[mikemike]

I think the whole vegetarian movement is just a front for ADM and Monsanto to push genetically modified soybeans.

[Ratmagiclady]

I wasn't trying to make it a contest between good and evil, and the comparison to herbivores was to show how our bodies are constructed (herbivore-like).

Actually, you're just being dualist-absolutist about *that,* in ways that are actually easily-refuted, see posts from those of us above who did.

Neither am I trying to say vegetarianism is superior, which it may be --

Actually, I addressed that, too: you're using the same arguments from some false sense of binary 'natural law' that aren't even *true* to rationalize calling people sick and unnatural and morally inferior and 'addicted' (or even formatively-neurotic in Freudian pop-psych terms.)



These are structurally the same *arguments* used against LGBT people by bigots.

Whether or not you think you're 'superior' is irrelevant, practically speaking: you still place yourself in an undue position to 'judge' based on premises and standards that do not hold up to scrutiny. And apply all the stigma you wouldn't hear from bigots about sexuality. Including blaming some 'sin' of meat-eating for the ills of a society built on ...Destroying plains to grow grain. Whatever it's used for.


It's the same process and suite of 'attacks' and denials and fallacies that I'm always calling 'phobes and climate and evolution and science and history deniers on. Just cause Vegans are usually self-identified 'liberals' doesn't change that.

. Anyway, most of my responses have been to claims you guys have made about not making a difference to world hunger, or we are built to eat meat, or enjoying life necessarily entails indulging appetites, etc. I'm sorry if any of that came off as holier than thou. Some of my best friends are . . . no wait, ALL my friends (except wife) consume dead rotting flesh

Even that 'Some of my best friends are disgusting subhumans, but I'm not prejudiced or wrong even in the face of facts.'

My main point may have been lost in the side issues, but it was that meat eating discussions seem to never reach a point where an objective exchange of ideas takes place about its real costs (health, environment, world hunger, actual dollars) because people are so attached to eating meat they will rationalize away every problem. From my standpoint, comparing the resources necessary for my diet to a meat eaters, I don't see it as any different than the person who compares driving his electric car to a gas-guzzling SUV. Similar too is how there was a time not so long ago where trying to eliminate gas guzzlers was only going to happen if you pried it from their cold, dead hands.

Again, you're just trying to claim that the problems of *excess* are cause of some lack of 'moral purity' ...and *that* doesn't address systems or situations or the diversity of *real life.*

If you outlawed gasoline today, junked my old Volvo (factory spec 20 MPG: probably significantly less currently, given some time and parts I've been known to get a good deal more than spec out of any given vehicle) ...and *handed* me a brand new electric, (Which wouldn't serve to carry what I need a vehicle to,) it'd be a net loss for the environment: Why? Quantity. This vehicle is essential for me to live someplace I can pay the rent, not to mention hopefully make the most of other resources: my health hasn't been there for much, yet, but I can't 'upcycle' something if I can't get it *home.* Even just for daily life, though, the gas I've burned to keep myself afloat in *many months now* (I set the trip odometer after the initial moving-related frenzy of driving: since then I've driven 130 miles in some six months. Those are miles I couldn't walk, but not much gas.) wouldn't pay *to* junk this old gal, never mind make the *seats* in a new electric. And she's already paid for herself in what just the rent would cost anywhere with public transport to speak of.) The biggest environmental waste associated with this vehicle comes from me *simply not having enough cash in one place at the right time to put good quality *used* tires on, or at least new ones of better quality but no less environmental impact, instead of buying decent quality but brand-new basic Kellys. Just to keep going when it was crucial. And this is an example of where the *environmentally* smart and practical move too often doesn't square with the economics on the ground: New tires are pretty much new tires when it comes to the environment: but slightly-worn-in Nikes would have probably served a good deal better than 'brand new Keds.' Not only would it have been less manufacturing load, it would also probably put me at less risk of an unlikely crack-up that'd waste the whole 3500 pounds of vehicle. Old wagon: More PC than an SUV, but similar weight, and I don't need to be spinning a front transaxle to be able to pull my sweetie's compact out of where she's actually been known to *go into the woods to save some trees with science while not watching where she parks a subcompact. * And I'm not even there to *do* things like that, cause some people rationalize ideology with poor understandings of human evolutionary biology and anthropology that they try to spin into ...Just the kind of absolutist 'moralistic' arguments from some false claims about 'nature' and 'human nature' you're trying to make, here. This is about interrelated *systems* and *adaptations,* not trying to cram the world into an ideology.

(That makes a lot of Vegans sound like desperate 'Ex-gays,' to be quite honest. Same problem, same process, different 'issue.' If you have to say 'Rotting animal flesh' to try and make some point, it's little different from the scatological portrayals Fundies make about my own cozy little sex life. Or, more often, bring their thing about their idea of how boys do it into things. )


And that kind of thought-process of shaming and 'temptation' and self-righteousness and excess in the name of 'failure to be absolutistly-righteous enough' ....Well, it doesn't make anyone any straighter or sexually-continent or honorable, or make anyone healthier or less wasteful and disrespectful of food and our own biology and nature or even nutrition, any more than playing at 'hybrids vs SUVs' gets us anything more than people *commuting way too far and too much, whether they do it in a Prius or a duallie with testicles hanging off the trailer hitch.*


It's not some 'failure of moral purity,' ...it's disregard for systems and reality and our own selves.

[les3547]

Electric cars use less resources or non local resources compared to SUV. In most cases there is little environmental downside to electric cars and non at all to more fuel efficient ones. Stopping eating meat does have an environmental cost and that is to the prairie/plains ecosystem unless you wish to have people desert it and move into cities etc. Ranching substains biodiversity.

I think you missed the part about how it takes forty pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Without meat, less land would be required to feed people, not more.

I also think that our ancestors were classified as omnivours , herbivours etc based on skeletal remains not on cultural mores.

The skeletal remains are fundamentally the same as ours, they have the physical characteristics of herbivores. I believe we started eating meat because we didn't know how to farm, nor had the time to before we starved.

I is not a simple solution to a complex problem. Some problems have single solutions others do not.

Indeed. As one researcher said in the OP quotes, people are not going to stop eating meat. In most Western countries, there is a developing trend of limiting how much red meat one eats because of recognized health benefits. If that trend continues, people looking to be more healthy will also learn how to cook in ways that make a meatless/low meat diet more tasty (which IMO is a big reason people worry about going without meat). From the Wikipedia:

Scientific endeavors in the area of vegetarianism have shifted from concerns about nutritional adequacy to investigating health benefits and disease prevention. The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in non-vegetarians. Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy. Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.

Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome, dementias such as Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders. Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs. Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer. A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles. However, vegetarians are more likely to be deficient in vitamin B12, leading to increased incidence of osteoporosis and depression.

The 2010 version of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services every five years states:

In prospective studies of adults, compared to non-vegetarian eating patterns, vegetarian-style eating patterns have been associated with improved health outcomes—lower levels of obesity, a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, and lower total mortality. Several clinical trials have documented that vegetarian eating patterns lower blood pressure.

On average, vegetarians consume a lower proportion of calories from fat (particularly saturated fatty acids); fewer overall calories; and more fiber, potassium, and vitamin C than do non-vegetarians. Vegetarians generally have a lower body mass index. These characteristics and other lifestyle factors associated with a vegetarian diet may contribute to the positive health outcomes that have been identified among vegetarians.

[ihasa]

I think if this argument was presented in a less polarised way - with ascetic veganism on one hand and gluttonous gorging on steaks and sausages on the other - it would gain more traction. Les, I skim read your posts but I have heard from many reputable sources that a vegetarian diet is less intensive on resources, so I am totally with you in your argument. But people will never stomach being told to switch to a purely vegetarian diet, and yes, in some scenarios, raising livestock for meat really is the most efficient use of land. And without going into the scientific arguments, I think it is pretty obvious that humans have evolved for an omnivorous diet - neither purely carnivorous or vegetarian.

The problem is we now expect cheap meat, and lots of it. The vegetarian portion of our diet is neglected. In the past, meat was a luxury eaten maybe once or twice a week, with fish on a friday. That was dictated by economic necessity rather than a conscious desire to live in balance with the land - but we were indeed more in balance. Meat was used sparingly and smartly to give the best bang for the buck. It was probably appreciated all the more for it too.

The bonanza of cheap meat we have now become used to is not good for us or the planet. Let us tax all processed meat. No one needs processed baloney, tinned ham or 'pink burger-slime' in their life.

You Tube

You Tube

Let's also heavily regulate the animal welfare and environmental standards of livestock rearing, and ban imports which do not meet these standards, while promoting sustainable and healthy vegetable produce through education and (if necessary) carefully targeted subsidies.

And let's persuade China and India to follow our example before their tastes develop too far in the same direction.

---

Last edited by ihasa; 02-13-2012 at 04:02 PM.

[GeneV]

I think if this argument was presented in a less polarised way - with ascetic veganism on one hand and gluttonous gorging on steaks and sausages on the other - it would gain more traction. Les, I skim read your posts but I have heard from many reputable sources that a vegetarian diet is less intensive on resources, so I am totally with you in your argument. But people will never stomach being told to switch to a purely vegetarian diet, and yes, in some scenarios, raising livestock for meat really is the most efficient use of land. And without going into the scientific arguments, I think it is pretty obvious that humans have evolved for an omnivorous diet - neither purely carnivorous or vegetarian.

The problem is we now expect cheap meat, and lots of it. The vegetarian portion of our diet is neglected. In the past, meat was a luxury eaten maybe once or twice a week, with fish on a friday. That was dictated by economic necessity rather than a conscious desire to live in balance with the land - but we were indeed more in balance. Meat was used sparingly and smartly to give the best bang for the buck. It was probably appreciated all the more for it too.

The bonanza of cheap meat we have now become used to is not good for us or the planet. Let us tax all processed meat. No one needs processed baloney, tinned ham or 'pink burger-slime' in their life.

Let's also heavily regulate the animal welfare and environmental standards of livestock rearing, and ban imports which do not meet these standards, while promoting sustainable and healthy vegetable produce through education and (if necessary) carefully targeted subsidies.

And let's persuade China and India to follow our example before their tastes develop too far in the same direction.

I agree, and that is where I was going with making sure meat prices reflect its true costs. There is something between complete vegetarianism and eating gobs of meat at every meal. However, the point of that Austrian film is a good one: it is the corporate farming methods and wasteful eating habits--whether the food is animal or vegetable--that are some of the biggest contributors to these ills.

[Ratmagiclady]

I think you missed the part about how it takes forty pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Without meat, less land would be required to feed people, not more."

I think you missed the part about how grazing land can *make* those pounds without those impacts that come of growing too much grain on what should be grassland, with all the inputs *that* takes (unsustainably)

You're claiming absolutisms and ignoring *the landscape.*

The skeletal remains are fundamentally the same as ours, they have the physical characteristics of herbivores. I believe we started eating meat because we didn't know how to farm, nor had the time to before we starved.

That's refuted above about the claims of 'characteristics of herbivores.' That's no different from claiming everyone must always be excclusively-straight or have 'Always been patriarchal nuclear families of isolated breeding pairs' just cause most of us are fertile.

It's simply not true.

Perhaps read what I wrote earlier today? And what others did?

You're still leaning on untruths and drawing conclusions that would be fallacious even if they *were.*


The human brain is one of the most nutritional-and-caloric-resource intensive organs in the natural world.

I don't know about you, but a lot of *mine* seems to be devoted to tracking moving objects and intercepting them by various means with uncanny accuracy. Last I saw, berries and roots didn't move that fast.

Indeed. As one researcher said in the OP quotes, people are not going to stop eating meat. In most Western countries, there is a developing trend of limiting how much red meat one eats because of recognized health benefits. If that trend continues, people looking to be more healthy will also learn how to cook in ways that make a meatless/low meat diet more tasty (which IMO is a big reason people worry about going without meat). From the Wikipedia:

Like many Vegans, you do seem to be rather obsessed with trying to make a certain kind of food palatable. And try to spank away anything else. There's a reason for that.

Please do see above.

And meanwhile: If you don't want to eat a cheeseburger, *don't have one.* Don't try and wrap the whole world around some notion that it's some 'evil temptation destroying society.' if you can't 'prove' 'Eating meat is unnatural and a 'sinful temptation.'

Do you ever wonder why, (in societies where adults don't, anyway....) toddlers have to be taught not to eat bugs? Never mind be grossed out by it? (It's not too hard in North America, really, a lot of the bugs here really are pretty gross: in a lot of the rest of the world, locusts, ants, mealworms, mostly not bad. They mostly aren't evolved around evading predation as some are here. )

Cause we're primates. Omnivorous primates.

[GeneV]

Here is a pretty good response to the physiology points. Paleo diet: humans did evolve to eat meat. We have been eating meat for so long that I think the species would have died out by now if it were that unnatural.

[Ratmagiclady]

The problem is we now expect cheap meat, and lots of it. The vegetarian portion of our diet is neglected. In the past, meat was a luxury eaten maybe once or twice a week, with fish on a friday. That was dictated by economic necessity rather than a conscious desire to live in balance with the land - but we were indeed more in balance. Meat was used sparingly and smartly to give the best bang for the buck. It was probably appreciated all the more for it too.

The bonanza of cheap meat we have now become used to is not good for us or the planet. Let us tax all processed meat. No one needs processed baloney, tinned ham or 'pink burger-slime' in their life.

Incorrect.

And regressive taxes are *not* the solution. That's the opposite of a solution: If there's to be increased cost, *especially* to the poor, that cost should come of better *quality,* not tacking on punitive 'sin taxes' that only mean they have to make the meat *crappier* and more sweetened and salted (and fillered with soy and corn syrup) to keep poor people able to buy it.


All 'sin taxes' do is lower quality and mean the poorest take in more chemicals and preservatives and pay more to do it. When they 'sin taxed' cigarettes, the effect was that a ninety nine cent pack of smokes was replaced with agribusiness chopping up byproducts and spraying on more nicotene and chemicals to make certain problems *worse,* not to mention more unhealthy. While twice as much came out of food budgets. And it did nothing to address the fact that not everyone can keep up with this society, or find a niche, without the stuff.

Proper tobacco has medicinal uses that go beyond the nicotene white folks are so addictable to. Regressive taxes only mean more addictive and unhealthy additives (They just *spray on* more nicotene. make filters that make people breathe deeper, and that out of fiberglass that alone ain't good for you to inhale,) and less of what people smoke *for.*

And again the problem is *quantity* and *disrespect,* not some *failure of moral purity that must be punished.*

I mean, this society was *built* by chain-smokers... and as we're increasingly forced into competing at fewer and fewer roles for the benefit of corporate efficiency, we may 'reduce smoking' all we want, but have you noticed that as we 'quit smoking' in this society, we've also started using a lot, a lot, a lot, and more, of psych meds for anxiety, depression, etc etc? Just to get by? Have you noticed what a lot of 'stop smoking' meds are made of and their side-effects.... Pretty much the same, right down to risk of suicide. Noticed?

That's cause what ails us as a society just ain't about 'banning' something and calling it 'Good.' (or more to the point: 'Fighting An Evil' ) Nah-uh. It's about what we *really* won't look at. How we're living, and how few of us really thrive in it.

Let's also heavily regulate the animal welfare and environmental standards of livestock rearing, and ban imports which do not meet these standards, while promoting sustainable and healthy vegetable produce through education and (if necessary) carefully targeted subsidies.

And let's persuade China and India to follow our example before their tastes develop too far in the same direction.

This is called *respect for what we eat.* If we show that respect, any drop in quantity *will* be an increase in quality.

These moralisms and all, what do they say, 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself. But you're awful and bestial and rebellious if you think, or fear, or love, or are brave, never mind feel or honor a bit of simple *desire...* so you should *hate* yourself.'

Is it any wonder what that leads to.

[Ash]

Ensure that schools teach kids, especially in the city, about farming practices, both agricultural and dairy/cattle,including excursions to such farms, so that they can gain an appreciation of what it takes economically and vocationally for food to go from the farm to the plate. Perhaps that too might help kids as they grow older to take waste and sustainability seriously.

[les3547]

I think if this argument was presented in a less polarised way - with ascetic veganism on one hand and gluttonous gorging on steaks and sausages on the other - it would gain more traction.

I probably did a poor job of it, but it wasn't my intention to suggest such a polarity, or that everyone should stop eating meat. It was first to raise the issue of why the subject is so difficult to discuss objectively. And then, despite that paranoid types might imagine I'm pushing vegetarianism, to point to the cost, actual cost, of heavy meat eating. That would include cost to the environment and health care, so as Gene and you seem to suggest, this cost should be reflected in the price of meat.

[Ratmagiclady]

I probably did a poor job of it, but it wasn't my intention to suggest such a polarity, or that everyone should stop eating meat. It was first to raise the issue of why the subject is so difficult to discuss objectively. And then, despite that paranoid types might imagine I'm pushing vegetarianism, to point to the cost, actual cost, of heavy meat eating. That would include cost to the environment and health care, so as Gene and you seem to suggest, this cost should be reflected in the price of meat.

Actually, the floor price of half decent meat (as well as produce) is well above inflation some years since. Tried shopping in my neighborhood lately, (or anywhere?)

Your arguments that humans are naturally herbivores or your comparisons to addictions or vices or some 'defiance of nature' through untruths about our species are what *really* get my burr up, Les.

It's not that it's *meat,* you know: it's how wastefully it's gone about. Taking more money out of the rest of my food budget and claiming false moralism justified by denialist false science and a bunch of attempts at 'gross-out factor' will *not* improve my nutrition. I promise. That kind of thing never made me any straighter, and it's sure not going to make a herd animal of me.

I have a great hunting and herding heritage, and hearken to some of our predator cousins. But as you can see by my screen name, I'm not ashamed of our proud scavenging heritage, either. It's about respect, man. Not your absolutes.

Cause spewing ideologically-based untruths and then saying, 'Well, it's OK if I claim I'll deign to not enforce this so hard' doesn't *actually* mean moderation or balance, or that your appeals to science aren't *wrong,* .... only that you claim extremist untruths and will deign to 'compromise' or 'tolerate.' (And you're probably going to just go off and repeat the same lines elsewhere and hope someone believes you, ) but It's still not truth, and you're still missing what can *really* be done to *actually fix this* if you stop trying to put hairshirts and fleece on us.


Funny enough, that's why they try and starve people and then insert *praying* for or over *soup.* Hoping to take docile and malnourished *omnivores* mistake the relief of nutrient deprivation for some 'Holy One True Righteousness.' *That* I've always found degrading. B-vitamins. Give it a few minutes. *Then* theology. Or ideology. Or not.

(It's better to get it from actual meat, (or at least yeast powder, but that's expensive and perishable) but in all my years as street shamaney type, I would always keep those things around in *bulk.* Cause ninety percent of people run-down or freaked out or even hitting the bottle too hard and trying to chase off the resulting shakes and other stuff, (with more booze) you can help out screwing their head back on with a few vitamins and maybe some rose-hips, and just be there and listen. . Not being interested in proselytizing in my faith, (and usually having to hide from the very people asking for help) it's not so hard to see that it's about nutrition: nutrition that doesn't square with Vegan ideological claims for the overconsuming, richer, and diet-guilt-ridden world. You just see how people come back to themselves. A good bit, anyway. Since I know how it feels, I wouldn't exploit it. And the simple fact is that a lot of Vegan ideologues just ain't thinking straight, either.

My best friend still in contact is a lifelong vegetarian, and he's always been sharp as a tack, (not to mention a Hel of a good shot, and despite getting a little rotund, anyway, ) but people trying to justify an ideology about it tend to be both clumsy and wiggin' out about trying to justify something self-righteous, usually actually acting more like addicts than omnivores, really. Obsessed with food, and no matter how many times you say, "Sarah, every time you go Vegan you wig out about things you are *totally* capable of handling ordinarily, hurt yourself by accident way too much, and within a year and a half total some vehicle. To wit, your spatial perception and motor skills go to *pot.* " ....they're still trying to prove something.

Same person I quote as saying, 'You know, herbivores live fifteen percent longer than carnivores?' and me quipping, 'Herbivores spend eighty five percent of their lives *eating and chewing.* And that's before there's this thing about driving fifteen miles for a Vegan scone and calling it environmentalism.

[er1kksen]

I think the important take-home here is that vegetarian/vegan ideology misses the point entirely: our problems today, from both an environmental and health standpoint, are derived from industrialized, grain-based agriculture. You can't produce grain-fed meat without growing the grain in the first place. Localized economies that center around intentionally creating an integrated ecosystem of plants and animals in which humans take part absolutely can feed an omnivorous world of humans, as well as an endless variety of other species of flora and fauna. In fact, it's a far more sustainable solution than a vegetarian world fed by grain and intensive fruit and vegetable agriculture, which require economies of scale and nonlocal distribution that require a centralization of power that is inevitably abused (how do you think civilization came to be in the first place?) as well as being harmful to biodiversity and more vulnerable to environmental changes, as compared to highly adaptable local systems.

And the claim that consumption of animal products, in and of itself, is harmful to health simply does not stand. I have never seen a single study linking clean, naturally-produced beef, pork, chicken, eggs, or anything of that ilk with harmful health effects, even as the primary component of one's diet. Just endless observational studies that produce claims based on statistical correlations and highly contrived rat studies in which the "low-fat" group recieves a diet of whole, natural foods with maybe 30% of calories from fat, and the "high-fat" group recieves a diet of crisco (plant fat, mind you) and high-fructose corn syrup with maybe 50% of calories from fat (those are the actual circumstances of a recent study that concluded that "high-fat diets result in brain damage," which was of course used to further demonize meat consumption).

Unlike the rats in the "high-fat" groups in those studies, my diet actually is high in fat. I probably get a good 60-70% of my daily calories from good, clean sources of animal and plant fat, just like my ancestors did for the majority of the time they've spent being sapiens.

Consider this: All mammals are made primarily of fat and protein. So where did all the fats and proteins that compose, say, a cow originate? Certainly not all from the grass it ate to grow. Rather, when we look at the digestive system of a cow, we see that its complex, multi-chambered digestive system is entirely devoted to converting plant matter into easily-absorbed amino acids and short-chain saturated fats by feeding them to bacteria, which are adapted for breaking down the cellulose and ferment the plant sugars. A cow absorbs more calories from its digestive tract as fat than I do, despite my regular consumption of butter, lard, coconut oil, and meat. Other herbivores like gorillas or rabbits without multiple stomachs employ instead an enlarged colon in which, again, the plant matter they consume is converted to fats and proteins.

I mention the gorilla because, sharing 97% of our genes, it highlights the dramatic difference in our digestive structures and hence nutritional needs. A gorilla's enlarged colon can supply it with nearly all of its calories via cellulose fermentation (consumption of insects provides much of the rest). A perfectly healthy human colon is capable of providing, at most, 20% of our energy needs via cellulose fermentation. The last 4 million years of Homo evolution were a direct result of our increasing reliance on calorie-dense animal food sources, a process by which we became by way of tools, endurance, language, and strategy (rather than teeth or claws) the most effective predators on the planet. As predatory omnivores, we don't consume any more or less saturated fat than our cousin the gorilla or neighbor the cow; we just get it in a much more easily-absorbed form, freeing up energy no longer needed for digestion and diverting it to brain development. Story of our species.

Given that most herbivores are consuming mostly saturated fat and protein, why aren't they all obese and stricken by diabetes, heart disease, and cancers? Well, for one thing, they don't rely on starches from actively toxic grain sources for the majority of their calories, or industrially extracted and processed seed oils for most of their lipids. Protein and saturated fat have never been the problem.

Eating locally, organically raised meat and produce from farmers I know and trust and eschewing grains, I'm both as healthy as I can be and as environmentally responsible as I can be at the present. Vegetarianism is not the way.

[les3547]

And the claim that consumption of animal products, in and of itself, is harmful to health simply does not stand. I have never seen a single study linking clean, naturally-produced beef, pork, chicken, eggs, or anything of that ilk with harmful health effects, even as the primary component of one's diet. Just endless observational studies that produce claims based on statistical correlations and highly contrived rat studies in which the "low-fat" group recieves a diet of whole, natural foods with maybe 30% of calories from fat, and the "high-fat" group recieves a diet of crisco (plant fat, mind you) and high-fructose corn syrup with maybe 50% of calories from fat (those are the actual circumstances of a recent study that concluded that "high-fat diets result in brain damage," which was of course used to further demonize meat consumption).

Unlike the rats in the "high-fat" groups in those studies, my diet actually is high in fat. I probably get a good 60-70% of my daily calories from good, clean sources of animal and plant fat, just like my ancestors did for the majority of the time they've spent being sapiens.

Consider this: All mammals are made primarily of fat and protein. So where did all the fats and proteins that compose, say, a cow originate? Certainly not all from the grass it ate to grow. Rather, when we look at the digestive system of a cow, we see that its complex, multi-chambered digestive system is entirely devoted to converting plant matter into easily-absorbed amino acids and short-chain saturated fats by feeding them to bacteria, which are adapted for breaking down the cellulose and ferment the plant sugars. A cow absorbs more calories from its digestive tract as fat than I do, despite my regular consumption of butter, lard, coconut oil, and meat. Other herbivores like gorillas or rabbits without multiple stomachs employ instead an enlarged colon in which, again, the plant matter they consume is converted to fats and proteins.

I mention the gorilla because, sharing 97% of our genes, it highlights the dramatic difference in our digestive structures and hence nutritional needs. A gorilla's enlarged colon can supply it with nearly all of its calories via cellulose fermentation (consumption of insects provides much of the rest). A perfectly healthy human colon is capable of providing, at most, 20% of our energy needs via cellulose fermentation. The last 4 million years of Homo evolution were a direct result of our increasing reliance on calorie-dense animal food sources, a process by which we became by way of tools, endurance, language, and strategy (rather than teeth or claws) the most effective predators on the planet. As predatory omnivores, we don't consume any more or less saturated fat than our cousin the gorilla or neighbor the cow; we just get it in a much more easily-absorbed form, freeing up energy no longer needed for digestion and diverting it to brain development. Story of our species.

Given that most herbivores are consuming mostly saturated fat and protein, why aren't they all obese and stricken by diabetes, heart disease, and cancers? Well, for one thing, they don't rely on starches from actively toxic grain sources for the majority of their calories, or industrially extracted and processed seed oils for most of their lipids.

Eating locally, organically raised meat and produce from farmers I know and trust and eschewing grains, I'm both as healthy as I can be and as environmentally responsible as I can be at the present. Vegetarianism is not the way.

IOW, we'd have to pry it from your cold dead hands.

[jogiba]

I think the whole vegetarian movement is just a front for ADM and Monsanto to push genetically modified soybeans.

Meat eaters are clueless about vegans.

It all began when I decided to adopt a 100 percent plant-based whole food diet. A discipline that involved removing all animal products (and most processed foods) from my diet. No chicken. No fish. No dairy. Nada.

Human Factor: Rich Roll's 'experiment' in fitness – - CNN.com Blogs

You Tube

You Tube

[les3547]

The barbie ain't safe . . . or so says the Cancer Project, definitely NOT a bunch of flamin' vegans:


The Cancer Project is a collaborative effort of physicians, researchers, and nutritionists who have joined together to educate individuals, families, and the public about the benefits of a healthy diet for cancer prevention and survival. Based in Washington, D.C., The Cancer Project is a program of The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Three out of four American households own a barbecue grill, according to the Health, Patio, & Barbecue Association. Yet many consumers are unaware that grilling some popular food items can produce cancer-causing compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs). Which foods contain the highest concentrations of HCAs? To answer that question, nutrition professionals with The Cancer Project determined the level of HCAs found in commonly grilled foods.

Background

HCAs, a family of mutagenic and cancer-causing compounds, are produced during the cooking of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. In January of 2005, the federal government officially added HCAs to its list of known carcinogens.

Findings

Cancer Project nutritionists determined that many commonly grilled foods contain alarmingly high levels of HCAs. This table lists the five foods containing the highest levels.

The Five Worst Foods to Grill

Chicken breast, skinless, boneless, grilled, well done
14,300 ng/100g2

Steak, grilled, well done
810 ng/100g3

Pork, barbecued
470 ng/100g4

Salmon, grilled with skin
166 ng/100g5

Hamburger, grilled, well done
130 ng/100g3

*100g portion equals about 3.5 ounces grilled

Safer Alternatives for Grilling

Other foods produce undetectable levels or negligible concentrations of HCAs when they are grilled. These include soy-based veggie burgers, veggie brochettes, and portabello mushroom “steaks.” These healthy vegetarian alternatives are also low in fat and cholesterol.

Grilled Meat High in HCAs

Grilled meat yields some of the highest concentrations of heterocyclic amines (HCAs).6These compounds form when a combination of creatine (a specific amino acid found in muscle) and sugars, which are both found naturally in meats, are heated during cooking.7 Grilling is particularly carcinogen-forming because the process involves high heat and long cooking times. Nearly all meats, including chicken and fish, produce significant amounts of HCAs when tossed on the grill.

Meat that is grilled, fried, or oven-broiled often produces large quantities of HCAs.8,9,10 The longer and hotter the meat is cooked, the more these compounds form. The major classes of HCAs include amino-imidazo-quinolines, or amino-imidazo-quinoxalines (collectively called IQ-type compounds), and amino-imidazo-pyridines. Within these families, MeIQx and PhIP are the members most abundantly found in cooked meats.

High meat intake has been correlated with increased risk of cancer, particularly of the breast and colon. While the fat in meat is most commonly associate with cancer risk, HCAs also play a role. As known mutagens, HCAs can bind directly to DNA, cause mutation, and promote cancer initiation.

Because HCA concentration increases with heat and time, it would be expected that well-done meat would increase the risk of cancer. This is exactly what researchers have found. In a recent review of 30 epidemiologic studies investigating the link between well-done meat consumption and cancer at various sites, 80 percent showed a positive correlation.

Plant-Based Foods Yield Negligible HCAs

Since creatine, one of the ingredients for the formation of HCAs, is mostly found in muscle tissue, it is not surprising that grilled veggie burgers and other vegetarian foods contain either no HCAs or negligible levels.

Choosing plant-based foods instead of meat also lowers cancer risk in other ways. Not only are vegetables low in fat and high in fiber, they also contain many cancer-fighting substances. Carotenoids, the pigment that gives fruits and vegetables their dark colors, have been shown to help prevent cancer. Beta-carotene, present in dark green and yellow vegetables, helps protect against lung cancer and may help prevent cancers of the bladder, mouth, larynx, esophagus, breast, and other sites. Many studies have found that diets rich in fruits and vegetables and low in animal fat cut cancer risks.

Other Dangers of Grilled Meat

Grilling meat also produces other types of food mutagens. Grilling or broiling meat over a direct flame results in fat dropping on the hot fire and the production of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-containing flames. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) adhere to the surface of food; the more intense the heat, the more PAHs are present. They are widely believed to play a significant role in human cancers. A fairly consistent association between grilled or broiled, but not fried, meat consumption and stomach cancer implies that dietary exposure to PAHs may play a role in the development of stomach cancer.

Hotdogs Contain Other Carcinogens

While HCAs do not form in grilled hotdogs, these highly processed meat products contain other carcinogens. Nitrates and N-nitroso compounds, preservatives found in processed foods such as hotdogs and sausages, have long been recognized as potent carcinogens. Increased dietary intake of processed meats have been linked to increased cancers at various sites, including the colon, the pancreas,18 and the gastrointestinal tract.

Red Meat Increases Cancer Risk

Red meat increases the risk of cancer. Recent studies show that red meat can increase colon cancer risk as much as 300 percent.20 While dietary factors such as the fat content and the lack of protective fiber in red meat are considered significant contributors, HCAs were specifically found to increase colon cancer risk.

Chicken and Fish Increase Cancer Risk

Many people switch to chicken and fish, believing these to be healthier alternatives to beef. But that is not the case. On the grill, chicken produced more than 10 times the amount of the carcinogenic heterocyclic amines found in grilled beef. Furthermore, nearly all the HCAs detected were in the form of PhIP, which has specifically been implicated in breast cancer risk. This increased PhIP formation is likely due to the fact that chicken contains a large amount of phenylalanine, tyrosine, and isoeucine, amino acids that contribute to HCA formation. Fish also contains significant amounts of creatine, one of the other main ingredients for the formation of the carcinogens; not surprisingly, fish showed significant HCA formation as well.

What Should Go On the Grill?

Consumers who want to reduce their cancer risk need not give up grilling. Reducing exposure to carcinogens is as simple as grilling veggie burgers instead of hamburger, or a thick portabello mushroom instead of a steak. Steering clear of animal products is a key step in avoiding heterocyclic amines, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines, and other cancer-promoting substances. For healthy recipes, go to PCRM's great recipes for the grill and picnic basket.

References:
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 2005. 11th Report on Carcinogens. Available at Page Not Found - National Toxicology Program.
2. Sinha R, Rothman N, Brown ED, Salmon CP, Knize MG, Swanson CA, Rossi SC, Mark SD, Levander OA, Felton JS. High concentrations of the carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo- [4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) occur in chicken but are dependent on the cooking method. Cancer Res. 1995 Oct 15;55(20):4516-9.
3. Sinha R, Rothman N, Salmon CP, Knize MG, Brown ED, Swanson CA, Rhodes D, Rossi S, Felton JS, Levander OA. Heterocyclic amine content in beef cooked by different methods to varying degrees of doneness and gravy made from meat drippings. Food Chem Toxicol. 1998 Apr;36(4):279-87.
4. Murray S, Lynch AM, Knize MG, Gooderham MJ. Quantification of the carcinogens 2-amino-3,8-dimethyl- and 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline and 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine in food using a combined assay based on gas chromatography-negative ion mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr. 1993 Jul 2;616(2):211-9.
5. Kataoka H, Nishioka S, Kobayashi M, Hanaoka T, Tsugane S. Analysis of mutagenic heterocyclic amines in cooked food samples by gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detector. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2002 Nov;69(5):682-9.
6. Nagao, M and Sugimura, T. Food Borne Carcinogens: Heterocyclic Amines. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. New York: 2000.
7. Jagerstad M, Skog K, Grivas S, Olsson K. Formation of heterocyclic amines using model systems. Mutat Res. 1991;259:219-33.
8. Skog KI, Johansson MAE, Jagerstad MI. Carcinogenic heterocyclic amines in model systems and cooked foods: a review on formation, occurrence, and intake. Food and Chem Toxicol 1998;36:879-96.
9. Robbana-Barnat S, Rabache M, Rialland E, Fradin J. Heterocyclic amines: occurrence and prevention in cooked food. Environ Health Perspect 1996;104:280-8.
10. Thiebaud HP, Knize MG, Kuzmicky PA, Hsieh DP, Felton JS. Airborne mutagens produced by frying beef, pork, and a soy-based food. Food Chem Toxicol 1995;33:821-8.
11. World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition, and the prevention of cancer: A global perspective. American Institute of Cancer Research. Washington, DC: 1997.
12. Felton JS, Knize MG, Salmon CP, Malfatti MA, Kulp KS. Human Exposure to Heterocyclic Amine Food Mutagens/Carcinogens: Relevance to Breast Cancer. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 2002: 39;112-118.
13. Knize MG, Felton JS. Formation and Human Risk of Carcinogenic Heterocyclic Amines Formed from Natural Precursors in Meat. Nutr Rev. 2005 May;63(5):158-65.
14. World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition, and the prevention of cancer: A global perspective. American Institute of Cancer Research. Washington, DC: 1997.
15. Norat T, Riboli E. Meat consumption and colorectal cancer: a review of epidemiologic evidence. Nutr Rev. 2001 Feb;59(2):37-47
16. Forman, D. Dietary exposure to N-nitroso compounds and the risk of human cancer. Cancer Surv. 1987;6(4):719-38.
17. Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, and Speizer FE. Relation of meat, fat, and fiber intake to the risk of colon cancer in a prospective study among women. N Engl J Med. 1990 Dec 13;323(24):1664-72.
18. Nöthlings U, Wilkens LR, Murphy SP, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN. Meat intake increases the risk for pancreatic cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort. Poster presented at: American Association for Cancer Research; April 20, 2005; Anaheim, CA.
19. De Stefani E, Correa P, Boffetta P, Deneo-Pellegrini H, Ronco AL, Mendilaharsu M. Dietary patterns and risk of gastric cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. Gastric Cancer. 2004;7(4):211-20.
20. Fraser GE. Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;70(suppl):532S-8S.
21. Butler LM, Sinha R, Millikan RC, Martin CF, Newman B, Gammon MD, Ammerman AS, Sandler RS. Heterocyclic amines, meat intake, and association with colon cancer in a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:434-45.