sentenced the owner to being robbed of their lawful property. Grow the hell up! Destroying property as a means of social activism is the way to tyranny and war.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 15, 2010 at 13:47

        It would be nice, Mark, if you differentiated between anarchists.

        Just as identifying as an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you wish to prevent believers from practicing whatever beliefs they choose, so too there are anarchists — like me — who just don’t find a value in government and are, in fact, supporters of free markets and private property (just as, as an atheist, a supporter of freedom of allegiance real or imagined).

      • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 14:00

        I agree, there are many types of anarchists and in my experience none of them get along. My ex was a Anarcho-capitalist, a fan of Murray Rothbard. These sort of people do not generally agree with Anarcho-primitivists.
        Usually highly humanistic, respect private property, reverence for “the market,” faith in technology
        Believe humans should be rare, condone eco terrorism, believe “property is theft,” believe technology really doesn’t solve anything

      • Axiom on March 15, 2010 at 20:36

        But even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

      • Michael on March 15, 2010 at 20:48

        No it doesn’t. A stateless society and a lawless society are not the same thing. I really don’t have time to engage so maybe Richard or others will do so, but we have had this discussion on this blog several times before.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 15, 2010 at 21:01

        “it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men…”

        Hey, Axiom. when you find men/women not embroiled in the day-to-day we all are — Gods, maybe — and who can see to the rest of us poor souls, let me know.

        In the meantime, I’m simply willing to take my chances.

        As a friend of mine is fond of saying and the saying has farer reaching implications than even intelligent people will pick up on: “when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.”

        The only reason most of us have never felt the pitiful incompetence of the “protective” state is because most of us are pretty smart, have engineered decent lives and the chances of falling prey are minimal.

        That’s good, but it’s also behind the reason so many well-offs disregard those who are preyed upon by cops nightly, because cops project power where it’s easiest to project power. They’re gonna get their hard-ons one way or another, and an eight hour shift is not a lot of time when force needs to be projected for the sake of a big stiffy later.

      • Tim Starr on March 15, 2010 at 22:56

        Then who arbitrates disputes between the people & the government?

      • Michael on March 16, 2010 at 01:03

        In a voluntaryist society there would be no civil government. An actual historical example of civil “arbitration” rather than a theory of how it might work is the International Law Merchant:

      • William on March 16, 2010 at 02:23

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 09:00

        Um, why on earth would you think you need to refer those links to me? Bryan Caplan’s an old friend of mine, & I know more about Rothbard than most people. My wife just had David Friedman as a speaker at a supperclub she organized last weekend.

      • Axiom on March 16, 2010 at 09:12

        Vegans decides to march down your block with weapons…they are met by the police….the leader of the vegans says the police have no right to interfere because we want ‘justice’ done against meat eaters. Doesn’t the government have a right to protect my individual rights against physical force? Or do we meat eaters band together, mob mentality. Who is protecting Lierre’s individual rights in an anarchistic state?

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 10:57

        Government thugs march down your block w/ weapons, declaring that no one has any right to interfere because they just want justice done to tax-evaders. Who protects you against them?

      • Axiom on March 16, 2010 at 14:04

        Government should never be the thug but the servant to its citizen. Isn’t that what the Consitution is about? With lack of rules it is always the peaceful who gets hurt or on this case gets a pie in the face.

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 14:21

        And who enforces the rules upon the rule-enforcers? You’re stuck in an infinite regress that you simply can’t get out of.

      • William on March 16, 2010 at 16:28

        How stupid of me to not have special knowledge that you are pals with Caplan, have better insight in Rothbard’s work than most, and that your wife is well connected to David Friedman. Phewww, I almost posted a link from Friedman! Glad I didn’t, for I would hate to see you have a meltdown.

        Sorry to bother you dude, it won’t happen again.

      • Axiom on March 16, 2010 at 16:33

        Consent of the governed.

        Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy….from Wiki.

        My last post on this.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 16, 2010 at 16:46

        “Consent of the governed.”

        Kewel, and since I never consented to be governed I guess I have nothing to worry about and am actually free.

        And here I was thinking that I had all these “obligations” I didn’t consent to but are nonetheless demanded of my under pain of fines, seizure, prison — and if I resist strongly enough — death.

        Glad that’s all taken care of.

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 16:50

        First of all, you seemed to have me confused w/ “Axiom.” Secondly, you seemed to have been confused about what side of the discussion I was on.

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 16:56

        Sorry, but “the consent of the government” and your statement about Lincoln & the Declaration of Independence are total non-sequiturs. Your ultimate arbiter of disputes can’t possibly be neutral in its own cases, that every dispute between itself and people within its jurisdiction will be one of its own cases, and there’s no neutral third party to arbitrate such disputes. So, who arbitrates disputes with the arbiter? Who enforces compliance w/ the law/constitution/declaration-of-independence/etc. upon those w/ a monopoly on enforcing it? Either it can’t be done, in which case there can never be any justice in any disputes w/ the State, or it can be done, in which case we can have justice w/out the State, thus refuting your argument for the State.

      • Michael on March 17, 2010 at 18:17

        No, the constitution is about increasing government power. There isn’t one known historical example of a constitution that didn’t move towards the centralization of coercive power.

      • Michael on March 17, 2010 at 18:41

        Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy….from Wiki.

        I can’t believe I just read that. I better stop. This post is about Lierre Keith not “Saint” Lincoln.

      • ReachWest on March 15, 2010 at 13:53

        @Mark – I agree 100%. There certainly seems to be a whole lot of sympathy for Ms. Keith in the Primal/Paleo blogosphere and on Twitter today with respect to the “pie Incident” – but – I for one, have a very low level of sympathy given that it appears to me, that she advocates similar or more extreme actions in the name of “radical environmentalism” and “radical feminism”.

        Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that her background has not been further critiqued by the primal/paleo community, which I believe to be made up of predominately free-minded critical thinkers. Perhaps people are just too busy to do their own research. (Ten minutes online with Google is all it takes, though.)

      • Richard Nikoley on March 15, 2010 at 14:15


        If you read my reviews, I believe I’m critical in every one. But I’m also honest about it. What she writes about — OK, here I go — veg*n-ism is right on, and I’m simply acknowledging that. And she has real courage which is a top value to me.

        In the real world, we’d have little in common, though maybe not because now, I probably have more “gay-lesbian” friends than “straight,” in terms of day-to-day, as a function of where I live and having learned a lot about their culture over the last few years (I live in a downtown loft).

        I’ve come to learn that short of actual violence — which Lierre does not engage in — I can be friends with people I’d have never thought possible.

        Here’s how I look at non-state violence (most of it is state-sponsored, BTW): either I have want of lifting a finger or I don’t.

        I count Lierre as a friend

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 10:34

        You better hope that you don’t realize that you want to transition to being female, because she wouldn’t be your friend anymore.

    • a.l. on March 22, 2010 at 23:06

      As far as the “broken her share of windows” bit, since you’re calling hypocrisy, here’s the full excerpt you seem to be referring to:

      “The left in this country has come completely unhitched from any notion of actually being effective. Activism has turned into one big group therapy session. It doesn’t matter what we accomplish–what matters is how we feel about it. The goal of the action isn’t to change the material balance of power, it’s to feel “empowered”. For fuck’s sake, who gives a shit how I feel. Our planet is dying. And radicals are just as guilty of what I call “emotional activism.” It may feel good to smash that Starbucks window, but does it actually do any good? I’m speaking here as someone who’s smashed my share of windows. This rerouting of the goal from political change to inner change is the reaction of both a spoiled, self-absorbed people, and the utterly desperate, desperate to do something, anything.”

      Which would refer quite well to her attackers, and not conflict in any way with their condemnation.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 23, 2010 at 10:22

        I don’t see how “breaking windows” equates to physical assault & battery on a person.

  35. Mark on March 15, 2010 at 10:53

    Sorry, I meant to include the link to the interview with Ms. Keith that I drew the quotes from:

  36. Jimmy Moore on March 15, 2010 at 11:49

    Had to share my thoughts about this cayenne pepper pie incident with Lierre Keith:

    I contacted her for a quote and she responded. I may try to do a quick update with her prior to my podcast on Thursday.

  37. Jeff Sutherland on March 15, 2010 at 12:46

    This is so saddening, it makes me sick to the stomach. I hate to turn to the bright side, but hopefully this will provide fuel to the fire, creating free publicity and directing more attention to her important message.

  38. dr. cosa on March 15, 2010 at 13:44

    i think its important to be objective when it comes to these types of unfortunate situations because both sides are particularly fond of portraying the other as rabid lunatics who lack the capacity for intelligent discourse.

    1. in direct response to Dan Linehan, you have only flipped through the Vegetarian myth or at best read some taken a cursory glance at reviews as your summary and comments on her book are both factually inaccurate and at times completely false.

    2. if you have actually read Ms. Keiths book you would note here detailed lists of what she ate for serveral years during her various phases of vegetarian/vegan living before changing diets radically.

    3. Ms. Keith’s book while one of many books speaking out against veganism only tackled some of the issues surrounding the movement, not each and every point. and the basis of the book was that at the heart of many (but not all) vegetarians/vegans beleif system is that they are making a choice that is better for both their health and the health of the planet. she addresses the nuances of factory farming and the avoidance of death from fundamental angles in terms of “valuing” life and not wishing to kill anything. why many vegans simply draw the line at death of some organisms but not others is the grand paradox of veganism as an ideology, but not a lifestyle as i can be against murder but still eat animals without ever really resolving this issue intellectually.

    the problem is that very often more ideologically oriented vegans cannot.

    4. i dont agree with calling the pie throwers VEGANs unless they insist on this label. its unfair to the vast majority of vegans who never stoop to the level of violent or law-breaking behaviour to further their cause.

    lets not let our meat eating affinity blind us to the basic reality that we all just want ot be healthy and live prosperous lives. theres always the tiny radical minority who spoil it.

    5. lets show those out there who want to see these comments explode into anti-vegan tirades that its no longer acceptable or productive to take a hostile stance against people simply because they choose to eat or not eat certain things. lets stay objective, its was a radical group that is responsible, plain and simple and it will only attract attention to her book, and our own cause. so lets accept it for what it was, and glad it wasnt anything truly hurtful.

    6. to vegans that have attempted to pick apart her book on the basis of what youve read from other blogs, id be wary reposting them as your ideas, specifically Mr. Dan Linehan. you are taking liberties with facts from her book, this is a well studied crowd, so smarten up if youre going to take on the low carb folks. all those saturated fats assure us of the kind of mental clarity vegans can only hope for as they do another cleanse and all juice fast in hope of cleaning out all those “toxins” that they mistakenly believe to be making them lethargic and puffy 😉

    • Richard Nikoley on March 15, 2010 at 13:59

      Great comment Dr. Costa and well received here. Yes, let’s keep our heads about us.

      In defense of Dan, I do think he has read the book. He commented here on an earlier post and was very honest in my view and the view of other commenters. He made a good point, and if I don’t recall the particulars the spirt if it was that you can eat Mountain Dew & Dorritos and call yourself vegan.

      When we explored that further, come to find out Dan eats a high-fat vegan diet, i.e., lots of avocado, coconut, and I think nut fat.

      To his great credit, he admitted that a vegan diet is — and I’m taking liberty in recounting this and he’s welcome to correct me — probably not the bet choice for a teenager not guided by someone experienced.

      To me, this is a devastating admission. While someone ignorant eating the SAD can find themselves with nutritional deficiencies, one has to be pretty neglectful because just by virtue of some level of variety in nutrient composition they’ll do at least mediocre. But vaganism is a whole other world requiring careful attention.

      So, to me it’s not a natural sort of diet. Doesn’t mean someone like Dan who wants to take the time and attention can’t excel at it, it’s just that it requires foreknowledge and that’s a big issue. For paleo types, diet is pretty brainless: real food and it’s hard to miss on that.

      • Dan Linehan on March 15, 2010 at 16:40

        Well, I wouldn’t assume a typical teenager eating SAD gets any sort of nutritional variety either — especially considering the school cafeteria + fast food + chips and soda menu most kids eat.

        I do eat a high fat vegan diet. Been doing some bodybuilding lately as well. Here is an example of something I’d eat to boost calorie intake. (reposted from the stronglifts 5×5 forum)

        1/2 cup peanut butter: 750 calories (13 grams fat, 25 grams carbs, 32 grams protein) — 1/4 pound = $0.40 (kirkland organic)
        1 cup coconut milk: 450 calories. (50 grams fat, 8 grams carbs, 5 grams protein) — 1/2 can = $1.00
        1 banana: 100 calories. (0 grams fat, 25 grams carbs, 1 gram protein) — $0.20
        2 Tbsp cocoa powder: 50 calories. (2 grams fat, 10 grams carbs, 2 grams protein) — $0.10
        1 Tbsp sugar: 50 calories. (0 grams fat, 12 grams carbs, 0 grams protein)
        6 large ice cubes.
        1-2 cups water.


        1,400 calories (65 grams saturated fat, 80 grams carbs, 40 grams protein) — $1.70

        Of course if you are allergic to peanuts don’t eat this or substitute with almond butter.

      • Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 17:17

        I also eat a high fat vegan diet. In fact, I currently follow a “Paleo” diet. My exception is soy, which I know is not Paleo approved, but hey, I’m vegan. I gotta eat. I’m also training in Olympic-style weightlifting, and I just started back up with Crossfit.

        The thing is, most omnivores aren’t going to encounter the type of vegans that Dan and I are; we don’t go to PETA rallies and we don’t make headlines by almost dying on a diet of white bread and rice. It doesn’t mean we don’t exist.

      • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 18:27

        I eat a diet closer to this in the summer too. Weirdly enough, more meat heavy paleo eaters have criticized me on my blog. But in the heat of July or August I just don’t like to eat much meat. Coconut, nuts, seasonal fruits, avocados…I enjoy this diet very much. I’m happy not to be eating it all year any more, as I felt terrible in the winter on it, but I feel fine in the summer eating that plus some assorted fish and mollusks thrown in.

      • Michael on March 17, 2010 at 18:24

        LOL! If I averaged it all put, I probably spend about half the year eating no animal products at all, but I don’t think anyone would accuse me of not being a heavy meat eating type. I don’t think there is anything wrong with eating cyclically. It is the overall long term pattern of nutrition that tells the full story.

      • Sam on March 15, 2010 at 21:39

        I entered this into CRON-o-meter which uses the latest USDA nutrient database.

        I can confirm your figures and add one for you: your O-6 intake is 18.4g and your O-3 is .1g… for a fantastically unhealthy O-6:O-3 ratio of 184:1.

        And your O-6 intake percentage by energy is 12%, when total PUFA should be <4%.

        Good grief. Even if this is just a calorie boost for working out, the rest of your vegan diet is likely to be just as high in PUFA.

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 10:39

        Big fucking deal, he can toss in some whole flax seeds into the blender to fix the ratio. Flax is an amazing plant that can be utilized for both its high omega-3s and its fibers for clothing and paper, takes no pesticides to grow, and can grow in most climates.

      • Paul Verizzo on March 16, 2010 at 11:01

        Your need to use “fucking” in lieu of intellect reveals your ignorance about flax as a source of Omega 3’s. It sucks. The ratio of conversion of flax’s ALA to our usable DHA is about 5%. And along the way, you are sucking down a pile of PUFA’s.

      • Sam on March 16, 2010 at 17:53

        I thought it was hemp that was so amazing. Now you’re telling me there’s yet another superplant I have to keep an eye on?

        If there wasn’t such an overlap between the two, I’d pay money to see a vegan and a pothead get into it.

        My money is on the pothead.

      • Dan Linehan on March 16, 2010 at 16:15

        Hey Sam,

        Thank you for the analysis! Information like this is exactly why I visit Free The Animal.

        I’ll check out the CRON-o-meter a bit more closely later tonight.

      • Dan Linehan on March 16, 2010 at 16:40

        @ Sam,

        Is boosting Omega-3 levels primarily intended to boost levels of DHA?

      • Sam on March 16, 2010 at 17:47

        When we talk about O-3 intake we mean EPA+DHA which are only found in animals. Plants contain ALA which as Paul states above is very poorly (or not at all) converted in your body.

        I think vegans are pretty much SOL getting correct O-6:O-3 ratios. All you can do is minimize O-6 intake (ie, exclude nuts, seeds, most grains).

      • Richard Nikoley on March 16, 2010 at 18:01

        Nuts might be an OK way to overindulge in O-6. After all, it’s not exactly like eating chemically-heat extracted, chemically deodorized industrially processed grain & seed oils.

        Mark has a good post, out yesterday.

      • Dan Linehan on March 16, 2010 at 19:20

        It looks like fish get their EPA and DHA levels from eating algae. I wonder what that means for levels in farmed fish though..?

        DHA was easy to find a vegan version for. EPA was more difficult — but there is at least one suppliment that has both.

      • whee on March 16, 2010 at 20:30

        this doesn’t seem sustainable at all. eating too low on the food chain means eating stuff that works as ‘cleaners’ and is crucial to the integrated ecosystem.

        i feel the same way about eating menhaden. the crippling effects of eating menhaden because it was ‘more direct a source’ are just now starting to make themselves known. there will be similar problems if we devour all the algae in an attempt to cut out the middle-fish.

  39. Paul on March 15, 2010 at 14:03

    I have to ask those who don’t like Ms. Keith’s political viewpoints have to do with what happened.

    All I can interpret is that there’s a “She deserved it,” component.

    Because those beliefs do not matter insofar as her assault.

    • Rick on March 15, 2010 at 15:43

      Definitely some of that going on Paul. Some have no shame. “You see, Ms. Keith lived by the sword…”

      As far as I can tell, Ms. Keith spends just about every waking hour trying to fight against the tank with its barrel pointed directly at us. Some stand atop it and claim it is not there, others that it merely needs a new driver. So instead of defending this assault victim, they condemn her battle tactics. It shouldn’t be surprising, most curse their enemies.

  40. Lierre Keith Gets a Cayenne Laced Pie in the Face During San … « RSS Search Engine on March 16, 2010 at 05:20

    […] Here is the original post: Lierre Keith Gets a Cayenne Laced Pie in the Face During San … […]

  41. truth seeker on March 15, 2010 at 15:20

    you want a factual rebuttal of the myths in the veg myth?

    welp, here you go:

    this is for everyone dazzled blind by Lierre’s numbers without being able to read between the lines

    • Melissa on March 15, 2010 at 18:35

      LOL the one about veganic agriculture. I actually saw the farmers from the CSA mentioned at a conference and they admitted it was less productive.

      Some of those rebuttals are right (I do think it’s wrong for Lierre to blame veg*ans for envi destruction when SAD eaters are the major problem and I do think it’s possible to eat a vegetarian diet and not suffer from horrifying health problems), but most are woefully inadequate. The answers to SO many of those problems is that we just don’t know. Economists really can’t quantify the true impact of various farming practices. The best estimates are really just educated guesses. I also can’t say that it’s impossible to do veganic farming well, as technological advances might make it possible.

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 10:52

        Honey Brook Farm is simply an example of a successful commercialized veganic farm. Just like any responsible organic farm, they rotate their crops with nitrate-fixing legumes and other vegetables, so a portion of their land is out of production at all times. Before chemical fertilizers, this was a fact of life for a farm. Also, they don’t use no-till practices like a smaller community vegan permaculture project would. This is where true productivity is realized.

        “I also can’t say that it’s impossible to do veganic farming well, as technological advances might make it possible.”

        There are dozens of commercial farms and hundreds of family or community permaculture gardens that do not use animal inputs. Permaculture encourages wildlife to settle among the crops, just like a wild forest would. A commercialized example of this is Lundberg Family Farms — an enormous rice farm in California — that uses no chemical fertilizers or pesticides, nor any animal inputs. They simply leave the rice stalk waste in the field to encourage waterfowl to nest for a season, thus using their manure to fertilize the fields. While farming is always going to be controlling nature, that doesn’t mean it can’t also work with it.

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 10:55

        Sorry, but animal manure is a form of animal input, so your example doesn’t fit your category.

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 11:02

        It’s not an “input” if it’s not PUT on the land by humans (usually from domesticated livestock). What do you think, vegan organic farmers build bubbles over their farms as to avoid wild birds from shitting on their crops?

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 11:56

        LOL! There’s nothing in the definition of “input” requiring it to be put in by humans. The fact that non-human animals do the inputting doesn’t make it any less animal input. If anything, that makes it more of an animal input than human-added fertilizer. So, what humans do to farmland is bad, but what non-human animals do to it is good? Nice anti-human worldview you’ve got there.

        Since you asked my opinion of organic vegan farmers, I believe they’re in denial about the need to kill animals in order to produce even the most vegan food.

      • Dan Linehan on March 16, 2010 at 19:06

        It’s more about minimizing harm. There is such as a thing as “less harmful” just as there is such a thing as “less wrong.”

        There used to be a debate as to whether the Earth was flat or round. Actually, the Earth is neither, it’s an oblate spheroid. That being said, stating that the Earth is round is very much “less wrong” than stating that it is flat.

        Any diet that actively avoids factory farmed meat / dairy (as well as government subsidized crops) is much “less wrong” when compared to SAD.

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 19:13

        Input (n): “that which is put in”

        In the context of a farm, this includes anything you add to the soil or use for pest control. Would you consider dead mice rotting in the field an “input” because he or she wandered onto the farm and died? How about insects wild bees that pollinate fruit trees, are they inputs as well if they shit on the field?

        This is all semantics anyway. Encouraging wild animals to live freely on a farm is entirely in line with vegan philosophy and is the most sustainable and nature-friendly way to farm. Integrating our food production into ecosystems (rather than in opposition to them) is the first step towards true sustainability.

        You clearly don’t know anything about vegan permaculture, so why not withhold judgment and do some exploring?

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 23:38

        Yes, they’re all inputs. Farmers often pay beekeepers to put their hives in the middle of their fields at certain times to help pollinate their crops. As for encouraging wild animals to live in your crops, if that includes rabbits & deer you soon won’t have any crops.

        As far as I’m concerned, “vegan permaculture” is just a fancy term for “expensive rabbit food.” I’d rather eat the rabbits.

      • Melissa on March 16, 2010 at 18:03

        There are no permaculture farms getting competitive yields. Sorry, there just aren’t. I love permaculture and am a member of a local permaculture group. It has definite benefits, but farmers using other methods get better yields. Honey Brook Farm also is near livestock farms and probably benefits from the increased soil fertility.

        There is a reason Lundberg Family Farms products are more expensive. Besides that, I can find nothing that says they use the wildlife and nitrogen fixing exclusively as fertilizer. They simply say on their website that it “minimizes the need for supplemental fertilizer.”

        “Before chemical fertilizers, this was a fact of life for a farm.”

        No, they used domestic animal manure.

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 19:18

        “Honey Brook Farm also is near livestock farms and probably benefits from the increased soil fertility.”

        Evidence? How near? Downstream?

        “No, they used domestic animal manure.”

        They used both. But plant agriculture developed much faster than industrial animal agriculture. The manure from a few animals on a farm was never enough to fertilize a farm’s entire field. And regardless, where do you think the nitrogen in manure comes from? The animals don’t produce it, it’s simply found in the nitrogen-fixing forage they eat from the pasture. Cover crops actually produce much more nitrogen since cows and other ruminants don’t pass all the nitrogen from the field through into their manure.

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 19:31

        “There are no permaculture farms getting competitive yields. Sorry, there just aren’t.”

        Depends what you mean. Per acre, permaculture blows away traditional agriculture. It’s just hard to scale up — just like well-managed grass-fed livestock production is hard to scale up.

      • Michael on March 17, 2010 at 18:34

        Honeybrook Farms has outstanding soil fertility.

  42. Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 15:51

    Hey, guess what? Every vegan did not pie Lierre Keith in the face.

    Every single vegan on the planet, minus the 3 men who pied her (if they are vegan at all), has to date NOT pied Lierre Keith in the face.

    But gee, don’t let me rain on your vegan hate parade.

    • Paul on March 15, 2010 at 16:31

      I’m sure many vegans would have given either the opportunity or the guts to do so. Every vegan cheering this assault is a co-assaulter. Way more than three.

      • Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 17:13

        I’m guessing you don’t know many vegans. Think about the stereotype: a lot of us are pacifists. Cayenne to the face isn’t pacifism.

      • Paul Verizzo on March 16, 2010 at 11:11

        Olivia, so those who approve of what happened are peaceful/pacifist? I think not. Every vegan who in their heart, let alone explicitly, approve of this are co-assaulters.

      • Tim Starr on March 16, 2010 at 11:58

        Exactly, just as if the crowd had cheered if she had been gang-raped instead of pepper-sprayed w/ a pie.

      • Olivia on March 16, 2010 at 23:52

        Jeez, drama queen much? Is everyone who watches a boxing match a co-pro-boxer? Are the people who watch kids being knocked over on America’s Funniest Home Videos child abusers? Ever heard of schadenfreude? I promise you it’s not a side-effect of a vegan diet.

      • Sean on March 20, 2010 at 08:01

        Are children on America’s Funniest Videos getting pepper sprayed? I must have missed it. Do the people watching it have a moral axe to grind (children are evil perhaps)?

        The Veganist movement contains a strong element of morality. In the same way a Christian fundamentalist might consider homosexuality or abortion evil, the majority of vegans consider the consumption of animal flesh or its promotion evil. People operating under such a moral imperative tend to think the ends justifies the means.

        Is cheering on these kinds of attacks the same thing as laughing at America’s Funniest Home Videos? Of course not.

      • tim marshall on March 20, 2010 at 15:31

        the vegan movement is based on simple and consistent criteria and in fact animal rights in general lends weight and validation to human rights as human rights is a valid subset of it (us , humans also being sentient animals) .
        the potential to interpret the bible /christianity as a call to homophobia is arbitrary and not based on anything other than ideas/practices outside of the social norm being inherently wrong (i.e. fear/xenophobia).
        I am one of the people “operating under such a moral imperative” and I know many others, none of whom would attack lierre or consider it at all defensible to do so .. in fact they would all consider it strategically devoid for people supposedly representing our community to behave in this manner.

        denying the potential rights of sentient nonhuman animals pulls the rug out from under human rights,the logical conclusion of this is giving privileges only to the most intelligent/physically robust (insert other ethically meaningless criteria here) humans.

        I do not think the end justifies the means, the subset of the AR movement that does is generally affiliated with the ALF or other “direct action” organisations , amongst whom are lacto-ovo vegetarians, they still consume animals and should be fighting against themselves before they indict anyone else! I argue they shouldnt be under the banner of animal rights at all.

      • Sean on March 21, 2010 at 00:26

        If you want to be vegan, knock yourself out. I disagree that it is the logical conclusion of human rights, but this is not the place to debate such things.

        I do have a problem with dragging morality into it. Whether or not you personally believe that the ends justifies the means is moot. The fact is, people who believe they are on the moral high ground tend to find this an easy path to take. Such idealists feel justified imposing their views on non-idealists. And it leads intelligent people to do all sorts of idiotic things like, say, be an apologist for Stalin (G.B. Shaw, et al).

        Everyone standing on the moral high ground believes their worldview consists of simple consistent criteria, and all of these worldviews have their extremists.

      • tim marshall on March 21, 2010 at 01:10

        correct,all worldviews have a subset of extremists. you hit the nail on the head, and I reiterate that we dont even know who these guys were and its not unfeasible that they were from a group that dislikes keith for a different reason especially considering the bad press veganism is getting as a result of this.. and keith has offended more than one group.

        someone mentioned a scenario with vegans roaming the streets with weapons looking for meat eaters.. its a joke, veganism is a compassionate movement, dont confuse the vegetarian including ALF type groups who are raging hypocrites, you cant indict someone for eating animals when you drink their milk and take their eggs etc.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 21, 2010 at 15:29

        Non-human animals can’t possibly have rights, because they are not moral beings, i.e., they can not choose to opt out of following their own natures, as can humans.

        See the last few paragraphs here for a more in-depth explanation.

      • anand srivastava on March 21, 2010 at 22:49

        I wonder if vegans consider economics at all in their pursuit of extincting all animals.

        Its a fact that humans dominate the world. Its also a fact that humans will not lift their finger for protecting any animal unless it helped them in some way.

        I would think vegans are serious about not extincting animals when they start to keep several animals of the types that are rare and endangered at their homes and support them.

        The only option for animals to live in this world is for them to be useful to humans in some ways, or be so small or ubiquitous, to be able to survive without/inspite of human intervention.

        You might think that you are doing a great thing for Animals, but in effect it is extincting them. You must read about how agriculture causes extinctions of several species.

        Animals for food at least does not extinct them. It actually causes those lucky species to become ubiquitous. We should actually be talking about ethical treatment of animals. We should be behind feeding them well, and keeping them well, instead of just getting them extinct.

        Extincting them will not help the human species as well.

      • tim marshall on March 21, 2010 at 23:17

        human infants,toddlers and intellectually disabled individuals all lack what you are referring to above, Moral agency, moral agency is the capacity to make moral decisions, i.e. decisions involving sentient beings, beings capable of experiencing a life , pleasure & pain.
        all beings capable of sentience are moral subjects, ignoring their interests and denying them rights (for example,the right not to be exploited as property) is an example of humans not exercising their own capacity for moral agency, or perhaps we are well aware of the implications for the animal and simply ignore it.
        no one can opt out of their own “nature” someones nature describes what they do and who they are, if i go on a killing spree tomorrow people could say “ohh it wasnt in his nature” but in fact, clearly it was, it was in my nature to snap , no one knew it yet… I think the word/concept you are referring to is instinct.
        Instinct is a selectively applied term, when we want to describe human behaviour we refer to altruism and similar ideas but we reduce most non-human animal actions to “instinct”
        see here

        im sure 90% of the people that frequent this site apply rights to nonhuman animals, and i bet they do it inconsistently with each other, for example, westerners generally provide all sorts of protections to feline and canine animals (if someone has no rights , you could literally do anything to them with no recourse) and depending on the individual may also do it to domesticated rodents,horses , to whales , dolphins .. its arbitrary and speciesist (based on the irrelevant criteria of species).

        I read your article, vegans know full well about microbes and plants, we understand what is necessary to sustain life , veganism is about reducing suffering and improving lives, not eliminating suffering altogether, if thats what lierre keith thought then she was a poor vegan to begin with.

        you stated that you have never been cruel to an animal in your life and people who do so are your enemies …. you deny animal rights as a valid concept thus there is no grounds for that, the animals you speak of have no right to be treated well or kindly.
        you dont think denying someone their life at the very least is a harm or cruelty ? all the related issues aside ?

      • tim marshall on March 21, 2010 at 23:34

        I’ve never encountered a vegan who wanted the extinction of any animal capable of existing in the wild and who wasnt a cruel distortion of its original breed (before hundreds/thousands of generations or genetic warping through selective breeding) ..

        you said “The only option for animals to live in this world is for them to be useful to humans in some ways” .. how exactly is an elephant useful to you ? it sounds to me like you are confusing “this world” with an animal being in the “care” of humans .

        “Animals for food at least does not extinct them. It actually causes those lucky species to become ubiquitous” no animal, human included gets a great deal of happyness from how “ubiquitous” their species is ..
        if you were going to be electocuted,castrated,defeathered,defurred alive or have your throat slit would you consider yourself lucky because there are over 6 billion humans knocking about ?

        worse than being extinct is being of a breed that has constantly uncomfortable and inhibiting genetic abnormalities, thats the gift we give to nonhuman animals with selective breeding based on the criteria we want..

      • Tim Starr on March 22, 2010 at 01:00

        Nice fallacy of borderline cases you’ve got there. Sentience is useless, the proper principle for moral agency is reciprocity. Non-human animals don’t respect the rights of others, & thus do not deserve that respect themselves. Babies, children, & the mentally disabled are also incapable of respecting the rights of others to some degree, and to that degree their rights are curtailed. Their rights derive from the fact that they either will someday become a being capable of respecting the rights of others, or that they already do to some extent, or that they are not easily distinguishable from those capable of respecting others’ rights. None of these apply to non-human animals.

      • tim marshall on March 22, 2010 at 01:29

        err .. sentience is not the criteria for moral agency, I didnt imply that, sentience is the mark of a moral subject, its why we dont consider dropping the wellbeing of a rock . it isnt sentient so what you do to the rock does not involve a moral decision unless you perhaps throw it at someone.
        reciprocity is like a “whats in it for me” approach .
        you want to talk about borderline cases, you illustrated that the potential of a being to reciprocate anothers rights is the only thing that garners its own, would this mean its ok to mistreat children and the mentally disabled so long as it doesnt permanently damage the potential right reciprocator ?
        reciprocity as criteria for moral personhood and the validity of rights seems an ego based, self preservation related idea.

      • Tim Starr on March 22, 2010 at 14:30

        No, all else being equal, it’s not OK to harm a rights-bearing being, even if the harm is only temporary. The only justification for harming them is to prevent a greater harm to them or another rights-bearing being.

  43. Sue on March 15, 2010 at 15:52

    Okay Olivia.

    Truth, was that the whole factual rebuttal?

  44. Gabriella Kadar on March 15, 2010 at 16:43

    Hey, at least they didn’t shoot her.

    Cayenne? That’s mean and nasty.

    I guess she’s very threatening to some people.


  45. Deane on March 15, 2010 at 16:53

    I don’t know anything about this author but I will say that I uphold free speech. It is one of our basic rights. She and any one else can say what they wish and when they wish. It is in the Constitution and the gentlemen (and I use that term very lightly) need to go to jail.

  46. Dan Linehan on March 15, 2010 at 17:00

    From Jimmy Moore’s article:

    >You’re not gonna want to miss my upcoming interview with Kevin Brown on June 14, 2010 where he talks about the REAL Biblical diet that runs counter to what you’ve always heard…and backed by the Scripture.

    Lol. Really?

    • Rick on March 15, 2010 at 17:28

      You are really making a name for vegans Dan. Attempting to minimize the attack on Ms. Keith and mocking God all in one thread. Keep it up!

      • Richard Nikoley on March 15, 2010 at 17:37

        As it’s my blog and mine to risk I’ll say I’m happy for Dan to mock Zeus (my favorite of the fantastcal; although, I’ve quite a soft spot for Aphro’d.

        I’m glad to have him and Olivia aroud.

        We oughtn’t be religious about any of this.

      • Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 17:44

        Thanks Richard!

      • Bill on March 17, 2010 at 07:31

        There is a link beween vegans and deists. They are both seriously deluded.

      • Paul Verizzo on March 17, 2010 at 10:41

        Ummm, methinks y0u mean theists. Deists believe in a hands-off god. Sort of got the universe going and then stepped back. Deism was popular in the Age of Enlightenment. Most of the American Founding Fathers could fairly be called Deists. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, many others.

        Now, back to the Lierre Keith programming?

      • William on March 18, 2010 at 15:13

        Show me the evidence that links Vegans to Deism, Bill. My diet is about as opposite of a vegan diet as can be, [I am closer (very damn close) to a carnivore] yet I am a Deist. Doesn’t mean I hate Vegans, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, as many people who visit this blog fit into these various camps; hell, I was raised by an Atheist and Agnostic. But I wouldn’t say I am “deluded” simply because of my belief.

        This was an interesting post. Just to mention Lierre Keith or her work, seems to have brought out a lot of nastiness in people, on all sides. Why do people view the world through tunnel vision or see the universe in black and white? As mentioned before, I detest Lierre’s politics, yet when she speaks about paleo/primal diet, she has my attention in a huge way, as does this blog. After all, the main reason I read this blog daily, is because the knowledge gained has saved me from decades of absolute misery. Damn, I may not agree with one or two ideas from Art De Vany, and others but that doesn’t mean I hate them; I simply disagree with some things. Same goes for Lierre Keith.

      • Bill on March 18, 2010 at 20:58

        Deists believe in a kind of god. I don’t.
        I am an anti-theist and believe that veganism is unnatural and self abusive.
        The common link is delusion.

        I’m just offering my opinion.

        Then again, I might be deluded. (but not in a nasty way)

      • Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 17:43

        Doesn’t read to me like Dan is attempting to minimize the attack on Lierre Keith. He questioned there was cayenne before Lierre weighed in, he took issue with some of her writing, and he posted a sample of what he eats.

        Cayenne to the face is not ok. Let’s just get that out there.

  47. Arturo on March 15, 2010 at 17:43

    shameful thing, nonetheless here is the vid:

    • Sue on March 15, 2010 at 19:05

      Those spectating don’t even make a move, seem to just casually watch it as if its normal. Possibly a few in the audience were aware this was going to occur.

      • Olivia on March 15, 2010 at 19:25

        There is this thing we get in SF where we’re kind of desensitized to anarchist malarkey – so many flash mobs, performance artists, freaks & circus people. I wonder if people’s reaction wasn’t “oh lord, not another spontaneous pie fight…”

  48. Suzan on March 15, 2010 at 18:14

    Ms. Keith has a Facebook page:!/group.php?gid=96182311065

    I read her book. I found it fascinating and a great read. Did I agree with everything in the book? No. But I learned from it.

    I hope her eyes feel better soon.

  49. Tim Starr on March 15, 2010 at 19:30

    Yes, Keith seems to advocate some things many of us would disagree with, but there’s a big difference between advocacy and action, and I don’t see a whole lot of evidence that she or anyone directly connected to her has done much that we’d disagree with.

    I think her next speaking appearance ought to come w/ a personal bodyguard wearing leather jackets and steel-toed boots…

  50. Paul Riemann on March 15, 2010 at 19:58

    Steve wrote:

    “What’s with typing “veg*ans” instead of just “vegans”? Is that like “G*d” for “God” with Christians? It bet it is; both ideas share the same epistemology – and that epistemology is coming up with an idea out of thin air.”

    I was wondering that myself–the substitution of the asterisk for the letter. Not to get off topic, but since you mentioned it I have to say that I don’t think you know what epistemology is, and you certainly don’t know Christian epistemology.

    I’m a Christian Theist who loves Richard’s blog and subscribes to a LC/Semi-Paleo diet. And while I certainly am under no delusions as to Richard’s worldview, I had to defend my own here. I hope you don’t fault me for being a bit off topic here, Richard.

    P.S. I’m to am going to shun vegetables this week and eat some extra animal protein and fat in defense of Lierre. I would really like to get my hands on those fools and give them a good, stiff punch in the mouth!

  51. Juan on March 16, 2010 at 09:52

    The “rebuttals” and criticisms refuting Lierre Kieth’s claims posted on that indybay site (linked above somewhere) are far more muddled and use more fuzzy logic than they state Keith to be guilty of. What a joke. I haven’t the time, nor am I inclined, to pick that so-called refutation apart. Just another case of she said/he said.

    In the end, Keith is suggesting that the only true sustainability possible is if there were way fewer people on the earth, no matter how many acres are needed to sustain X number of people. (Angels on the head of a pin, perhaps?) James Lovelock would likely agree with her. The future isn’t going to be pretty no matter how much wishful thinking there is on any side of the fence.

    • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 10:58

      Funny that you write it off and criticize it yet you “haven’t the time” to respond to anything. What fuzzy logic? What’s muddled?

      You’re no better than the vegans who criticize the Vegetarian Myth without reading it first.

      • Juan on March 16, 2010 at 12:41

        I did read it, but I don’t want to devolve into a she said/he said argument, as I said. It does appear that you seem to want to do that. I notice your suggestion above that using flax-seeds will correct a huge omega-3/omega-6 imbalance balance. That is a good example of fuzzy logic.

      • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 19:29

        What does what I say have to do with the flier? Ridiculous that you’d pull from one of my comments instead of from the actual flier that you criticized above.

  52. Rick on March 16, 2010 at 12:39

    I heard a good quote somewhere: “Agriculture is back-breaking labor for piss-poor nutrition.” 🙂

    “Vegan” agriculture? Who cares what wheat, soybeans, and peanuts are grown in. I’ll have the grass-fed steak please.

    LOL at the factual rebuttal. All the author did there was make the score Lierre 194, Vegans 2. No wonder they had to resort to pie.

    • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 19:27

      “Agriculture is back-breaking labor for piss-poor nutrition.”

      Which is why I advocate for permaculture and not agriculture.

      • Rick on March 16, 2010 at 22:36

        You were singing the praises of a vegan farm.

        My main point is that whether they are grown roundup-ready or fall like manna from heaven, I’m not basing my diet around grains, beans, and nuts. Just like the cow, they want to live. But unlike the cow, they fight dirty.

  53. Richard Nikoley on March 16, 2010 at 13:20

    For those commenters who may be interested but didn’t notice it, I put up an update addendum to this post yesterday and another one just now linking to blogs both Jimmy Moore and comedian & filmmaker Tom Naughton (Fat-Head Movie) wrote up about this incident.

  54. Jimmy Moore on March 16, 2010 at 13:43

    Hey Richard, Lierre Keith responds to her cayenne pepper pie attackers in an interview I conducted with her today and will air on “The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show” on Thursday. The 15-minute conversation includes how she knew something might happen at the event before it happened, what became of the three people who assaulted her, her recollection of the entire incident as it was taking place, the physical effect this had on her eyes and inner ear, and what message she wants to share with this form of protest from radical vegans. DON’T MISS IT! Also, everyone should report this Lierre Keith attack video to YouTube. Click “Flag” & “Hateful or Abusive Content” & “Bullying”: Spread the word everyone!

    • William on March 16, 2010 at 20:16

      Chivalry is long dead! Notice how the male audience in the front row, sat on their sorry asses, with vacant eyes, like high rise building gargoyle’s starring into the depths of a city. I don’t agree one iota with Lierre’s politics, but she sure as hell didn’t deserve this bullshit.

      Also, notice the theme song: Benny Hill was funny; throwing a cayenne laced pie into a person who is giving a civil talk, is not.

    • Alex on March 16, 2010 at 20:19

      Right, we shouldn’t protest with pies. We should destroy the electric grid like Lierre Keith advocates!

  55. John Campbell on March 16, 2010 at 14:46

    Wow – these comments throw around more labels than the snack food aisle at 7-11.

    I am a capitalist – I abhor any government intervention in my life apart from protecting my rights and those of my fellow citizens. Capitalism does not include a food guide or subsidies for farming or any other business. Capitalism is consistent with food produced on industrial farms or small local growers as long as both parties do not impinge on the rights of others. Giant hog and chicken farms probably do damage outside parties and are often built through subsidies and tax holidays – again inconsistent with capitalism. If we had a true capitalist system, we would be healthier and happier than we are now. Raw milk would be widely available. The diversity that we would see in food production and consumption would be orders of magnitude greater than what we have now with our markets strangled by socialism and regulation.

    Capitalism does not turn people into saints, but the freedom it allows and encourages does contribute to greater happiness and ultimately health. Given the choice and the freedom to act and learn in an open environment, more people act intelligently and responsibly. Capitalism is agnostic on the subject of meat eater vs vegan, eating Twinkies vs real food. Each person must make that choice themselves without violence or threats from other individuals nor the state, no matter how noble they believe their intervention to be.

    Capitalism is not a hunter gatherer society writ large, but it allows people to pursue that lifestyle if they chose to do so. A hunter gatherer society would not produce the technological marvels we enjoy including the internet. I believe we can have a sustainable healthy lifestyle for billions of people. And technology and science supported by a capitalist society is the only way there. Just a romantic I guess.

  56. Pauli Halstead on March 16, 2010 at 15:09

    The actions of the pie thrower and all those who would advocate such disrespect towards Lierre Keith are appalling. It certainly shows me that veganism “produces” crazy and violent behavior. I recommend eating some good grass-fed meat, wild caught seafood and pastured dairy and eggs, high in Omega-3 fatty acids and L-Tryptophane to begin the healing process to get your neurotransmitters functioning again.

    Lets remember kindness, open mindedness and good will towards our fellow men and women that we share this planet with are the new order of the day, in case you haven’t heard. At least most people feel the pie thrower was really out of line.

    For Lierre….keep up the good work, live your truth and bless you for speaking it.

    • Olivia on March 16, 2010 at 16:38

      This commenter certainly shows me that omivorism “produces” crazy posts which jump to crazy conclusions.

      So much for that kindness and open-mindedness.

      Love, Violent O’Vegan

  57. Juan on March 16, 2010 at 20:08

    @Alex, I’m not especially interested in going after your particular examples of muddled thinking. But, I was pointing it out within your own writing — which apparently you do not seem to recognize — because seeing that made me wonder if you would recognize it elsewhere, such as in the flier we are referencing. Will it matter to you? I doubt it, but I’ll give it a shot:

    Here’s a section of that “rebuttal” :

    The Claim: Lierre claims that sustainable farming is not possible without domesticated livestock. “I would need domesticated animals—their labor and the products of their bodies—to farm sustainably. I needed their manure and their unspeakable bones, their inconceivable blood.” (P. 58)

    In Reality: How then does she explain the success of vegan organic agriculture in the UK and US, where no animal inputs are used? How does she explain that the most successful organic CSA in the country actually uses no animal products on their fields (Honey Brook Farm in New Jersey)?

    Has this person even read the book? It is obvious by the answer that he/she does not know what Keith means by “sustainable”. Does Honey Brook Farm use trucks or tractors? How are those vehicles fueled? What do they use for fertilizer and where does it come from? Does it get there using wind power? Hmm … I doubt it. So there’s the whole fossil fuel thing (not sustainable, by the way). Etc., etc.. Which is to say that somewhere down the line, there is always a great deal of un-sustainability. Righteous veganism usually ignores these pesky facts.

    THAT is what I would call muddled thinking.

    There is more correct than there is “wrong” in Lierre Keith’s book. At least, as regards natural human diet, health, and our food supply. Many vegan/vegetarians and “we” in the so-called paleo community are after the very same things. There is nothing natural or especially healthy about a vegan diet, though, no matter how sincere in their beliefs persons adhering to it might be.

    • Hugh on March 16, 2010 at 20:26

      I say we encourage their debunking of the book. And then someone can debunk their debunking, and in turn they can debunk the debunking of their debunking. That’s one way knowledge gets created, no?

      Also, I like the word debunk.

    • Johnny on March 17, 2010 at 03:40

      Well, I have done a little gardening back at my granny’s place. She had a compost pile where we put all the leaves, food leftovers, cut grass and other stuff. Then it composted for a few years, after which all the vegetation and food leftovers turned into rich black soil, which we then used to fertilize our garden. We constantly added matter to the compost pile and at the same time used the soil, so there was a constant supply of rich soil.

      So it probably is possible to do organic farming without animals. We had just a small garden in our backyard with some potatoes, cabbages, peas, cucumbers, onions and other stuff that was enough for our family to eat for the entire summer. We just bought meat, eggs and butter from a local farmer, and occasionally some stuff from the supermarket. I am sure that on a larger scale manure from animals would make fertilizing and growing stuff easier, but I don’t think it’s impossible without it.

      • Annette on March 17, 2010 at 11:16

        Well, the worms and other organisms helped your leaves, etc. turn into compost, so animals were involved.

        Sheep pellets and chicken poo are sought after by many amateur gardeners to fertilise the soil. If your local farmers weren’t using their animal manure (or even if they were), they would be using commercial fertilisers in some form of “top dressing”, unless they were following Steiner procedures. Even those use animal products in various forms.

        Our local zoo sells “zoo poo”, and in some countries, human waste has always been used for fertiliser.

        You can’t produce food without some animal input in the process.

  58. Jimmy Moore on March 17, 2010 at 14:35

    Jimmy Moore Interview: ‘Vegetarian Myth’ Author Lierre Keith Responds To Cayenne Pepper Pie Attack On 3-13-10: Listen to the entire 15-minute interview at on March 18, 2010!

    • Richard Nikoley on March 17, 2010 at 14:37

      We must have been writing at the same time, Jimmy.

      Good for you. Thank you. I count Lierre a friend, you too, and it’s good to see my friends defending one-another.

  59. damaged justice on March 17, 2010 at 13:20

    Once again, I am depressed and amazed:

    Hey, no skin off my ass. But with idiot “libertarians” like this, who needs statists?

    • Richard Nikoley on March 17, 2010 at 14:16

      You think THAT’s bad, DJ?

      Ha, check out the last time I got into serious action at Hit & Run (I’ve been a print subscriber to Reason since the early 90s). You may not want to spend a lot of time on this, but there’s over 2100 comments.

      • damaged justice on March 17, 2010 at 14:40

        Oh G-d, I remember that one. THE STUPID IT BURNS

  60. Richard Nikoley on March 17, 2010 at 14:07

    Wow, 161 comments.

    In case some of you aren’t following the blog and just stopped in here for this, let me direct your attention to my post of today.

    There’s a more nutritional approach to the way us “paleos” eat. It’s currently #2 on Amazon for all books.

  61. Richard Nikoley on March 17, 2010 at 14:34

    Lierre Keith responds. Jimmy Moore interview.

  62. Jimmy Moore on March 17, 2010 at 14:49

    LOL! It appears that way, Richard. I will fight to defend my friends to the bitter end, my friend. THANKS for spreading the word. You won’t want to miss that last 7-8 minutes where Lierre has a special message for the vegans who think this was funny.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 17, 2010 at 15:17

      Does that mean there’s more than the YTube? Gotta check. I was in a rush to get to the grocery store.

  63. Jimmy Moore on March 17, 2010 at 17:15

    Yep! I went ahead and posted half of the 15-minute interview on YouTube as a teaser and the full interview will be at the very beginning of my podcast show tomorrow.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 17, 2010 at 17:19

      I’ll cetainly link up the rest of it then.

  64. Jimmy Moore on March 17, 2010 at 17:21

    THANK YOU kindly sir! I should be posted in the late morning tomorrow. 🙂

  65. jessia on March 17, 2010 at 23:18

    i agree this was horrible, those guys are so stupid for doing this -_____- they give vegans a really bad rep….

    i have been vegan for awhile and honestly, i am not hostile or angry, and would never do anything like this to anyone. ive never even hit anyone in my whole life, dead honest. but i think its because im not a radical vegan; im not out there picketing and saying people who eat meat are horrible and disgusting people…theyre not. i just found personally for myself that the vegan diet made me feel and look the best. i have gallbladder problems (inherited from my father since i was younger), so any food that is too rich or too fatty makes me sick. so i noticed that any type of meat (except for fish, usually. sometimes it still hurts my stomach), always upset my stomach, organic, free range or whatever. dairy also hurt my stomach, but i think due to lactose intolerance. so i decided to go vegan for those reasons, not because i think eating meat is disgusting. i hope people realize that not all vegans are psycho. cause they arent. theres just alot of radicals out there.

    • Paul on March 18, 2010 at 04:45

      I think mos of us know that most vegans are like most folks everywhere, Jessica. They would never do such a thing, especially the pain causing pepper.

      And unlike so many vegans who wouldn’t approve of my paleo/primal diet, I say to you, if it works for you, have at it! Just do be careful, it is not a natural diet and w/o care, like Ms. Keith, you might put yourself at risk.

      Thanks for leaving Elsie the Cow for me! 🙂

    • tim marshall on March 22, 2010 at 01:20

      you are a strict vegetarian then, not a vegan . just to clarify, no offense intended.

      • jessia on March 25, 2010 at 11:56

        yea i agree it would be more of a strict vegetarian then. and thank you both for your kind responses :3

  66. Robert Brellson on March 18, 2010 at 02:23

    But they are anarchists! What they did is what people without rules does. And if it was not this person whom you all love but George Bush you would be cheering them. You are all hyprocrites.

    • damaged justice on March 18, 2010 at 04:00

      Wrong on all counts, you ignorant, grammar-challenged troll.

    • Paul on March 18, 2010 at 04:41

      A mighty broad brush, Robert. I despised the policies of GW as much as anyone can. But I always said, if he showed up at my door I’d invite him in for (non-alcoholic?) beer. Wait, all my beer has alcohol. ……

      Presuming that someone could have pied Mr. Bush, they probably would not have made it out of there alive. To have pied him would have required both bravery and stupidity. To pie Ms. Keith took only effort and cowardice. In fact, watching the video, I found myself yelling inwardly, “Cowards! Cowards!” Masks, even.

    • Tim Starr on March 18, 2010 at 12:10

      I didn’t cheer when Bush had a shoe thrown at him in Iraq, by someone who never would’ve dared throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein for fear of being tortured to death.

  67. Jimmy Moore on March 18, 2010 at 07:38

    FYI! DON’T accept Twitter requests from username “Lierre_Keith.” The URL goes to a pro-vegan/anti-Lierre Keith web site meant to tear her down. It was created by a radical vegan named Kyle who hates her.

  68. Richard Nikoley on March 18, 2010 at 11:20

    Great post by comedian Tom Naughton on True Believerism, using Lierre Keith’s attack as inspiration.

  69. Richard Nikoley on March 19, 2010 at 12:38

    Uh, oh.

    According to this, greenies are meanies.

    • Dan Linehan on March 19, 2010 at 17:04

      I’m so vegan I’m actually allowed to kick babies now..

      • tim marshall on March 19, 2010 at 17:16

        explain ? (human babies are in fact animals and immune to being intentionally harmed or exploited by vegans)

      • tim marshall on March 19, 2010 at 17:18

        or were you linking it to being “green” ? being green makes you avoid meat perhaps and some animal based foods but doesnt motivate veganism, some animal products have very little impact on the environment, neither health or being “green” will make a person arrive at veganism , (total avoidance of animal bits an pieces) only ethics

      • Travis on March 25, 2010 at 09:51

        I think his point is there are some vegans who view themselves as above it, holier-than-thou, all based solely dietary choices. Having known some vegans and vegetarians, I would have to say such arrogant and narrow-minded individuals are small in number, though they tend to be the loudest and therefore noticed the most.

  70. Williamsburg Strength and Conditioning - CrossFit 1776 - Williamsburg, VA » CrossFit strength and conditioning and how to live your best! on March 20, 2010 at 04:18

    […] cheered.  It was truly disgusting.  Richard Nikoley and Tom Naughton reported on the assault here and here.  Jimmy Moore has a  interview with Lierre about the attack here. Tom Naughton proposes […]

  71. Weekend Link Love | Mark's Daily Apple on March 24, 2010 at 10:26

    […] the Primal Blueprint 101 page. Thanks for visiting!Last Saturday at a San Francisco book fair, three men threw cayenne laced pies in the face of Vegetarian Myth author Lierre Keith. On Thursday, Jimmy Moore interviewed Lierre about the cowardly act, and the reaction to […]

  72. Debunking Paleo Myths « Sleep, Eat, Gym, Repeat. on December 8, 2011 at 11:39

    […] Sheesh. A whole book could be written in rebuttal to those three points. Luckily, pepper-pie victim and ex-vegan Lierre Keith has done just the thing. You can preview it (i.e., read the whole […]

  73. Debunking Paleo Myths « Sleep, Eat, Gym, Repeat. on December 8, 2011 at 11:49

    […] unhealthy! A: Sheesh. A whole book could be written in rebuttal to those three points. Luckily, pepper-pie victim and ex-vegan Lierre Keith has done just the thing. You can preview it (i.e., read the whole […]

  74. Josh on June 28, 2015 at 17:37

    One of my close friends thought it would be funny to put chunks of steak in my vegetable curry.

    I know some of you may find this amusing but the point I’m making is that I don’t now think, “All meat-eaters are untrustworthy XXXs who get a kick out of upsetting others (or vegans).” but the truth is, some do.

    I think their mentality is, “Veganism is just stupid. They should just eat meat like a normal person.”, then force that in to my food.

    I’m hoping that most of you will feel uncomfortable with the possibility that someone would intentionally and knowingly put something in your food that they knew you did not wish to consume (for whatever reason).

    • Richard Nikoley on June 28, 2015 at 18:06

      Josh, I’m horrified that someone put food in your food.

      Did they do “the airplane” to get you to eat it?

    • Richard Nikoley on June 28, 2015 at 18:08

      U poor babies.

  75. Josh on June 29, 2015 at 06:04

    You say: “I think the assault & battery speaks for itself and is an excellent representation of vegetarianism and veganism in general.”


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k