7 Diseases That Big, Juicy Steaks Could Give You
By Sara Novak, Planet Green
November 5, 2009 Link to full article below
More and more people are passing on meat for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, it reduces your impact on the planet. Some simply can't bare the despicable factory farming industry in this country. And the third weighing issue on the minds of the more than 2.8 percent of the U.S. population that considers themselves vegetarian, are health issues. And studies show that there are plenty of them.
Sicknesses Associated With Eating Meat
1. Prostate Cancer
According to a study published in the Journal of Epidemiology, researchers examined the dietary habits of 175,313 middle-aged men and followed them for nine years. They discovered that men who ate a diet heavy in red meat and processed meats were diagnosed with prostate cancer more often than men who ate little meat. "HCAs, a family of mutagenic compounds, are produced during the cooking process of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish," the article said. And this is not reserved for a well done steak. The mutagens form when meat is cooked at a normal level and it is present in grilling, frying, or broiling. It appears to grow worse as the meat is cooked longer. In the end, the consumption of meat increased the risk of prostate cancer by 12 percent.
2. Heart Disease
More than 864,480 Americans died of heart disease in 2005, according to the American Heart Association. And according to a study at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (a teaching hospital for Harvard), heart disease is directly related to meat consumption. The study involved 617,119 men and women who were 50 to 71 years old at the start of the study. At the beginning of the study, patients filled out diet information surveys and 10 years later deaths from cardiovascular disease were noted.
Results of the Study:
"Compared to people in the lowest levels of red meat consumption (average 0.32 ounces per 1000 calories), men with the highest levels of red meat consumption (average 2.39 ounces per 1000 calories) experienced a 27 percent higher risk of cardiovascular disease.
For women with the highest levels of red meat consumption (average 2.32 ounces per 1000 calories) the results were even more dramatic. They experienced a 50 percent higher risk of cardiovascular disease."
3. Osteoporosis
Please read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/143691/
Showing posts with label food: meat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food: meat. Show all posts
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Killing fields: the true cost of Europe's cheap meat
Killing fields: the true cost of Europe's cheap meat
Andrew Wasley
13th October, 2009 Link to full article below
Cheap meat has become a way of life in much of Europe, but the full price is being paid across Latin America as vast soya plantations and their attendant chemicals lead to poisonings and violence
Much of the cheap meat and dairy produce sold in supermarkets across Europe is arriving as a result of serious human rights abuses and environmental damage in one of Latin America's most impoverished countries, according to a new film launched in conjunction with the Ecologist Film Unit.
An investigation in Paraguay has discovered that vast plantations of soy, principally grown for use in intensively-farmed animal feed, are responsible for a catalogue of social and ecological problems, including the forced eviction of rural communities, landlessness, poverty, excessive use of pesticides, deforestation and rising food insecurity.
The film, Killing Fields: the battle to feed factory farms – produced by a coalition of pressure groups including Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch and with European coordination by Via Campesina, – documents the experiences of some of those caught up in Paraguay's growing conflict over soy farming and reveals, for the first time, how intensive animal farming across the EU, including the UK, is fuelling the problem.
To read the full article: http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/336873/killing_fields_the_true_cost_of_europes_cheap_meat.html
Andrew Wasley
13th October, 2009 Link to full article below
Cheap meat has become a way of life in much of Europe, but the full price is being paid across Latin America as vast soya plantations and their attendant chemicals lead to poisonings and violence
Much of the cheap meat and dairy produce sold in supermarkets across Europe is arriving as a result of serious human rights abuses and environmental damage in one of Latin America's most impoverished countries, according to a new film launched in conjunction with the Ecologist Film Unit.
An investigation in Paraguay has discovered that vast plantations of soy, principally grown for use in intensively-farmed animal feed, are responsible for a catalogue of social and ecological problems, including the forced eviction of rural communities, landlessness, poverty, excessive use of pesticides, deforestation and rising food insecurity.
The film, Killing Fields: the battle to feed factory farms – produced by a coalition of pressure groups including Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch and with European coordination by Via Campesina, – documents the experiences of some of those caught up in Paraguay's growing conflict over soy farming and reveals, for the first time, how intensive animal farming across the EU, including the UK, is fuelling the problem.
To read the full article: http://www.theecologist.org/trial_investigations/336873/killing_fields_the_true_cost_of_europes_cheap_meat.html
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Rare Good News for Red Meat–Eaters
Rare Good News for Red Meat–Eaters
New research implies moderate meat eating helps your health.
By Emily Main
RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA Link to full article below (this is an excerpt)
If you choose to include red meat in your meal plans, enjoy it in moderation and opt for organic products.
In the past year, eating meat—especially red meat and processed meat—has been linked to lung cancer, vision loss, and even shorter lives. But a new study, published in the journal Gerontology finds that eating red meat during middle age may have protective benefits for your ability to perform normal daily activities as you age. And while it's not a game changer that will lead health experts to recommend a daily New York strip steak, the study does suggest that eating meat has an upside.
THE DETAILS: Researchers surveyed 3,227 Japanese adults who were between the ages of 47 to 59 in 1980. At that point, they took blood samples, which were measured for cholesterol levels, and asked the participants to fill out questionnaires based on what they eat, specifically asking about consumption of eggs, fish, and meat. Those people were followed for 19 years, at the end of which 2,514 were still living. They were interviewed again and asked about their abilities to perform various "activities of daily life"—feeding, dressing, bathing, toileting, and walking—and whether they could perform those without help, with partial help, or only with full help. The researchers found that a higher intake of meat (more than once every two days) led to a statistically significant decrease in the likelihood that those participants would need help with daily activities. They found no association between intake of fish or eggs and the ability to perform
activities of daily life.
WHAT IT MEANS: It appears there may be a few benefits of meat-eating related to your quality of life—if you're eating a sensible amount and not living on bacon double cheeseburgers. "Red meat has a relatively unique profile of nutrients, compared to other foods," says Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, PhD, RD, a nutrition counselor in Roseville, CA, and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. "It's a good source of zinc, B vitamins, protein, and iron," she says. And this study notes that red meat has high levels of menaquinone, a compound in animal products that one previous study suggests might be protective against cardiovascular disease.
To read the full article: http://www.rodale.com/benefits-meat-eating?cm_mmc=DailyNewsNL-_-2009_10_01-_-Top5-_-NA
New research implies moderate meat eating helps your health.
By Emily Main
RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA Link to full article below (this is an excerpt)
If you choose to include red meat in your meal plans, enjoy it in moderation and opt for organic products.
In the past year, eating meat—especially red meat and processed meat—has been linked to lung cancer, vision loss, and even shorter lives. But a new study, published in the journal Gerontology finds that eating red meat during middle age may have protective benefits for your ability to perform normal daily activities as you age. And while it's not a game changer that will lead health experts to recommend a daily New York strip steak, the study does suggest that eating meat has an upside.
THE DETAILS: Researchers surveyed 3,227 Japanese adults who were between the ages of 47 to 59 in 1980. At that point, they took blood samples, which were measured for cholesterol levels, and asked the participants to fill out questionnaires based on what they eat, specifically asking about consumption of eggs, fish, and meat. Those people were followed for 19 years, at the end of which 2,514 were still living. They were interviewed again and asked about their abilities to perform various "activities of daily life"—feeding, dressing, bathing, toileting, and walking—and whether they could perform those without help, with partial help, or only with full help. The researchers found that a higher intake of meat (more than once every two days) led to a statistically significant decrease in the likelihood that those participants would need help with daily activities. They found no association between intake of fish or eggs and the ability to perform
activities of daily life.
WHAT IT MEANS: It appears there may be a few benefits of meat-eating related to your quality of life—if you're eating a sensible amount and not living on bacon double cheeseburgers. "Red meat has a relatively unique profile of nutrients, compared to other foods," says Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, PhD, RD, a nutrition counselor in Roseville, CA, and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. "It's a good source of zinc, B vitamins, protein, and iron," she says. And this study notes that red meat has high levels of menaquinone, a compound in animal products that one previous study suggests might be protective against cardiovascular disease.
To read the full article: http://www.rodale.com/benefits-meat-eating?cm_mmc=DailyNewsNL-_-2009_10_01-_-Top5-_-NA
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Brazilian beef industry blamed for Amazon deforestation
Brazilian beef industry blamed for Amazon deforestation
Boots and training shoes are not the first things that spring to mind when you think about the causes of rainforest destruction and climate change, but just because the connection isn’t obvious doesn’t mean it isn’t realm, says Greenpeace in a new report, “Slaughtering the Amazon”.
Monday, June 1st 2009
(link to full article below)
Illegal deforestation and in some cases slavery, via giant processing facilities to the supply chains of some of the best known global brands. Shoe companies like Adidas, Reebok, Nike, Timberland and even Clarks are sourcing a significant proportion of their leather from the Amazon - and its big business.
But it's not only shoes. Products as diverse as handbags and ready meals, and companies as big as Tesco, BMW, IKEA and Kraft also rely on Amazon leather. Practically all Western world consumers have some by-product of Amazon destruction in our homes somewhere, whether we like it or not. Effectively, these brands are driving this destruction by buying beef and leather products from unscrupulous suppliers in Brazil points out the Greenpeace report.
The report says the cattle industry is the single biggest cause of deforestation in the world as trees are cleared to make way for ranches. And the Brazilian government is also fuelling the process by offering billions of dollars in loans to support the expansion of the cattle industry. President Lula de Silva has pledged to double his country's share of the global beef market by 2018. The report contrasts these investments with Lula da Silva's recent promise to cut deforestation by 72% by the same date and to set up an international fund for protecting the Amazon.
“This is a disaster for the fight against climate change and it's got to stop. We're asking President Lula da Silva to announce an immediate end to the felling of Amazon trees to create large cattle ranches and commit to zero deforestation in the rainforest by 2015”, says Greenpeace.
The Amazon has lost about a fifth of its forest in the past three decades and the rate of deforestation rose 69% in the 12 months to August 2008 as 8,147 sq km were cut down.
To read the full article:
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/01/brazilian-beef-industry-blamed-for-amazon-deforestation
Boots and training shoes are not the first things that spring to mind when you think about the causes of rainforest destruction and climate change, but just because the connection isn’t obvious doesn’t mean it isn’t realm, says Greenpeace in a new report, “Slaughtering the Amazon”.
Monday, June 1st 2009
(link to full article below)
Illegal deforestation and in some cases slavery, via giant processing facilities to the supply chains of some of the best known global brands. Shoe companies like Adidas, Reebok, Nike, Timberland and even Clarks are sourcing a significant proportion of their leather from the Amazon - and its big business.
But it's not only shoes. Products as diverse as handbags and ready meals, and companies as big as Tesco, BMW, IKEA and Kraft also rely on Amazon leather. Practically all Western world consumers have some by-product of Amazon destruction in our homes somewhere, whether we like it or not. Effectively, these brands are driving this destruction by buying beef and leather products from unscrupulous suppliers in Brazil points out the Greenpeace report.
The report says the cattle industry is the single biggest cause of deforestation in the world as trees are cleared to make way for ranches. And the Brazilian government is also fuelling the process by offering billions of dollars in loans to support the expansion of the cattle industry. President Lula de Silva has pledged to double his country's share of the global beef market by 2018. The report contrasts these investments with Lula da Silva's recent promise to cut deforestation by 72% by the same date and to set up an international fund for protecting the Amazon.
“This is a disaster for the fight against climate change and it's got to stop. We're asking President Lula da Silva to announce an immediate end to the felling of Amazon trees to create large cattle ranches and commit to zero deforestation in the rainforest by 2015”, says Greenpeace.
The Amazon has lost about a fifth of its forest in the past three decades and the rate of deforestation rose 69% in the 12 months to August 2008 as 8,147 sq km were cut down.
To read the full article:
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/01/brazilian-beef-industry-blamed-for-amazon-deforestation
Animal Rights Prof Says No Way to Consume Meat in Humane Way
Animal Rights Prof Says No Way to Consume Meat in Humane Way
By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law
(from opposingviews.com, link below)
I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them.
As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post.
The video shows two cows waiting in a chute to be led into the abattoir. An employee comes out and uses an electric prod to get the first cow to enter the abattoir. The second cow remains behind the door that has closed. She is clearly terrified. She knows that she is in trouble and this is not simply a matter of “instinct” (I do not even know what that means.) She is desperately looking for a way to get out of the chute. She may not have the same sorts of thoughts that beings who, like us, use symbolic communication, but it is clear that she has some equivalent sort of cognition. To say that she does not have a sense of having a life is beyond absurdity.
I find this video to be profoundly tragic on many levels. Watch it and then ask yourself whether animal organizations should be investing their time and your resources in trying to design “better” slaughterhouses or promoting “happy” meat, or whether we should all commit ourselves to veganism and to clear, unequivocal, nonviolent vegan education.
The video is apparently from a French slaughterhouse. But it does not really matter. All slaughterhouses are places of hell and unspeakable violence against the vulnerable. Never believe that such a place can ever be described as “humane” except by someone who is very deeply confused about fundamental issues of morality.
Someone who saw this video wrote to me and said the following:
I am a vegetarian but have found it difficult to transition to veganism. My two weaknesses: ice cream and good Cheshire cheese. I watched this video. I looked into her eyes and I answered the question that you asked on your video page: “Is there anything that you want to eat that badly?” The answer was clear to me in a way it never was before. I am now a vegan.
To read the full article:
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-animal-rights-prof-says-no-way-to-consume-meat-in-humane-way-r-1246232469
By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law
(from opposingviews.com, link below)
I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them.
As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post.
The video shows two cows waiting in a chute to be led into the abattoir. An employee comes out and uses an electric prod to get the first cow to enter the abattoir. The second cow remains behind the door that has closed. She is clearly terrified. She knows that she is in trouble and this is not simply a matter of “instinct” (I do not even know what that means.) She is desperately looking for a way to get out of the chute. She may not have the same sorts of thoughts that beings who, like us, use symbolic communication, but it is clear that she has some equivalent sort of cognition. To say that she does not have a sense of having a life is beyond absurdity.
I find this video to be profoundly tragic on many levels. Watch it and then ask yourself whether animal organizations should be investing their time and your resources in trying to design “better” slaughterhouses or promoting “happy” meat, or whether we should all commit ourselves to veganism and to clear, unequivocal, nonviolent vegan education.
The video is apparently from a French slaughterhouse. But it does not really matter. All slaughterhouses are places of hell and unspeakable violence against the vulnerable. Never believe that such a place can ever be described as “humane” except by someone who is very deeply confused about fundamental issues of morality.
Someone who saw this video wrote to me and said the following:
I am a vegetarian but have found it difficult to transition to veganism. My two weaknesses: ice cream and good Cheshire cheese. I watched this video. I looked into her eyes and I answered the question that you asked on your video page: “Is there anything that you want to eat that badly?” The answer was clear to me in a way it never was before. I am now a vegan.
To read the full article:
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-animal-rights-prof-says-no-way-to-consume-meat-in-humane-way-r-1246232469
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Meat: the slavery of our time
Meat: the slavery of our time
How the coming vegetarian revolution will arrive by force.
By Jim Motavalli
Wed, 06/03/2009
I have a prediction: Sooner than you might think, this will be a vegetarian world. Future generations will find the idea of eating meat both morally absurd and logistically impossible. Of course, one need only look at the booming meat industry, the climbing rates of meat consumption in the developing world, and the menu of just about any restaurant to call me crazy. But already, most people know that eating red meat is bad for their health and harmful for the planet. It's getting them to actually change their diet that's the hard part -- and that's exactly why it won't happen by choice.
Going by the numbers, eating meat is pretty hard to justify for the even moderately health-conscious. A National Cancer Institute report released last March found that people who ate the most red meat were, as the New York Times put it, "most likely to die from cancer, heart disease and other causes." The biggest abstainers "were least likely to die." Those who eat five ounces of meat daily, (the equivalent of one and a half Quarter Pounders or Big Macs) increase their risk from cancer or heart disease by 30 percent compared to those who eat two-thirds of an ounce daily -- a stark difference.
To read the full article:
http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/03/meat_the_slavery_of_our_time
How the coming vegetarian revolution will arrive by force.
By Jim Motavalli
Wed, 06/03/2009
I have a prediction: Sooner than you might think, this will be a vegetarian world. Future generations will find the idea of eating meat both morally absurd and logistically impossible. Of course, one need only look at the booming meat industry, the climbing rates of meat consumption in the developing world, and the menu of just about any restaurant to call me crazy. But already, most people know that eating red meat is bad for their health and harmful for the planet. It's getting them to actually change their diet that's the hard part -- and that's exactly why it won't happen by choice.
Going by the numbers, eating meat is pretty hard to justify for the even moderately health-conscious. A National Cancer Institute report released last March found that people who ate the most red meat were, as the New York Times put it, "most likely to die from cancer, heart disease and other causes." The biggest abstainers "were least likely to die." Those who eat five ounces of meat daily, (the equivalent of one and a half Quarter Pounders or Big Macs) increase their risk from cancer or heart disease by 30 percent compared to those who eat two-thirds of an ounce daily -- a stark difference.
To read the full article:
http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/03/meat_the_slavery_of_our_time
Friday, May 1, 2009
Does Eating Meat Increase Your Risk of Dying?
Does Eating Meat Increase Your Risk of Dying?
What the Evidence Reveals
by www.SixWise.com
http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Does-Eating-Meat-Increase-Your-Risk-of-Dying.htm?source=nl
Asking a meat lover to give up burgers and steaks is likely to evoke some powerful opposition, just as asking a vegetarian to sit down to a plate of meatballs would. Yet, increasing evidence appears to be confirming that eating a meat heavy diet may, indeed, be bad for your health.
This is certainly not what a largely meat-loving nation like the United States wants to hear. According to the Agriculture Department, Americans ate 119 pounds of red meat each in 2008, which amounts to just over two pounds a week, along with 106 pounds of poultry.
What does the evidence really say about meat and your health, and is there possibly more to the scenario than meets the eye?
The Research on Meat-Eating Doesn’t Look Good
The latest evidence, a federal study of more than half a million American men and women, found that eating meat does raise mortality risk.
To read the full article: http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Does-Eating-Meat-Increase-Your-Risk-of-Dying.htm?source=nl
What the Evidence Reveals
by www.SixWise.com
http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Does-Eating-Meat-Increase-Your-Risk-of-Dying.htm?source=nl
Asking a meat lover to give up burgers and steaks is likely to evoke some powerful opposition, just as asking a vegetarian to sit down to a plate of meatballs would. Yet, increasing evidence appears to be confirming that eating a meat heavy diet may, indeed, be bad for your health.
This is certainly not what a largely meat-loving nation like the United States wants to hear. According to the Agriculture Department, Americans ate 119 pounds of red meat each in 2008, which amounts to just over two pounds a week, along with 106 pounds of poultry.
What does the evidence really say about meat and your health, and is there possibly more to the scenario than meets the eye?
The Research on Meat-Eating Doesn’t Look Good
The latest evidence, a federal study of more than half a million American men and women, found that eating meat does raise mortality risk.
To read the full article: http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Does-Eating-Meat-Increase-Your-Risk-of-Dying.htm?source=nl
Friday, April 3, 2009
Daily Red Meat Raises Chances Of Dying Early
Daily Red Meat Raises Chances Of Dying Early
Study Is First Large Analysis Of Link With Overall Health
The new study says, "If people want to be healthy and live longer, consume less red and processed meat," global nutrition professor Barry Popkin said.
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html?hpid=topnews
Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to the first large study to examine whether regularly eating beef or pork increases mortality.
The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.
Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.
To read the full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html?hpid=topnews
Study Is First Large Analysis Of Link With Overall Health
The new study says, "If people want to be healthy and live longer, consume less red and processed meat," global nutrition professor Barry Popkin said.
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html?hpid=topnews
Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to the first large study to examine whether regularly eating beef or pork increases mortality.
The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.
Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.
To read the full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html?hpid=topnews
Thursday, March 26, 2009
There's No Room for Chicken in a Healthy Diet
There's No Room for Chicken in a Healthy Diet
By Kristine Kieswer
Spring/Summer 2000 (Volume IX, Number 2)
http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00SpringSummer/GM00SpSum2.html
Q: Why has chicken become so popular?
A: Unbeknownst to them, chickens have played center stage in a grand marketing campaign by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and chicken farmers aimed to promote chicken as some sort of "health food." With 9 billion chickens eaten each year in the U.S., it appears many people have been swayed. However, an honest look at the nutritional value of chicken reveals quite a different picture.
- - -
Q: Is chicken really low in fat?
A: Not even close. A 3.5-ounce piece of broiled lean flank steak is 56 percent fat as a percentage of calories. Chicken contains nearly the same at 51 percent. Even when the skin is removed, dark meat is thrown away, and a non-fat cooking method is used, chicken is still 23 percent fat. Compare that with the fat in a baked potato (1 percent), steamed cauliflower (6 percent), and baked beans (4 percent), and any ideas that chicken is a health food melt away. Fancy packages can't disguise the fact that chicken and all meats are muscles, and muscles are made of protein and fat.
- - -
Q: Do I need the protein in chicken?
A: We all need some protein, and there is more than enough in grains, beans, and vegetables. The amount of protein consumed by Americans who eat meat has elevated their risks for serious health problems. Years ago, we believed there was no such thing as protein overload, but now we know it is a major culprit in calcium loss, causing osteoporosis. Too much protein also puts a strain on the kidneys, forcing them to expel extra nitrogen in the urine, increasing the risk for kidney disease. Also, the combination of fat, protein, and carcinogens found in cooked chicken creates troubling risks for colon cancer. A healthy vegetarian diet contains just the right balance of protein—not too much and not too little.
- - -
Q: What's NOT in chicken?
A: Chicken, no matter how smartly advertised, will never contain fiber, complex carbohydrates, or vitamin C. Fiber is the heavy-duty cleanser of the digestive tract, carrying away excess hormones filtered from the blood, while it lowers cholesterol—naturally. Complex carbohydrates, found only in plants, are low in calories and boost metabolism, aiding in weight loss.
Vitamin C and other antioxidants are vital cancer fighters. When chicken meat takes the place of vegetables, grains, and fruits on your plate, your supply of vitamins dwindles. Chicken not only gives you a load of fat you don't want, it displaces metabolism- and immune-boosting foods that are essential to good health and weight control.
- - -
Q: Where do heterocyclic amines come in?
A: Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are potent carcinogens produced from creatine, amino acids, and sugars in poultry and other meats during cooking. These same chemicals are found in tobacco smoke and are 15 times more concentrated in grilled chicken than beef.
HCAs may be one of the reasons meat-eaters have much higher colon cancer rates—about 300 percent higher compared to vegetarians.
- - -
Q: Is chicken…poisonous?!
A: With live salmonella bacteria growing inside one in every three packages of chicken, it is making a lot of people sick. Although deaths from salmonella poisonings sometimes make the evening news, millions more cases that cause flu-like symptoms go unaccounted. Salmonella poisoning can cause vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and low-grade fever lasting for several days. When it spreads to the blood and other organs, it can be fatal—and is, for as many as 9,000 people every year.
The new kid on the chopping block—campylobacter—infects as many as two-thirds of all prepackaged chicken. Salmonella and campylobacter have become increasingly common because modern factory farms crowd thousands of chickens in tightly confined spaces, where excrement and other forms of bacteria spread contaminants.
- - -
Q: Does chicken have the same amount of cholesterol as beef?
A: Yes, nearly. Four ounces of beef—just the size of a deck of cards—and four ounces of chicken both contain about 100 milligrams of cholesterol, and the cholesterol from chicken does just as good of a job at clogging arteries and causing heart disease. The human body produces cholesterol on its own and never needs outside sources. Each added dose contributes to artery blockages, leading to heart attacks, strokes, and other serious problems.
Spaghetti, tomatoes, baked beans, bananas, broccoli, and all other plant foods are free of cholesterol and will never contribute to coronary disease and related illnesses.
By Kristine Kieswer
Spring/Summer 2000 (Volume IX, Number 2)
http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00SpringSummer/GM00SpSum2.html
Q: Why has chicken become so popular?
A: Unbeknownst to them, chickens have played center stage in a grand marketing campaign by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and chicken farmers aimed to promote chicken as some sort of "health food." With 9 billion chickens eaten each year in the U.S., it appears many people have been swayed. However, an honest look at the nutritional value of chicken reveals quite a different picture.
- - -
Q: Is chicken really low in fat?
A: Not even close. A 3.5-ounce piece of broiled lean flank steak is 56 percent fat as a percentage of calories. Chicken contains nearly the same at 51 percent. Even when the skin is removed, dark meat is thrown away, and a non-fat cooking method is used, chicken is still 23 percent fat. Compare that with the fat in a baked potato (1 percent), steamed cauliflower (6 percent), and baked beans (4 percent), and any ideas that chicken is a health food melt away. Fancy packages can't disguise the fact that chicken and all meats are muscles, and muscles are made of protein and fat.
- - -
Q: Do I need the protein in chicken?
A: We all need some protein, and there is more than enough in grains, beans, and vegetables. The amount of protein consumed by Americans who eat meat has elevated their risks for serious health problems. Years ago, we believed there was no such thing as protein overload, but now we know it is a major culprit in calcium loss, causing osteoporosis. Too much protein also puts a strain on the kidneys, forcing them to expel extra nitrogen in the urine, increasing the risk for kidney disease. Also, the combination of fat, protein, and carcinogens found in cooked chicken creates troubling risks for colon cancer. A healthy vegetarian diet contains just the right balance of protein—not too much and not too little.
- - -
Q: What's NOT in chicken?
A: Chicken, no matter how smartly advertised, will never contain fiber, complex carbohydrates, or vitamin C. Fiber is the heavy-duty cleanser of the digestive tract, carrying away excess hormones filtered from the blood, while it lowers cholesterol—naturally. Complex carbohydrates, found only in plants, are low in calories and boost metabolism, aiding in weight loss.
Vitamin C and other antioxidants are vital cancer fighters. When chicken meat takes the place of vegetables, grains, and fruits on your plate, your supply of vitamins dwindles. Chicken not only gives you a load of fat you don't want, it displaces metabolism- and immune-boosting foods that are essential to good health and weight control.
- - -
Q: Where do heterocyclic amines come in?
A: Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are potent carcinogens produced from creatine, amino acids, and sugars in poultry and other meats during cooking. These same chemicals are found in tobacco smoke and are 15 times more concentrated in grilled chicken than beef.
HCAs may be one of the reasons meat-eaters have much higher colon cancer rates—about 300 percent higher compared to vegetarians.
- - -
Q: Is chicken…poisonous?!
A: With live salmonella bacteria growing inside one in every three packages of chicken, it is making a lot of people sick. Although deaths from salmonella poisonings sometimes make the evening news, millions more cases that cause flu-like symptoms go unaccounted. Salmonella poisoning can cause vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and low-grade fever lasting for several days. When it spreads to the blood and other organs, it can be fatal—and is, for as many as 9,000 people every year.
The new kid on the chopping block—campylobacter—infects as many as two-thirds of all prepackaged chicken. Salmonella and campylobacter have become increasingly common because modern factory farms crowd thousands of chickens in tightly confined spaces, where excrement and other forms of bacteria spread contaminants.
- - -
Q: Does chicken have the same amount of cholesterol as beef?
A: Yes, nearly. Four ounces of beef—just the size of a deck of cards—and four ounces of chicken both contain about 100 milligrams of cholesterol, and the cholesterol from chicken does just as good of a job at clogging arteries and causing heart disease. The human body produces cholesterol on its own and never needs outside sources. Each added dose contributes to artery blockages, leading to heart attacks, strokes, and other serious problems.
Spaghetti, tomatoes, baked beans, bananas, broccoli, and all other plant foods are free of cholesterol and will never contribute to coronary disease and related illnesses.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater?
Is It Possible to Be a Conscientious Meat Eater?
By Sunaura Taylor and Alexander Taylor, AlterNet
February 18, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/environment/127280/?page=entire
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/127280
http://www.alternet.org/story/127280/
[Read 243 comments:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/127280/?page=entire#comments ]
You may have noticed an onslaught of articles recently on what is being coined as the "new meat movement." The most recent is an article in Newsweek, "Head To Hoof: A butcher helps lead a new carnivore movement."
These articles almost all support the idea that cruelty to animals is wrong and that factory-produced meat is unjustifiably bad for the environment. However, they are not opposed to meat in and of itself, they are simply opposed to industrial meat.
These "conscientious omnivores," believe it is possible, and preferable, to eat meat the old-fashioned way -- on small, sustainable and local farms, with farmers who love their animals and perhaps even have pet names for them.
The backlash against industrial meat has been brewing for many reasons. Ever-increasing knowledge of the industry's effect on the environment, human starvation and animal welfare, is making it harder for even the most ardent omnivore to consume meat without guilt.
The much-quoted report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, "Livestock’s Long Shadow -- Environmental Issues and Options" (Nov. 29, 2006), did a lot to raise awareness about the animal industry's devastating effects on the planet and global warming.
More and more, people are also realizing the troubling connections between human starvation and eating animal products. It takes approximately 16 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat (thus feeding one or two people on meat versus approximately 16 people on grain). Much of this grain is grown in developing countries, where a large percentage of their land is used for cattle-raising for export to the United States, instead of being used to grow staple crops, which could feed local people directly. In a world where a child starves to death every 2 seconds, it seems impossible to justify such waste.
The animal industry is partly responsible for the destruction of the Amazon and other forests, for our world's diminishing water supply, for the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases, and basically every other environmental problem. People are also more readily accepting that the animals themselves deserve a life free from cruelty and that factory farms give them anything but.
Vegans and vegetarians have been saying many of these things for years, but it seems that people have only started listening now that there is simultaneously a proposed solution to this problem: "happy meat."
"Local," "grass-fed," "sustainably produced," "humanely raised" and "free-range" are just a few of the benevolent-sounding phrases that greet conscientious shoppers in the meat department. Animal-rights activists jokingly call these products "happy meat."
Many of these products tout pictures of smiling pigs, happy farmers in green pastures and stickers that say "humane." For many people who care about the environment and animal welfare, choosing to eat "humanely raised" meat seems like an option that honors traditional farmers and diets while also solving the ethical problems of environmental degradation and animal suffering.
But it solves neither of these problems. This meat is high-priced, and its production is an even less-efficient use of land and resources. It is often marketed as luxurious, an indulgence to be lingered over. It is inherently not adaptable to a national or international solution. Local organic meat is for an elite few, and not a practicable alternative to the massive crisis of industrial meat production.
For the first time in history, an entire civilization consumes meat as a staple. How can America truly produce enough of this "happy meat" (not too mention happy milk and happy eggs), to feed this country even a fraction of the animal products we currently consume?
Truth be told, this meat is a marketing gimmick, an ideological pose, which assuages the ethical compulsions of those who consume it even though it does nothing to kick America's cheap meat habit, and perhaps contributes to the growing international fetishization of meat as a class signifier.
Articles on the "new meat movement" never pose questions like, "could all of America's animal products be grown locally?" And they never mention what the vast majority of Americans who can't afford the prized local animal products will be consuming if all factory farms shut down -- they'd be vegan.
These farms are described as ethical because of the fact that they are small, sustainable and have kinder animal-husbandry practices. As many people have pointed out, these farms can individually produce meat in a way that is arguably just as "green" as eating vegan.
However, it is an inherent part of the ethical foundation of these farms that they cannot produce on a massive scale. As we've seen numerous times, the organic farms that do try to do this, very often become virtually no better than factory farms, despite the labels they often still get to keep.
For example, many cage-free or free-range chickens still live in devastating conditions -- they simply aren't technically kept in cages in the first case, or, in the latter case, are kept in huge, crowded and perpetually dark buildings, with a single opening leading to a few square yards of bare earth.
The question of methane pollution may also make it hard to raise animals on a massive scale, regardless of whether the farms could be sustainable in other ways.
The question is not, "are a few people eating local, sustainable, free-range pork worse environmentally than a few people eating vegan?" The question needs to be, "can we feed the world's entire growing population sustainable animal products?" I have never once seen this question addressed in one of these "new meat" articles.
But all of this is in many ways ignoring an even more complex question. Do humans even have the right to make other living beings into objects of production that we can kill even when it is unnecessary to do so, merely for our pleasure?
The words "animal rights," "vegetarian," and "vegan" are some of the most mocked and emotionally loaded terms in our language, even in very liberal circles. One has to wonder if a multibillion dollar meat industry hasn't had a part in making these words and the ideals behind them seem so laughable to so many people.
Soy has become the new evil food, and it is often said that vegans and vegetarians are hypocrites because they eat processed foods that are bad for the environment, and their diets are pretentious.
In fact, many of the studies that show negative effectives of soy are funded by the meat industry, and it is often ignored that the reason soy is so damaging environmentally is because the vast majority of it is grown to feed factory farm animals -- this is the soy that is destroying the rain forest.
It's flattering that people think that the demands of vegans could be the cause of such huge global effects. However, it is not the small number of vegans and vegetarians who are misusing soy -- it is the meat industry and the millions of omnivores who eat their products.
Eating vegan and vegetarian does not mean you eat processed food. It also does not mean you eat soy (many vegans simply do not like soy products or are allergic to them). There is nothing pretentious, hard, unhealthy or processed about eating vegetables, grains and legumes grown locally.
If people could put aside their biases against these terms, they'd see that the animal-rights position is based on very rational argument. The concept of equality itself rests on the ability to feel suffering. There is no other standard by which to base equality that does not leave out some subset of human being. If equality is based on intelligence or ability to plan for the future, than babies and many developmentally disabled people would not be included.
However, if the concept of equality is based on suffering, then it is impossible to not include animals in our moral framework. This does not mean that animals are equal to human beings in every way, it simply means that we all have an interest in not suffering, and so to cause unnecessary suffering is unethical.
Oddly, this is something that the vast majority of Americans already agree with -- it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. Rutgers University Professor Gary Francione calls this a "moral schizophrenia." We see that unnecessary suffering is wrong -- which is a large part of why there even is a movement of "conscientious omnivores" -- and yet we refuse to see meat eating as unnecessary, even though nutritionists agree that the consumption of animal products is not necessary to our health.
Some people argue that equality should only include human beings, for no other reason than for that fact that they are human. Historically, this is very similar to sexist and racist philosophies that argued that only white men should be treated equally for no other reason than the color of their skin and their gender.
Physiologically and neurochemically, we are all very similar to the chicken killed at the local farm. We all exhibit similar signs of distress and fear. Chemically, our brains are mostly the same, obviously with differences in physical scale and complexity. Why not assume what appears to be pain is pain and that fear is fear? There is no reason, except for pride, to doubt animals have a rich inner experience.
Many people within this "new meat movement" argue that it is suffering, not killing, that is unethical. Can unnecessary killing ever be completely separated from suffering? Besides the obvious difficulty in assuring a life and death free from trauma, there are the FDA regulations, which send all larger meat animals to the same slaughterhouses that are used for factory-farmed animals -- facilities notorious for the suffering of both the animals and the employees.
Even if the animals die quickly on their home farm, what justifies this killing? Having foreknowledge of death is not a prerequisite for the right to live, or else killing an infant would not seem unethical. How are we justified in ending a life of happy contentment to satisfy a passing craving?
Meat is deeply American, connected to our culture, tradition and comfort. Many of these articles on the "new meat movement" emphasize a returning to historical practices. They romanticize the idea of the family farm of 100 years ago. I have even seen many references to getting in touch with your inner caveman through local meat.
Culture and tradition are never sufficient justification to continue unethical practices -- if they were, we would still have slavery and public torture. Traditions have to adapt with our changing values and ethics, although these changes may be uncomfortable and unwelcome.
If we agree that institutions causing animal suffering are wrong, they shouldn't be maintained merely to avoid the potential effects their abolition will have on ranchers, butchers and small farmers.
"But animals eat other animals. Eating meat is natural," some say. Appealing to nature as a justification for ethical belief is a fallacy, and it has been used historically to justify every conservative power structure. Other animals, with no alternative sustenance, having no language and being isolated in themselves, do not seem to be appropriate role models for our ethical lives.
We are animals that have evolved to recognize other beings' subjectivity, to experience empathy, and who have advanced beyond the necessity of violence to supply ourselves with food. We, uniquely, choose what we eat.
Veganism versus vegetarianism is about minimizing suffering. It is impossible to produce eggs and milk without vast amounts of killing. Veganism is about nonviolence. Veganism is more broadly sustainable, less economically divisive and less cruel than eating local meat and other animal products. There is no truly sustainable and humane way to feed all Americans even a fraction of the amount of animal products they currently consume.
An acre of land used for grass-fed beef could feed 10 times as many people if used for crops. Animals will always be bad protein converters, and the world’s population will continue to grow and be hungry. Veganism recognizes that compassion is not a limited resource. Veganism is not an asceticism. It is not a form of self-denial. Vegans do not claim to be ethically perfect.
Agriculture is, and always will be, a messy business -- there will most likely always be some level of exploitation and misguided or inefficient methods. Perhaps, as the cynical jibe goes, even the plants feel pain. That is not an argument for the continued exploitation of animals, who demonstrate clear analogs to the states which in humans recognize as indicating suffering. Vegans actively try to stop as much known suffering as possible.
Veganism is humanitarian. Becoming vegan is good for the planet and for hungry people around the globe. It is perhaps the only practicable solution to the global food crisis. It does not indicate a preference for animals over people. It is egalitarian as it does not create a class system of food access.
"Conscientious omnivores" may believe that they are eating in a radical and ethical way. However, if one really examines the issues and thinks beyond their taste buds, it has to be agreed that animal products are dangerous for the planet and always cause unnecessary suffering.
What is radical is kindness and nonviolence. We hope most people would agree that these are certainly worthy things to work toward.
Sunaura Taylor is an artist, writer and activist in Oakland, Calif. Alexander Taylor studies philosophy and ethics in Athens, Ga.
By Sunaura Taylor and Alexander Taylor, AlterNet
February 18, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/environment/127280/?page=entire
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/127280
http://www.alternet.org/story/127280/
[Read 243 comments:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/127280/?page=entire#comments ]
You may have noticed an onslaught of articles recently on what is being coined as the "new meat movement." The most recent is an article in Newsweek, "Head To Hoof: A butcher helps lead a new carnivore movement."
These articles almost all support the idea that cruelty to animals is wrong and that factory-produced meat is unjustifiably bad for the environment. However, they are not opposed to meat in and of itself, they are simply opposed to industrial meat.
These "conscientious omnivores," believe it is possible, and preferable, to eat meat the old-fashioned way -- on small, sustainable and local farms, with farmers who love their animals and perhaps even have pet names for them.
The backlash against industrial meat has been brewing for many reasons. Ever-increasing knowledge of the industry's effect on the environment, human starvation and animal welfare, is making it harder for even the most ardent omnivore to consume meat without guilt.
The much-quoted report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, "Livestock’s Long Shadow -- Environmental Issues and Options" (Nov. 29, 2006), did a lot to raise awareness about the animal industry's devastating effects on the planet and global warming.
More and more, people are also realizing the troubling connections between human starvation and eating animal products. It takes approximately 16 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat (thus feeding one or two people on meat versus approximately 16 people on grain). Much of this grain is grown in developing countries, where a large percentage of their land is used for cattle-raising for export to the United States, instead of being used to grow staple crops, which could feed local people directly. In a world where a child starves to death every 2 seconds, it seems impossible to justify such waste.
The animal industry is partly responsible for the destruction of the Amazon and other forests, for our world's diminishing water supply, for the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases, and basically every other environmental problem. People are also more readily accepting that the animals themselves deserve a life free from cruelty and that factory farms give them anything but.
Vegans and vegetarians have been saying many of these things for years, but it seems that people have only started listening now that there is simultaneously a proposed solution to this problem: "happy meat."
"Local," "grass-fed," "sustainably produced," "humanely raised" and "free-range" are just a few of the benevolent-sounding phrases that greet conscientious shoppers in the meat department. Animal-rights activists jokingly call these products "happy meat."
Many of these products tout pictures of smiling pigs, happy farmers in green pastures and stickers that say "humane." For many people who care about the environment and animal welfare, choosing to eat "humanely raised" meat seems like an option that honors traditional farmers and diets while also solving the ethical problems of environmental degradation and animal suffering.
But it solves neither of these problems. This meat is high-priced, and its production is an even less-efficient use of land and resources. It is often marketed as luxurious, an indulgence to be lingered over. It is inherently not adaptable to a national or international solution. Local organic meat is for an elite few, and not a practicable alternative to the massive crisis of industrial meat production.
For the first time in history, an entire civilization consumes meat as a staple. How can America truly produce enough of this "happy meat" (not too mention happy milk and happy eggs), to feed this country even a fraction of the animal products we currently consume?
Truth be told, this meat is a marketing gimmick, an ideological pose, which assuages the ethical compulsions of those who consume it even though it does nothing to kick America's cheap meat habit, and perhaps contributes to the growing international fetishization of meat as a class signifier.
Articles on the "new meat movement" never pose questions like, "could all of America's animal products be grown locally?" And they never mention what the vast majority of Americans who can't afford the prized local animal products will be consuming if all factory farms shut down -- they'd be vegan.
These farms are described as ethical because of the fact that they are small, sustainable and have kinder animal-husbandry practices. As many people have pointed out, these farms can individually produce meat in a way that is arguably just as "green" as eating vegan.
However, it is an inherent part of the ethical foundation of these farms that they cannot produce on a massive scale. As we've seen numerous times, the organic farms that do try to do this, very often become virtually no better than factory farms, despite the labels they often still get to keep.
For example, many cage-free or free-range chickens still live in devastating conditions -- they simply aren't technically kept in cages in the first case, or, in the latter case, are kept in huge, crowded and perpetually dark buildings, with a single opening leading to a few square yards of bare earth.
The question of methane pollution may also make it hard to raise animals on a massive scale, regardless of whether the farms could be sustainable in other ways.
The question is not, "are a few people eating local, sustainable, free-range pork worse environmentally than a few people eating vegan?" The question needs to be, "can we feed the world's entire growing population sustainable animal products?" I have never once seen this question addressed in one of these "new meat" articles.
But all of this is in many ways ignoring an even more complex question. Do humans even have the right to make other living beings into objects of production that we can kill even when it is unnecessary to do so, merely for our pleasure?
The words "animal rights," "vegetarian," and "vegan" are some of the most mocked and emotionally loaded terms in our language, even in very liberal circles. One has to wonder if a multibillion dollar meat industry hasn't had a part in making these words and the ideals behind them seem so laughable to so many people.
Soy has become the new evil food, and it is often said that vegans and vegetarians are hypocrites because they eat processed foods that are bad for the environment, and their diets are pretentious.
In fact, many of the studies that show negative effectives of soy are funded by the meat industry, and it is often ignored that the reason soy is so damaging environmentally is because the vast majority of it is grown to feed factory farm animals -- this is the soy that is destroying the rain forest.
It's flattering that people think that the demands of vegans could be the cause of such huge global effects. However, it is not the small number of vegans and vegetarians who are misusing soy -- it is the meat industry and the millions of omnivores who eat their products.
Eating vegan and vegetarian does not mean you eat processed food. It also does not mean you eat soy (many vegans simply do not like soy products or are allergic to them). There is nothing pretentious, hard, unhealthy or processed about eating vegetables, grains and legumes grown locally.
If people could put aside their biases against these terms, they'd see that the animal-rights position is based on very rational argument. The concept of equality itself rests on the ability to feel suffering. There is no other standard by which to base equality that does not leave out some subset of human being. If equality is based on intelligence or ability to plan for the future, than babies and many developmentally disabled people would not be included.
However, if the concept of equality is based on suffering, then it is impossible to not include animals in our moral framework. This does not mean that animals are equal to human beings in every way, it simply means that we all have an interest in not suffering, and so to cause unnecessary suffering is unethical.
Oddly, this is something that the vast majority of Americans already agree with -- it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. Rutgers University Professor Gary Francione calls this a "moral schizophrenia." We see that unnecessary suffering is wrong -- which is a large part of why there even is a movement of "conscientious omnivores" -- and yet we refuse to see meat eating as unnecessary, even though nutritionists agree that the consumption of animal products is not necessary to our health.
Some people argue that equality should only include human beings, for no other reason than for that fact that they are human. Historically, this is very similar to sexist and racist philosophies that argued that only white men should be treated equally for no other reason than the color of their skin and their gender.
Physiologically and neurochemically, we are all very similar to the chicken killed at the local farm. We all exhibit similar signs of distress and fear. Chemically, our brains are mostly the same, obviously with differences in physical scale and complexity. Why not assume what appears to be pain is pain and that fear is fear? There is no reason, except for pride, to doubt animals have a rich inner experience.
Many people within this "new meat movement" argue that it is suffering, not killing, that is unethical. Can unnecessary killing ever be completely separated from suffering? Besides the obvious difficulty in assuring a life and death free from trauma, there are the FDA regulations, which send all larger meat animals to the same slaughterhouses that are used for factory-farmed animals -- facilities notorious for the suffering of both the animals and the employees.
Even if the animals die quickly on their home farm, what justifies this killing? Having foreknowledge of death is not a prerequisite for the right to live, or else killing an infant would not seem unethical. How are we justified in ending a life of happy contentment to satisfy a passing craving?
Meat is deeply American, connected to our culture, tradition and comfort. Many of these articles on the "new meat movement" emphasize a returning to historical practices. They romanticize the idea of the family farm of 100 years ago. I have even seen many references to getting in touch with your inner caveman through local meat.
Culture and tradition are never sufficient justification to continue unethical practices -- if they were, we would still have slavery and public torture. Traditions have to adapt with our changing values and ethics, although these changes may be uncomfortable and unwelcome.
If we agree that institutions causing animal suffering are wrong, they shouldn't be maintained merely to avoid the potential effects their abolition will have on ranchers, butchers and small farmers.
"But animals eat other animals. Eating meat is natural," some say. Appealing to nature as a justification for ethical belief is a fallacy, and it has been used historically to justify every conservative power structure. Other animals, with no alternative sustenance, having no language and being isolated in themselves, do not seem to be appropriate role models for our ethical lives.
We are animals that have evolved to recognize other beings' subjectivity, to experience empathy, and who have advanced beyond the necessity of violence to supply ourselves with food. We, uniquely, choose what we eat.
Veganism versus vegetarianism is about minimizing suffering. It is impossible to produce eggs and milk without vast amounts of killing. Veganism is about nonviolence. Veganism is more broadly sustainable, less economically divisive and less cruel than eating local meat and other animal products. There is no truly sustainable and humane way to feed all Americans even a fraction of the amount of animal products they currently consume.
An acre of land used for grass-fed beef could feed 10 times as many people if used for crops. Animals will always be bad protein converters, and the world’s population will continue to grow and be hungry. Veganism recognizes that compassion is not a limited resource. Veganism is not an asceticism. It is not a form of self-denial. Vegans do not claim to be ethically perfect.
Agriculture is, and always will be, a messy business -- there will most likely always be some level of exploitation and misguided or inefficient methods. Perhaps, as the cynical jibe goes, even the plants feel pain. That is not an argument for the continued exploitation of animals, who demonstrate clear analogs to the states which in humans recognize as indicating suffering. Vegans actively try to stop as much known suffering as possible.
Veganism is humanitarian. Becoming vegan is good for the planet and for hungry people around the globe. It is perhaps the only practicable solution to the global food crisis. It does not indicate a preference for animals over people. It is egalitarian as it does not create a class system of food access.
"Conscientious omnivores" may believe that they are eating in a radical and ethical way. However, if one really examines the issues and thinks beyond their taste buds, it has to be agreed that animal products are dangerous for the planet and always cause unnecessary suffering.
What is radical is kindness and nonviolence. We hope most people would agree that these are certainly worthy things to work toward.
Sunaura Taylor is an artist, writer and activist in Oakland, Calif. Alexander Taylor studies philosophy and ethics in Athens, Ga.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
EU Says Livestock Emissions May Mean Less Meat
EU Says Livestock Emissions May Mean Less Meat
http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/20310/eu-says-livestock-emissions-may-mean-less-meat
EU - The European Parliament warned about the livestock industry’s emissions while stopping short of urging a reduction in meat consumption to fight global warming.
The European Union assembly’s balancing act highlights the potential conflict between tackling climate change and ensuring adequate food supplies, writes Jonathan Stearns for Bloomberg.com. The livestock industry accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions including methane from manure, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels to make fertilizers for feed crops and CO2 from forest clearing, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
According to the Bloomberg article, the EU Parliament said changes in behavior by consumers and the consideration of targets for reducing agricultural emissions should accompany regulations to cap industrial greenhouse gases and improve energy efficiency. At the same time, the assembly deleted a part of the text that called for a cut in worldwide meat consumption particularly in rich countries.
The livestock industry is responsible for “substantial” emissions, the 27-nation Parliament said in its resolution today in Strasbourg, France. The 80-page document, based on the final report of the assembly’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change, includes dozens of other recommendations and options for tackling global warming until 2050.
The EU aims to reduce its greenhouse gases at least 20 percent in 2020 compared with 1990 and spur UN members including the U.S. and China to back a new accord this year to counter global warming. The Parliament resolution said industrialized countries as a whole should plan to cut emissions 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels and deepen the target to at least 80 percent by 2050.
http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/20310/eu-says-livestock-emissions-may-mean-less-meat
EU - The European Parliament warned about the livestock industry’s emissions while stopping short of urging a reduction in meat consumption to fight global warming.
The European Union assembly’s balancing act highlights the potential conflict between tackling climate change and ensuring adequate food supplies, writes Jonathan Stearns for Bloomberg.com. The livestock industry accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions including methane from manure, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels to make fertilizers for feed crops and CO2 from forest clearing, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
According to the Bloomberg article, the EU Parliament said changes in behavior by consumers and the consideration of targets for reducing agricultural emissions should accompany regulations to cap industrial greenhouse gases and improve energy efficiency. At the same time, the assembly deleted a part of the text that called for a cut in worldwide meat consumption particularly in rich countries.
The livestock industry is responsible for “substantial” emissions, the 27-nation Parliament said in its resolution today in Strasbourg, France. The 80-page document, based on the final report of the assembly’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change, includes dozens of other recommendations and options for tackling global warming until 2050.
The EU aims to reduce its greenhouse gases at least 20 percent in 2020 compared with 1990 and spur UN members including the U.S. and China to back a new accord this year to counter global warming. The Parliament resolution said industrialized countries as a whole should plan to cut emissions 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels and deepen the target to at least 80 percent by 2050.
Help yourself and the planet - Eat less meat
Help yourself and the planet - Eat less meat
By Marialisa Calta
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2009/02/10/news/food/doc4991f0ca0ea31650138960.txt
When a consummate “foodie” like Mark Bittman — New York Times food columnist, bestselling cookbook author, food blogger, PBS food-show star — starts advocating a vegan diet, it’s time to drop the foie gras and listen up. Even if it’s just a partially vegan diet, or, as Bittman puts it, a “vegan until 6” daily regimen.
In his new book, “Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating with More Than 75 Recipes” (Simon & Schuster, 2008), Bittman does everyone who cares about his or her own health as well as the health of the planet a huge favor by simply and plainly putting the two concerns together. His conclusion: Our diets may be killing us, and they are not helping the environment, either. Just one example: According to Bittman, industrial meat production is responsible, worldwide, for one-fifth of the production of greenhouse gases. Couple that with the research that has linked diets high in animal protein to cardiac disease and certain cancers, and Bittman’s solution seems like a no-brainer: Eat less meat. “If we all ate the equivalent of three fewer cheeseburgers (or cheeseburger equivalencies) a week,” he told a radio interviewer recently, “it would be the equivalent of taking all the SUVs in the United States off the road.” And we would get healthier and
lose weight. He certainly did.
A couple of years ago, Bittman found that his concerns over global problems related to food production dovetailed with his concerns over personal problems related to his food consumption. He found himself overweight, and suffering from high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high cholesterol. His doctor advised him to adopt a vegan diet (one free of all animal products, including eggs, dairy and honey). Bittman, instead, decided to eat an animal-free diet for two meals a day, and, in the evening — as he said in the interview — to do “pretty much what I want.” The results? He has cut his animal-protein consumption by two-thirds and lost 35 pounds, with dramatic reductions in cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar. He describes his daytime diet as relying heavily on whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits; no processed foods, refined carbs or added sugars. But he is not too proud to admit — as he did on the radio — that on the
evening of Super Bowl Sunday, he ate “Super Bowl food,” including hot dogs.
“Are your choices going to be perfect and free of hypocrisy? I’d be lying if I said mine were,” he writes. “But I can’t repeat it enough: The aggregate of even the smallest changes equals big changes.”
If the idea of veganism — or Bittman’s philosophy of “less-meatarianism” — scares you, rest assured it doesn’t have to be complicated. Substitute a bowl of oatmeal for a bacon-and-egg breakfast. For lunch, have a salad with chickpeas on it instead of chicken. And there are books to help. Vegan cook Nava Atlas has come through with “Vegan Soups and Hearty Stews for All Seasons” (Broadway Books, 2009). She is also the author of “Vegan Express” (Broadway Books, 2008).
TACO SOUP
4 cups water
1/2 cup uncooked bulgur
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 large onion, peeled and chopped
2 to 3 cloves garlic, peeled and minced
1 medium green bell pepper, stemmed, seeded and finely chopped
4 cups cooked pinto beans or 2 (14- to 16-ounce) cans, rinsed and drained
1 (28-ounce) can salt-free crushed tomatoes
1/4 cup chopped mild green chilies, fresh or canned, optional
1/4 cup chopped fresh cilantro (optional)
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon dried oregano
For garnish:
1 to 1-1/2 cups grated cheddar-style, nondairy cheese
thinly shredded romaine or other lettuce
1 cup finely diced tomato
stone-ground tortilla chips
Bring 1 cup of the water to a boil in a small saucepan. Add the bulgur and simmer, covered, for 15 minutes or until the water is absorbed.
Heat the oil in a soup pot. Add the onion and cook, stirring, over medium heat until translucent, about 5 minutes. Add the garlic and pepper, and continue to cook, stirring frequently, until all are turning golden, at least 5 minutes more.
Add the beans, tomatoes, chilies and cilantro (if using), cumin and oregano, the cooked bulgur and the remaining 3 cups water. Bring to a rapid simmer, then lower the heat. Cover and simmer gently for 10 to 15 minutes. Remove from heat.
Assemble each serving: Fill each bowl about two-thirds full with soup. Top with some grated cheese, shredded lettuce and diced tomatoes. Serve tortilla chips on the side or, if desired, line the perimeter with chips, points facing upward, for a star-shaped effect. The chips can be used to scoop the solid parts of the soup or eaten as an accompaniment.
Yield: 6 servings
Recipe from “Vegan Soups and Hearty Stews for All Seasons” by Nava Atlas (Broadway Books, 2009)
MOROCCAN VEGETABLE STEW
1-1/2 tablespoons olive oil
2 large onions, peeled and chopped
2 medium potatoes, scrubbed and cut into 3/4-inch chunks
2 heaping cups, peeled 3/4-inch chunks butternut squash or sugar (pie) pumpkin
2 large carrots, peeled and coarsely chopped
1 (14- to 16-ounce) can salt-free diced tomatoes
2 teaspoons ground cumin
1/2 teaspoon ground turmeric
water, as needed
1 (14- to 16-ounce) can chickpeas, drained and rinsed
salt and freshly ground pepper to taste
1 cup uncooked couscous, preferably whole grain
1/4 to 1/2 cup minced fresh parsley
Heat the oil in a soup pot. Add the onions and cook, stirring, over medium heat until golden, about 10 to 12 minutes.
Add the potatoes, squash (or pumpkin), carrots, tomatoes, cumin and turmeric. Add enough water to cover all but about 1/2-inch of the vegetables. Bring to a rapid simmer, then lower the heat. Cover and simmer gently for 35 to 40 minutes, or until the vegetables are tender.
Stir in the chickpeas, then season with salt and pepper. Simmer over very low heat for 10 to 15 minutes longer.
Meanwhile, bring 2 cups of water to a boil in a small saucepan. Stir in the couscous, cover, and remove from the heat. Let stand for 10 minutes, then fluff with a fork.
To serve, place a small amount of couscous in each soup bowl, then ladle some stew over it and sprinkle with parsley.
Yield: at least 6 servings
Recipe from “Vegan Soups and Hearty Stews for All Seasons” by Nava Atlas (Broadway Books, 2009)
BREAKFAST COUSCOUS
1-1/2 cups water
pinch of salt
1 cup uncooked couscous, preferably whole grain
1 cup fresh fruit, cut into bite-sized pieces, if needed (bananas, apples, berries, etc.)
1/4 cup chopped nuts (optional)
1/4 cup dried fruit (raisins, dates, coconut, etc.)
drizzle of maple syrup to taste
Put the water, salt and couscous in a pot. Bring to a boil, cover, remove from heat, and let steep for 10 minutes. Add the remaining ingredients, and serve.
Yield: 4 servings
Recipe from “Food Matters” by Mark Bittman (Simon & Schuster, 2008)
Marialisa Calta is the author of “Barbarians at the Plate: Taming and Feeding the American Family” (Perigee, 2005). For more information, go to http://www.marialisacalta.com
By Marialisa Calta
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2009/02/10/news/food/doc4991f0ca0ea31650138960.txt
When a consummate “foodie” like Mark Bittman — New York Times food columnist, bestselling cookbook author, food blogger, PBS food-show star — starts advocating a vegan diet, it’s time to drop the foie gras and listen up. Even if it’s just a partially vegan diet, or, as Bittman puts it, a “vegan until 6” daily regimen.
In his new book, “Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating with More Than 75 Recipes” (Simon & Schuster, 2008), Bittman does everyone who cares about his or her own health as well as the health of the planet a huge favor by simply and plainly putting the two concerns together. His conclusion: Our diets may be killing us, and they are not helping the environment, either. Just one example: According to Bittman, industrial meat production is responsible, worldwide, for one-fifth of the production of greenhouse gases. Couple that with the research that has linked diets high in animal protein to cardiac disease and certain cancers, and Bittman’s solution seems like a no-brainer: Eat less meat. “If we all ate the equivalent of three fewer cheeseburgers (or cheeseburger equivalencies) a week,” he told a radio interviewer recently, “it would be the equivalent of taking all the SUVs in the United States off the road.” And we would get healthier and
lose weight. He certainly did.
A couple of years ago, Bittman found that his concerns over global problems related to food production dovetailed with his concerns over personal problems related to his food consumption. He found himself overweight, and suffering from high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high cholesterol. His doctor advised him to adopt a vegan diet (one free of all animal products, including eggs, dairy and honey). Bittman, instead, decided to eat an animal-free diet for two meals a day, and, in the evening — as he said in the interview — to do “pretty much what I want.” The results? He has cut his animal-protein consumption by two-thirds and lost 35 pounds, with dramatic reductions in cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar. He describes his daytime diet as relying heavily on whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits; no processed foods, refined carbs or added sugars. But he is not too proud to admit — as he did on the radio — that on the
evening of Super Bowl Sunday, he ate “Super Bowl food,” including hot dogs.
“Are your choices going to be perfect and free of hypocrisy? I’d be lying if I said mine were,” he writes. “But I can’t repeat it enough: The aggregate of even the smallest changes equals big changes.”
If the idea of veganism — or Bittman’s philosophy of “less-meatarianism” — scares you, rest assured it doesn’t have to be complicated. Substitute a bowl of oatmeal for a bacon-and-egg breakfast. For lunch, have a salad with chickpeas on it instead of chicken. And there are books to help. Vegan cook Nava Atlas has come through with “Vegan Soups and Hearty Stews for All Seasons” (Broadway Books, 2009). She is also the author of “Vegan Express” (Broadway Books, 2008).
TACO SOUP
4 cups water
1/2 cup uncooked bulgur
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 large onion, peeled and chopped
2 to 3 cloves garlic, peeled and minced
1 medium green bell pepper, stemmed, seeded and finely chopped
4 cups cooked pinto beans or 2 (14- to 16-ounce) cans, rinsed and drained
1 (28-ounce) can salt-free crushed tomatoes
1/4 cup chopped mild green chilies, fresh or canned, optional
1/4 cup chopped fresh cilantro (optional)
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon dried oregano
For garnish:
1 to 1-1/2 cups grated cheddar-style, nondairy cheese
thinly shredded romaine or other lettuce
1 cup finely diced tomato
stone-ground tortilla chips
Bring 1 cup of the water to a boil in a small saucepan. Add the bulgur and simmer, covered, for 15 minutes or until the water is absorbed.
Heat the oil in a soup pot. Add the onion and cook, stirring, over medium heat until translucent, about 5 minutes. Add the garlic and pepper, and continue to cook, stirring frequently, until all are turning golden, at least 5 minutes more.
Add the beans, tomatoes, chilies and cilantro (if using), cumin and oregano, the cooked bulgur and the remaining 3 cups water. Bring to a rapid simmer, then lower the heat. Cover and simmer gently for 10 to 15 minutes. Remove from heat.
Assemble each serving: Fill each bowl about two-thirds full with soup. Top with some grated cheese, shredded lettuce and diced tomatoes. Serve tortilla chips on the side or, if desired, line the perimeter with chips, points facing upward, for a star-shaped effect. The chips can be used to scoop the solid parts of the soup or eaten as an accompaniment.
Yield: 6 servings
Recipe from “Vegan Soups and Hearty Stews for All Seasons” by Nava Atlas (Broadway Books, 2009)
MOROCCAN VEGETABLE STEW
1-1/2 tablespoons olive oil
2 large onions, peeled and chopped
2 medium potatoes, scrubbed and cut into 3/4-inch chunks
2 heaping cups, peeled 3/4-inch chunks butternut squash or sugar (pie) pumpkin
2 large carrots, peeled and coarsely chopped
1 (14- to 16-ounce) can salt-free diced tomatoes
2 teaspoons ground cumin
1/2 teaspoon ground turmeric
water, as needed
1 (14- to 16-ounce) can chickpeas, drained and rinsed
salt and freshly ground pepper to taste
1 cup uncooked couscous, preferably whole grain
1/4 to 1/2 cup minced fresh parsley
Heat the oil in a soup pot. Add the onions and cook, stirring, over medium heat until golden, about 10 to 12 minutes.
Add the potatoes, squash (or pumpkin), carrots, tomatoes, cumin and turmeric. Add enough water to cover all but about 1/2-inch of the vegetables. Bring to a rapid simmer, then lower the heat. Cover and simmer gently for 35 to 40 minutes, or until the vegetables are tender.
Stir in the chickpeas, then season with salt and pepper. Simmer over very low heat for 10 to 15 minutes longer.
Meanwhile, bring 2 cups of water to a boil in a small saucepan. Stir in the couscous, cover, and remove from the heat. Let stand for 10 minutes, then fluff with a fork.
To serve, place a small amount of couscous in each soup bowl, then ladle some stew over it and sprinkle with parsley.
Yield: at least 6 servings
Recipe from “Vegan Soups and Hearty Stews for All Seasons” by Nava Atlas (Broadway Books, 2009)
BREAKFAST COUSCOUS
1-1/2 cups water
pinch of salt
1 cup uncooked couscous, preferably whole grain
1 cup fresh fruit, cut into bite-sized pieces, if needed (bananas, apples, berries, etc.)
1/4 cup chopped nuts (optional)
1/4 cup dried fruit (raisins, dates, coconut, etc.)
drizzle of maple syrup to taste
Put the water, salt and couscous in a pot. Bring to a boil, cover, remove from heat, and let steep for 10 minutes. Add the remaining ingredients, and serve.
Yield: 4 servings
Recipe from “Food Matters” by Mark Bittman (Simon & Schuster, 2008)
Marialisa Calta is the author of “Barbarians at the Plate: Taming and Feeding the American Family” (Perigee, 2005). For more information, go to http://www.marialisacalta.com
Meat may increase Alzheimer's risk
Scientist worries that meat may increase Alzheimer's risk
by Meg Marquardt, Science News Examiner
February 10, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-1242-Science-News-Examiner~y2009m2d10-Scientist-worries-that-meat-may-increase-Alzheimers-risk
A scientist in DC has made a startling claim: there is a chance that humans are increasing their risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Type II diabetes by eating certain meats.
Misfolded (and thus improperly working) protein fragments known as amyloid fibrils are present in some animals. This fact is not new; misfolded proteins like amyloid fibrils have long been blamed for prion diseases such as mad cow. Michael Greger of The Humane Society of the United States in Washington, DC explained “that a biochemical mechanism akin to the replication of similar protein fragments in the brain diseases Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), scrapie, and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, might occur when amyloid fibrils enter brain tissue or the pancreas.” [EurekAlert]
If it is true that humans are assimilating amyloid fibrils that target the brain and pancreas, then we may be inadvertently increasing the risk of AD or diabetes as well. In humans, a hallmark of AD is the accumulation (or amyloidosis) of the amyloid protein Aβ in the brain. Type II diabetes is discernible by the amyloidosis of a different amyloid protein, Amylin, in the pancreas. If something is wrong in the body, humans will naturally produce these proteins without the help of tainted meats. But there is always the chance that such meat is helping the process along.
However, at the moment, there is no need to panic or radically change your diet. This is merely a tale of cautionary intuition. Though research shows that “mice fed amyloid-affected beef, for instance, succumb to amyloidosis within weeks,” [EurekAlert] there has been no research done to show similar effects in higher-level animals, let alone humans. It should also be noted that the only food that is absolutely known to contain such amyloid fibrils is pâté de foie gras, a fatty liver pate which is produced by force-feeding chickens and other poultry.
But Greger raises a very important concern. As scientists strongly suspect that other diseases can be transmitted from animals via misfolded proteins, investigating the link between meat and AD and diabetes may prove essential. “Given that amyloidosis can occur in a wide variety of wild as well as domesticated animals, including chickens, cattle, dogs, goats, horses, sheep and, rarely, cats and pigs, Greger suggests that urgent research is now needed to ensure we are not eating food that might one day lead to amyloidosis in people.”
by Meg Marquardt, Science News Examiner
February 10, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-1242-Science-News-Examiner~y2009m2d10-Scientist-worries-that-meat-may-increase-Alzheimers-risk
A scientist in DC has made a startling claim: there is a chance that humans are increasing their risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Type II diabetes by eating certain meats.
Misfolded (and thus improperly working) protein fragments known as amyloid fibrils are present in some animals. This fact is not new; misfolded proteins like amyloid fibrils have long been blamed for prion diseases such as mad cow. Michael Greger of The Humane Society of the United States in Washington, DC explained “that a biochemical mechanism akin to the replication of similar protein fragments in the brain diseases Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), scrapie, and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, might occur when amyloid fibrils enter brain tissue or the pancreas.” [EurekAlert]
If it is true that humans are assimilating amyloid fibrils that target the brain and pancreas, then we may be inadvertently increasing the risk of AD or diabetes as well. In humans, a hallmark of AD is the accumulation (or amyloidosis) of the amyloid protein Aβ in the brain. Type II diabetes is discernible by the amyloidosis of a different amyloid protein, Amylin, in the pancreas. If something is wrong in the body, humans will naturally produce these proteins without the help of tainted meats. But there is always the chance that such meat is helping the process along.
However, at the moment, there is no need to panic or radically change your diet. This is merely a tale of cautionary intuition. Though research shows that “mice fed amyloid-affected beef, for instance, succumb to amyloidosis within weeks,” [EurekAlert] there has been no research done to show similar effects in higher-level animals, let alone humans. It should also be noted that the only food that is absolutely known to contain such amyloid fibrils is pâté de foie gras, a fatty liver pate which is produced by force-feeding chickens and other poultry.
But Greger raises a very important concern. As scientists strongly suspect that other diseases can be transmitted from animals via misfolded proteins, investigating the link between meat and AD and diabetes may prove essential. “Given that amyloidosis can occur in a wide variety of wild as well as domesticated animals, including chickens, cattle, dogs, goats, horses, sheep and, rarely, cats and pigs, Greger suggests that urgent research is now needed to ensure we are not eating food that might one day lead to amyloidosis in people.”
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Beef may be what America's having for dinner, but not at my house
Beef may be what America's having for dinner, but not at my house
by Vicki Godal
LA Green Life Examiner
February 3, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-1440-LA-Green-Life-Examiner~y2009m2d3-Beef-may-be-what-Americas-having-for-dinner-but-not-at-my-house
As I strive for my goal to stay 100% raw, I continually read about the trials and tribulations of consuming animal products. I say trials because as it stands, scientists are finding more and more evidence to support the fact that animal products are responsible for substantially more health problems and diseases than the ones we know of like heart disease, high cholesterol, gall bladder and kidney disease. Of course, I read this stuff in order to freak myself out enough that I can make it another day without an In n' Out urge but sometimes the information I find is so important that it needs to be shared in a major way.
That's what today's raw rant is about. I bought a book called "Sunfood Living, Resource Guide for Global Health" by John McCabe. Amongst raw foodists, this book is a must have for making informed health and lifestyle choices. For me, its like Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" or Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." I was appalled and terrified at my lack of knowledge on the subject of animal consumption and production, and guessed that there are others that might equal my ignorance on something we eat so casually. Needless to say, when my husband called to see if I wanted him to bring me sashimi on the way home I declined. The very idea of eating a small piece of tuna which was once part of a magnificent fish before being subjected to an extremely cruel and savage death in order to satiate me and my fellow sushi junkies just doesn't cut it. But before you write me off as another vegetarian gone radical, I will illuminate you on the joys of life as a factory farm
animal. consider the following and think on it just a bit.
"Modern factory farms raise animals in extremely unnatural conditions. Almost all 10 billion land animals who are slaughtered in the US each year are forced to live in crowded sheds. They are surrounded by their own filth and breathe ammonia laden air that destroys their lungs and compromises their immune systems. It comes as no surprise that these facilities have become major sources for deadly disease outbreaks such as hoof-and-mouth disease, mad cow disease, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, which is thought by most scientists to cause Crohn's disease in humans, and now the most dangerous of all: bird flu. Avian influenza, or 'bird flu,' threatens humanity with the greatest public health crisis in recorded history. Experts warn that the disease could kill one in eight human beings, including 40 million Americans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) while the virus is destroyed by
thoroughly cooking, it can be caught simply by eating undercooked meat or eggs, by eating food prepared on the same cutting board as infected meat or eggs, or even by touching eggshells contaminated with the disease."Goveg.com/Birdflu.asp,2006.
In "Sunfood Living" there are several sections covering animal consumption and production. Fact: the US devotes 87% of all the agricultural land to raise animals for food. That's 45% of the total US land mass. Animals are a big business cash crop. In 2005, the US fed and then killed 95 million cattle, several billion chickens including 347 million egg laying hens, 100 million hogs, 300 million turkeys, millions of lambs and many other types of cash crop animals including buffalo, ostrich, ducks and farmed fish. Alright so now you've got an idea of the numbers involved in America's love affair with animal products. But this is still pretty tame compared to what's coming.
Also from Sunfood Living, "In 1980 the FDA reversed a 1967 prohibition on feeding poultry waste to cattle, leaving the regulation of feeding animal wastes to the individual states. Downer cattle - dead, dying, diseased or disabled (what the Food and Drug Administration refers to as the 4-Ds)-have also been 'recycled' into feed, including poultry feed, as a source of protein. While the case of mad cow disease in Washington State may have been from a Canadian herd prior to the 1997 ban on feeding ruminant proteins to cattle, it is equally plausible -though state and federal agencies have not discussed it with the public - that the case was caused by feeding contaminated poultry feces to cattle. The FDA did not ban the inclusion of ruminant proteins in non-ruminant feed, as did the United Kingdom. Thus ruminant proteins from both healthy and 4-D animals continue to be 'recycled' into animal feed and pet foods, including poultry feed. The problem is that
poultry feces have routinely been used as cattle feed, keeping the prohibited cycle of 'feeding cattle to cattle' intact."
Okay, so this is not light reading but dark revelations on a subject that's been cloaked in hyperbole and pr for the majority of our lives. I'm not suggesting anyone follow the raw path I'm on. I am suggesting that if you're a 'died in the wool' meat, chicken or basic animal product eater, you'd be well served to read up on what's for dinner.
by Vicki Godal
LA Green Life Examiner
February 3, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-1440-LA-Green-Life-Examiner~y2009m2d3-Beef-may-be-what-Americas-having-for-dinner-but-not-at-my-house
As I strive for my goal to stay 100% raw, I continually read about the trials and tribulations of consuming animal products. I say trials because as it stands, scientists are finding more and more evidence to support the fact that animal products are responsible for substantially more health problems and diseases than the ones we know of like heart disease, high cholesterol, gall bladder and kidney disease. Of course, I read this stuff in order to freak myself out enough that I can make it another day without an In n' Out urge but sometimes the information I find is so important that it needs to be shared in a major way.
That's what today's raw rant is about. I bought a book called "Sunfood Living, Resource Guide for Global Health" by John McCabe. Amongst raw foodists, this book is a must have for making informed health and lifestyle choices. For me, its like Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" or Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." I was appalled and terrified at my lack of knowledge on the subject of animal consumption and production, and guessed that there are others that might equal my ignorance on something we eat so casually. Needless to say, when my husband called to see if I wanted him to bring me sashimi on the way home I declined. The very idea of eating a small piece of tuna which was once part of a magnificent fish before being subjected to an extremely cruel and savage death in order to satiate me and my fellow sushi junkies just doesn't cut it. But before you write me off as another vegetarian gone radical, I will illuminate you on the joys of life as a factory farm
animal. consider the following and think on it just a bit.
"Modern factory farms raise animals in extremely unnatural conditions. Almost all 10 billion land animals who are slaughtered in the US each year are forced to live in crowded sheds. They are surrounded by their own filth and breathe ammonia laden air that destroys their lungs and compromises their immune systems. It comes as no surprise that these facilities have become major sources for deadly disease outbreaks such as hoof-and-mouth disease, mad cow disease, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, which is thought by most scientists to cause Crohn's disease in humans, and now the most dangerous of all: bird flu. Avian influenza, or 'bird flu,' threatens humanity with the greatest public health crisis in recorded history. Experts warn that the disease could kill one in eight human beings, including 40 million Americans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) while the virus is destroyed by
thoroughly cooking, it can be caught simply by eating undercooked meat or eggs, by eating food prepared on the same cutting board as infected meat or eggs, or even by touching eggshells contaminated with the disease."Goveg.com/Birdflu.asp,2006.
In "Sunfood Living" there are several sections covering animal consumption and production. Fact: the US devotes 87% of all the agricultural land to raise animals for food. That's 45% of the total US land mass. Animals are a big business cash crop. In 2005, the US fed and then killed 95 million cattle, several billion chickens including 347 million egg laying hens, 100 million hogs, 300 million turkeys, millions of lambs and many other types of cash crop animals including buffalo, ostrich, ducks and farmed fish. Alright so now you've got an idea of the numbers involved in America's love affair with animal products. But this is still pretty tame compared to what's coming.
Also from Sunfood Living, "In 1980 the FDA reversed a 1967 prohibition on feeding poultry waste to cattle, leaving the regulation of feeding animal wastes to the individual states. Downer cattle - dead, dying, diseased or disabled (what the Food and Drug Administration refers to as the 4-Ds)-have also been 'recycled' into feed, including poultry feed, as a source of protein. While the case of mad cow disease in Washington State may have been from a Canadian herd prior to the 1997 ban on feeding ruminant proteins to cattle, it is equally plausible -though state and federal agencies have not discussed it with the public - that the case was caused by feeding contaminated poultry feces to cattle. The FDA did not ban the inclusion of ruminant proteins in non-ruminant feed, as did the United Kingdom. Thus ruminant proteins from both healthy and 4-D animals continue to be 'recycled' into animal feed and pet foods, including poultry feed. The problem is that
poultry feces have routinely been used as cattle feed, keeping the prohibited cycle of 'feeding cattle to cattle' intact."
Okay, so this is not light reading but dark revelations on a subject that's been cloaked in hyperbole and pr for the majority of our lives. I'm not suggesting anyone follow the raw path I'm on. I am suggesting that if you're a 'died in the wool' meat, chicken or basic animal product eater, you'd be well served to read up on what's for dinner.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The NRG Benefits of a Vegetarian Vs Meat Diet
The NRG Benefits of a Vegetarian v Meat Diet
Author: Dada Dharmavedananda
[Caveat: Not completely Vegan]
A rich man is sleeping in his house. Suddenly he is awakened by the burglar alarm.
"Ach! These stupid systems never work properly!" he exclaims, rubbing his eyes and struggling to stand up. He goes downstairs and, still cursing the system, turns off the alarm. Going back to his bedroom he quickly falls asleep again.
The burglars can't believe their good luck, as they take their time to carefully find and steal every available expensive item in the house.
The health situation of most people in the meat-eating nations of the world is analogous to that rich man's condition. Usually when people experience uncomfortable symptoms and sickness, they turn to doctors and medicines to turn off the symptoms so that they can again be comfortable. Just like the rich man who believes he is safe falls back asleep, so most people, under the illusion of recovered health go back to eating the wrong food, and resume other bad habits. Meanwhile, the cause of the suppressed symptoms remains and gets worse. Over time the person becomes more and more sick.
The physical cause of more than 90% of human sickness is the same: too many toxins in the body. Most of these toxins are located in the stomach, intestinal system, organs and circulation system. As an example let's look at the common cold. Here the symptoms are a running nose, fever, sore throat, sneezing, and so on. The use of medicine turns off these "problems".
Unfortunately they are alarms, not problems. They are also the means for the body to rid itself of the real problem -- excess toxins. The increased flow of mucous provides a channel for toxins to flow out. The fever causes sweat, which is also a medium for elimination. At the same time the message of the sore throat and the sneezing is: "Stop eating! Drink more and more!" Because they go on eating even though they are not hungry, most people who catch colds are compelled to continue suffering for many days or even weeks at a stretch. If they were simply to fast on water or lemon water (with a little salt, not sugar), the cold almost always fulfills its purpose and stops within one or two days.
In this case, what is the reason for the effectiveness of fasting? To answer this question we should understand a most fundamental principle of our digestion system. The digestive system has two functions: 1) abstract energy from the food and immediately pass the waste matter out of the body and 2) clean itself of old static waste matter that has clung to the walls of the intestines and other organs for days, years, or even decades. The first function is well known to everyone. The second function is also known, but essentially ignored, by most conventional doctors. They especially neglect the fact that when the digestive system becomes clean, the body next directs its cleaning efforts at any other organs or systems which contain toxins.
The two functions of the digestion system are basically non-simultaneous. That is, whenever the body is busy in digesting newly consumed food, then no energy remains for deep cleaning activity. It is only when the stomach and intestines are more or less empty of fresh food, then those organs will automatically start cleaning themselves. The toxins causing the cold are rapidly eliminated, the symptoms stop, and the person can resume eating. Hopefully s/he is wiser due to having been sick, and is more careful to avoid over-toxifying the body.
From which foods does toxification more likely occur? Here the principle is easy to understand: food which is more difficult to digest is more likely to not be fully digested. When any food enters one's mouth, digestive juices start secreting in the mouth, esophogaus, and stomach. When the food reaches the stomach, the digestive acids try to quickly break it down into small particles. Easy-to-digest food requires less acid secretion, difficult-to-digest food requires more acid. The process continues as the food solids and liquids are worked upon by the liver, the kidneys, the small intestine, the large intestine and other organs. Acids, fats and other toxic substances also pass into the blood stream, polluting the circulation system and adhering to the walls of the arteries and other blood-carrying channels. Thus, the difficult-to-digest foods are called acid-forming, while easy-to-digest foods are classified as alkaline. In the case of some extremely
alkaline foods, such as juicy fruits, they contribute their own fruit acids which may help in the digestion of other foods. There are a few foods, like sugar, tea and onion which are not difficult to digest but are classified as acidic because they contain elements which greatly disturb the equilibrium of the body. These elements are mildy poisonous.
Here is a list of foods categorized from most alkaline to most acid-forming. (As one reads down the list, each succeeding item is somewhat more acid-forming.):
1) Lemon water
2) Herb tea
3) Honey (a little)
4) Citric fruit juice
5) Other fruit juices
6) Vegetable juice
7) Citric fruits
8) Juicy fruits
9) Other fruits (except banana)
10) Non-starchy vegetables *
11) Buckwheat
(up to here all items are relevant for "graduated fasting")
12) Yoghurt
13) Starchy vegetables and banana *
14) Fresh tofu
15) Nuts
16) Raw sugar
17) Whole grains
18) Beans
19) Refined grains
20) Refined sugar
21) Tea, coffee
22) Fried foods
23) Milk varies according to personal situation **
Avoid extremely acidic food: 24) mushrooms, 25) onion, 26) garlic, 27) fish, 28) meat, 29) eggs
* Non-starchy vegetables may also be considered as salad-vegetables, i.e. they may be eaten raw. Starchy vegetables, like potato, are difficult to eat raw. Banana is much more starchy then most other fruits (unless it is extremely ripe, in which case its classification become more alkaline).
** Depending on the condition of one's liver, and also on the functioning of milk-digestion enzymes, people differ in their capacity to digest milk and milk products. For some people milk is a medicine, e.g. certain patients of ulcer. For many, milk causes gas formation, and may thus be recognized as being highly acid-forming. Non-homogenised milk is much easier to digest than homogenised milk because when fats are forcibly mixed with the rest of the milk such that separation does not occur, such globules of "whole milk" become strenuous for the liver.
Items numbered from 1 to 11 generally have a cleansing effect on the body. If a person thus restricts his diet for any length of time to those initial items, the body will undergo a gradual or radical cleansing process. The higher up on the list the restriction is made, so the faster the cleansing will occur. In this regard, the most extreme method of cleaning the body is to neither eat nor drink anything, not even water. But such a method, though appropriate for some people for a short time, is dangerous for most people.
In any case we may thus clearly understand that if an individual uses simple natural means to keep the body relatively clean from toxins, and if there is a regular intake of a reasonable amount of nutrition (not too much and not too little), then there is the greatest possibility that such a person will maintain a high degree of health.
Of course many factors enter into "keeping the body relatively clean from toxins". It is not only a matter of food and fasting. These factors include exercise, bathing, sleep, mental activity, purity of air and water, presence or absence of chemicals in the food, hormonal inbalances of the glands, and inborn genetic peculiarities. But of all these, food and fasting remain the foremost important for most people.
Thus we come to the main statement of this article: a vegetarian diet is better than a non-vegetarian diet for our all-round health. For the moment we are looking only at the physical aspect, and later will deal with the psychic and spiritual aspects. Vegetarianism is preferable for the bodily health because it consists of items which are easier to digest and thus much more alkaline than fish, meat and eggs.
The human body system has exactly the same food-eating and digesting characteristics as other vegetarian mammals (like cows, monkeys, deer and elephants), and totally different from the meat-eating mammals (like tigers, lions, wolves, dogs and cats). These characteristics include:
1) Vegetarian mammals including man have flat rear molar teeth for grinding their food. Meat-eaters do not have flat molars, and instead have sharp front teeth for tearing food.
2) Vegetarian mammals have an intestinal tract 10 to 12 times their body length. The intestines of meat-eaters is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass out quickly.
3) The stomach acid of vegetarians is 20 times less strong than that of meat-eaters.
4) Vegetarians have no claws, whereas meat-eaters have claws to catch and kill their prey.
5) Vegetarians perspire through their skin. Meat-eaters have no skin pores, and instead perspire through their tongues.
6) Vegetarian mammals require high-fiber diets (available in fruits, vegetables and whole grains) or else they eventually become constipated. Meat-eating mammals remain perfectly healthy even when their diets include very little fiber. Constipation is usually the first cause of digestion-related diseases in humans.
7) Meat-eaters can easily digest foods containing a high quantity of cholesterol and saturated fat. Vegetarians have a very limited capacity to deal with these same elements. For example laboratory experiments show that if dogs are gradually given more and more butter fat, even 250 grams every day, they show no increase in their serum cholesterol level. On the other hand, if vegetarian mammals eat much fat a great strain is first placed on the liver, fatty deposits develop on the inner walls of the arteries, and gradually the heart weakens through over-work, causing heart attacks and blood clots.
It is clear that human beings are bound to face difficulties in the digestion of meat, fish and eggs. Furthermore, humans who regularly eat such heavy foods gradually experience weakening of their digestive systems such that they are unable to rapidly eliminate waste matter, and thus their bodies get less and less time to perform self-cleaning.
Regarding heart disease, the cause of more than half of the deaths in the USA, the American Medical Association states that more than 90% of all heart disease could be prevented by vegetarian diet.
The editor-in-chief of the prestigious "American Journal of Cardiology" and a foremost expert on heart disease, Dr. William Roberts, wrote: "When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh was never intended for human beings, who are naturally herbivores."
The reader may be interested in my own experience of low-protein diets. Not only have been a strict vegetarian for the last 25 years of my life, but numerous times for months at a stretch I have also eliminated from my diet milk products, grains, beans and starchy vegetables. During those periods, which continued for as long as 9 months at a time, I ate only fruit and salad. Without any major source of protein I felt stronger and better than during any other times of my life. Indeed I would maintain such a diet always, except that I prefer to be able to eat together with other people. Also, this sort of diet is awkward or even impossible in very poor societies where the climate is cold, such as in Mongolia and Russia (where I am presently working). Thus, only due to circumstances, not due to physical need, I eat a diet containing some high protein foods. Still, I prefer that my meals predominantly consist of fruits and salad-type vegetables.
Dada Dharmavedananda has been teaching yoga and natural therapy for nearly 40 years in over 50 countries. He is the founder of the Ananda Marga Wellness Center, which offers comprehensive in-patient natural therapy and naturopathic treatment. Visit his website: http://www.amwellness.org for more information.
Author: Dada Dharmavedananda
[Caveat: Not completely Vegan]
A rich man is sleeping in his house. Suddenly he is awakened by the burglar alarm.
"Ach! These stupid systems never work properly!" he exclaims, rubbing his eyes and struggling to stand up. He goes downstairs and, still cursing the system, turns off the alarm. Going back to his bedroom he quickly falls asleep again.
The burglars can't believe their good luck, as they take their time to carefully find and steal every available expensive item in the house.
The health situation of most people in the meat-eating nations of the world is analogous to that rich man's condition. Usually when people experience uncomfortable symptoms and sickness, they turn to doctors and medicines to turn off the symptoms so that they can again be comfortable. Just like the rich man who believes he is safe falls back asleep, so most people, under the illusion of recovered health go back to eating the wrong food, and resume other bad habits. Meanwhile, the cause of the suppressed symptoms remains and gets worse. Over time the person becomes more and more sick.
The physical cause of more than 90% of human sickness is the same: too many toxins in the body. Most of these toxins are located in the stomach, intestinal system, organs and circulation system. As an example let's look at the common cold. Here the symptoms are a running nose, fever, sore throat, sneezing, and so on. The use of medicine turns off these "problems".
Unfortunately they are alarms, not problems. They are also the means for the body to rid itself of the real problem -- excess toxins. The increased flow of mucous provides a channel for toxins to flow out. The fever causes sweat, which is also a medium for elimination. At the same time the message of the sore throat and the sneezing is: "Stop eating! Drink more and more!" Because they go on eating even though they are not hungry, most people who catch colds are compelled to continue suffering for many days or even weeks at a stretch. If they were simply to fast on water or lemon water (with a little salt, not sugar), the cold almost always fulfills its purpose and stops within one or two days.
In this case, what is the reason for the effectiveness of fasting? To answer this question we should understand a most fundamental principle of our digestion system. The digestive system has two functions: 1) abstract energy from the food and immediately pass the waste matter out of the body and 2) clean itself of old static waste matter that has clung to the walls of the intestines and other organs for days, years, or even decades. The first function is well known to everyone. The second function is also known, but essentially ignored, by most conventional doctors. They especially neglect the fact that when the digestive system becomes clean, the body next directs its cleaning efforts at any other organs or systems which contain toxins.
The two functions of the digestion system are basically non-simultaneous. That is, whenever the body is busy in digesting newly consumed food, then no energy remains for deep cleaning activity. It is only when the stomach and intestines are more or less empty of fresh food, then those organs will automatically start cleaning themselves. The toxins causing the cold are rapidly eliminated, the symptoms stop, and the person can resume eating. Hopefully s/he is wiser due to having been sick, and is more careful to avoid over-toxifying the body.
From which foods does toxification more likely occur? Here the principle is easy to understand: food which is more difficult to digest is more likely to not be fully digested. When any food enters one's mouth, digestive juices start secreting in the mouth, esophogaus, and stomach. When the food reaches the stomach, the digestive acids try to quickly break it down into small particles. Easy-to-digest food requires less acid secretion, difficult-to-digest food requires more acid. The process continues as the food solids and liquids are worked upon by the liver, the kidneys, the small intestine, the large intestine and other organs. Acids, fats and other toxic substances also pass into the blood stream, polluting the circulation system and adhering to the walls of the arteries and other blood-carrying channels. Thus, the difficult-to-digest foods are called acid-forming, while easy-to-digest foods are classified as alkaline. In the case of some extremely
alkaline foods, such as juicy fruits, they contribute their own fruit acids which may help in the digestion of other foods. There are a few foods, like sugar, tea and onion which are not difficult to digest but are classified as acidic because they contain elements which greatly disturb the equilibrium of the body. These elements are mildy poisonous.
Here is a list of foods categorized from most alkaline to most acid-forming. (As one reads down the list, each succeeding item is somewhat more acid-forming.):
1) Lemon water
2) Herb tea
3) Honey (a little)
4) Citric fruit juice
5) Other fruit juices
6) Vegetable juice
7) Citric fruits
8) Juicy fruits
9) Other fruits (except banana)
10) Non-starchy vegetables *
11) Buckwheat
(up to here all items are relevant for "graduated fasting")
12) Yoghurt
13) Starchy vegetables and banana *
14) Fresh tofu
15) Nuts
16) Raw sugar
17) Whole grains
18) Beans
19) Refined grains
20) Refined sugar
21) Tea, coffee
22) Fried foods
23) Milk varies according to personal situation **
Avoid extremely acidic food: 24) mushrooms, 25) onion, 26) garlic, 27) fish, 28) meat, 29) eggs
* Non-starchy vegetables may also be considered as salad-vegetables, i.e. they may be eaten raw. Starchy vegetables, like potato, are difficult to eat raw. Banana is much more starchy then most other fruits (unless it is extremely ripe, in which case its classification become more alkaline).
** Depending on the condition of one's liver, and also on the functioning of milk-digestion enzymes, people differ in their capacity to digest milk and milk products. For some people milk is a medicine, e.g. certain patients of ulcer. For many, milk causes gas formation, and may thus be recognized as being highly acid-forming. Non-homogenised milk is much easier to digest than homogenised milk because when fats are forcibly mixed with the rest of the milk such that separation does not occur, such globules of "whole milk" become strenuous for the liver.
Items numbered from 1 to 11 generally have a cleansing effect on the body. If a person thus restricts his diet for any length of time to those initial items, the body will undergo a gradual or radical cleansing process. The higher up on the list the restriction is made, so the faster the cleansing will occur. In this regard, the most extreme method of cleaning the body is to neither eat nor drink anything, not even water. But such a method, though appropriate for some people for a short time, is dangerous for most people.
In any case we may thus clearly understand that if an individual uses simple natural means to keep the body relatively clean from toxins, and if there is a regular intake of a reasonable amount of nutrition (not too much and not too little), then there is the greatest possibility that such a person will maintain a high degree of health.
Of course many factors enter into "keeping the body relatively clean from toxins". It is not only a matter of food and fasting. These factors include exercise, bathing, sleep, mental activity, purity of air and water, presence or absence of chemicals in the food, hormonal inbalances of the glands, and inborn genetic peculiarities. But of all these, food and fasting remain the foremost important for most people.
Thus we come to the main statement of this article: a vegetarian diet is better than a non-vegetarian diet for our all-round health. For the moment we are looking only at the physical aspect, and later will deal with the psychic and spiritual aspects. Vegetarianism is preferable for the bodily health because it consists of items which are easier to digest and thus much more alkaline than fish, meat and eggs.
The human body system has exactly the same food-eating and digesting characteristics as other vegetarian mammals (like cows, monkeys, deer and elephants), and totally different from the meat-eating mammals (like tigers, lions, wolves, dogs and cats). These characteristics include:
1) Vegetarian mammals including man have flat rear molar teeth for grinding their food. Meat-eaters do not have flat molars, and instead have sharp front teeth for tearing food.
2) Vegetarian mammals have an intestinal tract 10 to 12 times their body length. The intestines of meat-eaters is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass out quickly.
3) The stomach acid of vegetarians is 20 times less strong than that of meat-eaters.
4) Vegetarians have no claws, whereas meat-eaters have claws to catch and kill their prey.
5) Vegetarians perspire through their skin. Meat-eaters have no skin pores, and instead perspire through their tongues.
6) Vegetarian mammals require high-fiber diets (available in fruits, vegetables and whole grains) or else they eventually become constipated. Meat-eating mammals remain perfectly healthy even when their diets include very little fiber. Constipation is usually the first cause of digestion-related diseases in humans.
7) Meat-eaters can easily digest foods containing a high quantity of cholesterol and saturated fat. Vegetarians have a very limited capacity to deal with these same elements. For example laboratory experiments show that if dogs are gradually given more and more butter fat, even 250 grams every day, they show no increase in their serum cholesterol level. On the other hand, if vegetarian mammals eat much fat a great strain is first placed on the liver, fatty deposits develop on the inner walls of the arteries, and gradually the heart weakens through over-work, causing heart attacks and blood clots.
It is clear that human beings are bound to face difficulties in the digestion of meat, fish and eggs. Furthermore, humans who regularly eat such heavy foods gradually experience weakening of their digestive systems such that they are unable to rapidly eliminate waste matter, and thus their bodies get less and less time to perform self-cleaning.
Regarding heart disease, the cause of more than half of the deaths in the USA, the American Medical Association states that more than 90% of all heart disease could be prevented by vegetarian diet.
The editor-in-chief of the prestigious "American Journal of Cardiology" and a foremost expert on heart disease, Dr. William Roberts, wrote: "When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh was never intended for human beings, who are naturally herbivores."
The reader may be interested in my own experience of low-protein diets. Not only have been a strict vegetarian for the last 25 years of my life, but numerous times for months at a stretch I have also eliminated from my diet milk products, grains, beans and starchy vegetables. During those periods, which continued for as long as 9 months at a time, I ate only fruit and salad. Without any major source of protein I felt stronger and better than during any other times of my life. Indeed I would maintain such a diet always, except that I prefer to be able to eat together with other people. Also, this sort of diet is awkward or even impossible in very poor societies where the climate is cold, such as in Mongolia and Russia (where I am presently working). Thus, only due to circumstances, not due to physical need, I eat a diet containing some high protein foods. Still, I prefer that my meals predominantly consist of fruits and salad-type vegetables.
Dada Dharmavedananda has been teaching yoga and natural therapy for nearly 40 years in over 50 countries. He is the founder of the Ananda Marga Wellness Center, which offers comprehensive in-patient natural therapy and naturopathic treatment. Visit his website: http://www.amwellness.org for more information.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Weight-loss Trick: Substitute Mushrooms for Meat
Weight-Loss Trick: Substitute Mushrooms for Meat
by Barbara Feiner
January 6, 2009
http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/weight-loss-trick-substitute-mushrooms-for-meat/
If losing weight is on your list of New Year’s resolutions, then mushrooms may become your new BFF.
I’ve written, in recent weeks, about the fab fungi’s cancer-fighting properties. Research also shows mushrooms can help you avoid consuming too many calories.
“A 2008 study published in the journal Appetite found that participants who substituted mushrooms in dishes traditionally made with ground beef—lasagna and chili, for example—reported no difference in enjoyment or hunger satisfaction compared to those who dined on the meat-containing dishes, despite consuming from 300 to almost 600 fewer calories,” says registered dietitian Karen Collins, nutrition adviser for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
“Adding mushrooms and other vegetables to soups, stews and casseroles is a great way to make a dish more filling with fewer calories,” she adds. “However, mushrooms are not nutritional substitutes for meat, since they are substantially lower in protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12. So, when adding mushrooms to add texture and flavor in place of meat, remember that dried beans, nuts, poultry or seafood should also be added in the meal to maintain equal nutrition.”
Needless to say, we recommend organic varieties.
by Barbara Feiner
January 6, 2009
http://www.organicauthority.
If losing weight is on your list of New Year’s resolutions, then mushrooms may become your new BFF.
I’ve written, in recent weeks, about the fab fungi’s cancer-fighting properties. Research also shows mushrooms can help you avoid consuming too many calories.
“A 2008 study published in the journal Appetite found that participants who substituted mushrooms in dishes traditionally made with ground beef—lasagna and chili, for example—reported no difference in enjoyment or hunger satisfaction compared to those who dined on the meat-containing dishes, despite consuming from 300 to almost 600 fewer calories,” says registered dietitian Karen Collins, nutrition adviser for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
“Adding mushrooms and other vegetables to soups, stews and casseroles is a great way to make a dish more filling with fewer calories,” she adds. “However, mushrooms are not nutritional substitutes for meat, since they are substantially lower in protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12. So, when adding mushrooms to add texture and flavor in place of meat, remember that dried beans, nuts, poultry or seafood should also be added in the meal to maintain equal nutrition.”
Needless to say, we recommend organic varieties.
Monday, December 29, 2008
7 New Years Resolutions that Factory Farm Animals Wish We'd Make: How to Be a Kinder Carnivore In the Coming Year
7 New Year's Resolutions That Factory Farm Animals Wish We'd Make
How to be a kinder carnivore in the coming year
http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/environmental-news/blogs/american/7-New-Years-Resolutions-That-Factory-Farm-Animals-Wish-We 'd-Make-491217
Factory farm animals are raised under extremely difficult conditions that you really don't want many details about. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of their plight. Here are some ways you can make a difference with your dollars...in support of compassionately raised animals in the new year. factory farm cow
1. Shop for meats labeled “raised without antibiotics.” Shooting us up with antibiotics allows them to raise us in inhumanely close, hideously dirty conditions where we'd otherwise get sick and die if we weren't preemptively administered this stuff. If more people demand drug-free meat, they'd have to improve our living conditions. Which would be nice for us, and probably healthier for you, too.
2. Shop for meats raised on local family farms. Traditional farmers are more likely to practice compassionate farming techniques, raising us in more traditional fields and barns. The more that people buy their meats, the more local farmers there will be, and the less expensive their products will become. Then there will be enough suffering-free foods for everyone.
3. Shop for milk labeled “no artficial growth hormones.” The reason they use this stuff is to get more milk per cow, which seems like a great idea except that it often causes infected udders and then they have to treat us with those antibiotics again. Not to mention these hormones are banned in Japan, Europe and Canada. Hello???.
4. Try to eat at least one vegetarian meal a week. Not only will it be healthy and delicious, and you know, it won't kill you.
5. Try explaining to your beloved family dog or cat why you have to eat meat every single day. Look ʻem right in the eyes to gauge their reaction to this.
6. Remember that if God did mean for people to eat us, he certainly didn't mean for us to have to suffer for it. You might mention this to a factory farm CEO.
7. Don't just look for the cheapest meat you can find. There's usually a reason this meat is cheap (antibiotics, harsh living conditions, E. coli recalls, etc.). Believe us. We factory animals pay a big price for cheaply produced meats.
How to be a kinder carnivore in the coming year
http://www.thedailygreen.com/
Factory farm animals are raised under extremely difficult conditions that you really don't want many details about. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of their plight. Here are some ways you can make a difference with your dollars...in support of compassionately raised animals in the new year. factory farm cow
1. Shop for meats labeled “raised without antibiotics.” Shooting us up with antibiotics allows them to raise us in inhumanely close, hideously dirty conditions where we'd otherwise get sick and die if we weren't preemptively administered this stuff. If more people demand drug-free meat, they'd have to improve our living conditions. Which would be nice for us, and probably healthier for you, too.
2. Shop for meats raised on local family farms. Traditional farmers are more likely to practice compassionate farming techniques, raising us in more traditional fields and barns. The more that people buy their meats, the more local farmers there will be, and the less expensive their products will become. Then there will be enough suffering-free foods for everyone.
3. Shop for milk labeled “no artficial growth hormones.” The reason they use this stuff is to get more milk per cow, which seems like a great idea except that it often causes infected udders and then they have to treat us with those antibiotics again. Not to mention these hormones are banned in Japan, Europe and Canada. Hello???.
4. Try to eat at least one vegetarian meal a week. Not only will it be healthy and delicious, and you know, it won't kill you.
5. Try explaining to your beloved family dog or cat why you have to eat meat every single day. Look ʻem right in the eyes to gauge their reaction to this.
6. Remember that if God did mean for people to eat us, he certainly didn't mean for us to have to suffer for it. You might mention this to a factory farm CEO.
7. Don't just look for the cheapest meat you can find. There's usually a reason this meat is cheap (antibiotics, harsh living conditions, E. coli recalls, etc.). Believe us. We factory animals pay a big price for cheaply produced meats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
