Monthly Archives: January 2013


Sunlight – a vital nutritive factor in life

“Sunlight is vitally important in the nutritive processes of both plant and animal life. Perhaps we cannot call it a food, but we can, at least, call it an accessory nutritive factor. Its office would seem to be somewhat like, if not identical with that of the vitamins. Take away sunlight and all life upon earth would perish. In the tropics, where the sunlight is most abundant, life exists in greatest profusion. In those portions of the earth where nights are longest and days are shortest, and where long winters prevail, life is either absent altogether or it consists of poorly developed forms.” [1]

“The evidence is clear from animal experiment and human experience that if a child receives an abundance of sunlight it will thrive on almost any kind of diet, whereas, if you deprive it of sunlight, it will not thrive well on the best of diets. Sunlight is one of the most important elements of the natural diet. Every child should have sunlight before birth and after birth. No “just-as-good” substitutes should be used.” [2]

“After due consideration of the influence of light in promoting the development of animals, Trall declared that the exposure of the whole surface of the body to light is favorable to symmetrical development and offered insolation in the open air as a means of preventing and remedying rickets and scrofulous conditions.” [2]

” If sunlight is so necessary to the perpetuation of life, and the production of normal development, it is equally necessary to the preservation of health and the prevention of “disease.” if it is as necessary to life and health as are food and air, the body must inevitably be weakened and “diseased” in its absence. It fills an important need in the organism and its place cannot be filled by anything else. The highest degree of health cannot be attained and maintained without it.” [2]


Extracted from:

Vol. III
First Edition 1934
Third Revised Edition 1950

at the Soil and Health Library

[1] The Use of Sunshine, CHAPTER XL.
[2] Sunshine In Sickness, CHAPTER XLI.


Exclusion of animals from the human scope of justice

“Humans and animals share many similarities. Across three studies, the authors demonstrate that the framing of these similarities has significant consequences for people’s moral concern for others.” [1]

“Studies on dehumanization demonstrated that denying certain human characteristics might serve as a strategy for moral disengagement. Meat consumption-especially in the times of cruel animal farming-is related to the exclusion of animals from the human scope of justice.” [2]

“Most people love animals and love eating meat. One way of reducing this conflict is to deny that animals suffer and have moral rights. We suggest that the act of categorizing an animal as ‘food’ may diminish their perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn dampens our moral concern.” [3]

“Many people like eating meat, but most are reluctant to harm things that have minds. The current three studies show that this dissonance motivates people to deny minds to animals.” [4]

“Nonhuman animal farming, by its fundamental nature, involves a greater or lesser degree of ill
treatment and oppression. (…) Worldwide, approximately 55,000,000,000 land-based nonhumans are killed every year in the farming industry (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 2010).” [5]



[1] Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., Hodson, G. When Closing the Human-Animal Divide Expands Moral Concern: The Importance of Framing, (2012) Social Psychological and Personality Science 3 (4) , pp. 421-429.

[2] Bilewicz M., Imhoff R., Drogosz M. The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores, (2011) European Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (2) , pp. 201-209.

[3] Bratanova B., Loughnan S., Bastian B. The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals, (2011) Appetite, 57 (1) , pp. 193-196.

[4] Bastian B., Loughnan S., Haslam N., Radke H.R.M. Don’t mind meat? the denial of mind to animals used for human consumption, (2012) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (2) , pp. 247-256.

[5] Mitchell L. Moral disengagement and support for nonhuman animal farming, (2011) Society and Animals, 19 (1) , pp. 38-58.