Dear Mark: Cheap Meat?
Dear Mark,
I am curious what you recommend for people who either don’t have access to or can’t regularly afford grass-fed, organic, free-range meats? It [cost] is a lot of the reason we are mostly vegetarian – we could have organic meat on a regular basis, or we can have fresh fruits and veggies for us and, more importantly, our young sons, to snack on. I believe the fresh produce is more important, and our budget just won’t allow for both, so we stick to mostly vegetarian – and less expensive – sources of protein. I’d like to hear tips for how to actually apply some of this in these situations, and what you recommend then. Is it better to eat less meat and make sure what you have is organic, or keep eating the same amount of the conventional stuff (which is worse for our bodies and the environment)?
Judy, you raise a number of great points, and I know they’re common concerns. Ideally, we would all eat grass-fed/grass-finished meat all the time, but because of a variety of circumstances (budget, limited availability at home/during travel, etc.) it’s not always possible for people, myself included. For these reasons, the Primal Blueprint also looks at logical, reasonable compromises. If I can’t eat grass-fed meat, I look for the cleanest meat I can find (no hormones, no antibiotics, etc.). But I absolutely suggest that people include meat in their diets, even if they don’t have access to grass-fed.
First, let’s look at the issue of availability. Unfortunately, grass-fed and/or organic meats aren’t carried by many grocery stores. However, I think that trend is beginning to change. While Whole Foods, Wild Oats and community co-ops seem to be the most common sources for these items, more and more “regular” supermarkets are getting in the game. As always, the more people request it, the more likely stores will consider adding these options. That said, there’s a substantial mail order market for grass-fed and/or organic meats, many with competitive pricing.
Another option: small area farms that sell direct to consumers. You’ll usually get the best deal by purchasing 25 lbs. to half a cow, lamb, goat, etc. If you have a deep freezer, it’s ideal. Otherwise, find a few friends, neighbors, or family members who you can split an order with.
Also, just a note about labels… Meat that is labeled grass-fed isn’t necessarily “grass-finished.” Nearly all beef cattle eat grass at some point. Others, those usually labeled grass-fed, eat grass until the final few weeks before slaughter, when they’re switched to a grain diet. During this relatively brief window, the omega ratio reverses to pretty much that of mostly/entirely grain-fed cattle. Look for “grass-finished” or “100% grass-fed.” Though many farms that raise grass-fed cattle also follow other “clean meat” standards, not all do. USDA Organic uses the most stringent rules and certification, including the absence of any pesticides or herbicides on grazing land/feed and moderate animal treatment standards. But keep in mind, also, that USDA Organic doesn’t mean grass-fed. On top of all of this, we’re seeing a new class of “animal-welfare” labels offered by industry certification as well as animal-rights groups. (Whole Foods manages its own standards and labeling.) (I know, Judy, you’ve asked about this element as well.) Standards for these certifications vary considerably. If you buy direct from a farm, you may be able to get the most information about how the animals are raised.
While it’s true that “100% grass-fed, organic” offers the best of all worlds, it’s usually more expensive and more difficult to find. My advice for best compromises: first look for a label that says 100% grass-fed with “no hormones” and “no antibiotics.” This kind of meat encompasses important “clean” elements (in terms of an individual’s consumption) and offers the better grass-fed omega ratio. Next choice: clean, grain-fed meats. Just be sure to add more omega 3s from fish, fish oil supplements and vegetables sources to make up for the 6:3 ratio deficit.
Thanks, as always, for your questions and comments. Keep ‘em coming!
ILoveButter Flickr Photo (CC)
Further Reading:
Imitation Crab: What is That Stuff?
Dr. Michael Eades: Another Reason to Eat Grass Fed Beef
Typical North American Diet is Deficient in Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Sponsor note:
This post was brought to you by the Damage Control Master Formula, independently proven as the most comprehensive high-potency antioxidant multivitamin available anywhere. With the highest antioxidant per dollar value and a complete anti-aging, stress, and cognition profile, the Master Formula is truly the only multivitamin supplement you will ever need. Toss out the drawers full of dozens of different supplements with questionable potency and efficacy and experience the proven Damage Control difference!
Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds
Posted By: Mark Sisson
Angus beef burgers are not from ex-dairy cows.
And for those who are willing, it is possible to purchase meat from outside the factory farm system, which I agree is to be avoided for many reasons, included the inhumane living conditions of the animals.
So, Provoked – what if I don’t raise the critters? What if I hunt them?
I’ve never heard of “accidental/non-deliberate” hunting trip….. They’re planned events aren’t they?
Hunting while sleepwalking – that would be out of your control and unavoidable.
Oh, I see. I was confused because you said “deliberately created for consumption,” which hunted animals are not.
I still don’t understand why my deliberate killing of animals makes me bad, but your deliberate plowing of land for soybeans (and killing animals in the process) does not. The intent argument can be used to rationalize away anything that’s uncomfortable. Someone who eats factory farmed animals can just as easily say that he does not intend for the animals to be held in confinement pens; someone who eats dairy or eggs but not meat can say he doesn’t intend for the dairy cow to get eaten; how is that any different from your saying that you don’t intend for voles to be sliced up in the fields?
The fact that some of the beef consumed in the US comes from dairy cows – a fact I don’t dispute -does not prove that MOST of the beef consumed in the US comes from cows, which is what Tracy seemed to think and what I took you to mean when you said, “the SAD (standard American diet) – reports that most don’t consume muscle meets from steers.” (It looks like there’s a typo in that statement, so I’m not totally sure what you meant.) I still maintain that most of it comes from steers. In fact, there’s no way dairy cows by themselves could meet all current demand for beef.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. What you are trying to persuade me of is that it is bad for me to kill an animal for the purpose of feeding myself. That’s a fundamental difference between our belief systems.
It’s ok; within a few years we will have in-vitro cloning of meat which will eliminate this issue and point of contention between meat-eaters and vegetarians completely.
Nice post. I appreciate that you teach/remind people about the difference between grass-fed and grass-finished meat, and that you brainstorm options for getting access to good meats.
Another reason to prioritize good quality meat is to limit the levels of industrial contaminants you ingest. I recently wrote something up about dioxin levels in meat and animal fat, which has been worrying me. This is another situation where good quality matters, although, due to dioxin in soil, water and air, even great quality meats and animal fats can contain concentrated contaminants. I bring this up here because I think it matters more for people following Paleo-like diets, which are high in animal fat. Or for those of us who really like butter.
Food Is Love
“….deliberate killing of animals makes me bad, but your deliberate plowing of land for soybeans (and killing animals in the process) does not. The intent argument can be used to rationalize away anything that’s uncomfortable.” Well, there is a definate difference in war it’s called “collateral damage” in courts it’s called “manslaughter”. I suppose eventually (if civilization ever progressed enough) most grains and vegetable could be grown hydroponically which would eliminate the need for concentrated land use and accidental killing of animals….
“the SAD (standard American diet) – reports that most don’t consume muscle meets from steers.” Sorry, didn’t make that clear – you are right – Muscle meats do come from steer…. The gimpy dairy cows account for some burgers – Right that there’s not enough “culling” of crippled dairy to meet the demand – hence the rapid conversion to cattle feedlots….. from the pictues I’ve seen, they’re as far as the eye can see. In fact, my 8 year old nephew made a (not so funny joke) upon seeing the photos on my computer….. “Why are all the cows in jail?” He knows now.
” What you are trying to persuade me of is that it is bad for me to kill an animal for the purpose of feeding myself.” If eating meat were the only way to survive and thrive…. I’d have absolutely no problem – it would be necessity. Heck, I’d eat my own dog if required to sustain life. BUT – it’s not necessary (and probably not the best dietary choice at that)…..
The fundamental difference between our belief systems is that one of us attempts to error on the side of compassion.
@Provoked “I suppose eventually (if civilization ever progressed enough) most grains and vegetable could be grown hydroponically which would eliminate the need for concentrated land use and accidental killing of animals….”
If civilization ever progressed enough then we would also be growing meat in labs.
But that’s not the point; the point is morality is subjective and someone like yourself seems to believe that everyone should hold the same moral standards as yourself (or at the very least similar to yourself). Well sorry but that ain’t the case; every body tends to have their own set of morals and what could be moral or immoral for someone could be the very opposite for another.
What matters is ethics or rather universal ethics which can be applied universally across all segments including across species. May be I would become a vegan the day a Lion would turn one too.
It is natural to consume other living beings either plant or animal or other forms of life like fungi(mushrooms – which are more animal than plant) and fish etc or any combination of them as suits the living being that consumes.
I believe you agree with this but have issues with any deliberate attempt to kill another animal. Well that is the way nature works; i.e. food is sought out deliberately!
We deliberately kill another living being such as a plant or an animal in order to eat it. So I don’t know if you have some kind of Materializing Device or a Magic Lamp that you use for getting your food but we don’t.
Also, just like animals are deliberately raised for slaughter as you put it; plants are also deliberately raised for slaughter – OK so?
However if your distinction was one between plant and animal life then it is both speciest as well as absurd. Both are living beings and are able to perceive pain in varying degrees based on their types of nervous systems as well as sensory inputs.
If you still however contend that for some reason pain as experienced by animals is greater then may be we could lobotomize them; may be fry the circuits in their brain or even better use genetic engineering to ensure that they have no brains just like most of the pushy “Ethical” Vegans out there! Hope that would make you feel much better, much much better!
Seriously; I see no reason for making a distinction between plants and animals; and I consider it a waste of time to argue with someone who takes of beig compassionate about One Group(put any group, race, nation etc) but discriminates, distinguishes and differentiates about the Another Group (put any group, race, nation etc) in and under the same context; but then I had nothing better to do than argue with a self righteous vegan.
Yes like stated in the comments above more people have switched to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than in the past; of course we also have higher heart disease; diabetes; hypertension; etc too – So that kinda explains it!
Cheers and Love
“The fundamental difference between our belief systems is that one of us attempts to error on the side of compassion.”
If you wonder why omnivores find vegans annoying, it’s because of the vocal minority who make judgmental statements like this. I think that the farmer from whom I buy my pastured chickens shows more compassion to the chicken than the fox who is waiting in the woods to rip it to shreds. And that’s what would happen to that chicken if there were no farmer to protect it. It’s clear we have nothing more to discuss; get in a last word if you want, but I am done with this discussion.
I think that the farmer from whom I buy my pastured chickens shows more compassion to the chicken than the fox who is waiting in the woods to rip it to shreds.
Love it!!
(and I have some grass-fed beef on the counter getting getting ready for the cast iron skillet).
Dave
So we resort and conclude by comparing man to foxes? So be it…. have the last word.
The fundamental difference between our belief systems is that one of us attempts to error on the side of compassion.
Your sense of moral superiority is misguided. Let’s suppose that animal consumption were outlawed. What would happen to all the livestock? Farmers could no longer afford to feed them and would have to release them into the wild, where they would severely disrupt the ecosystem. All living things are destined to die. It’s not like cows, pigs, chickens and other livestock would live forever if we didn’t kill them for food. Humane raising and slaughter of livestock is infinitely better than a short, brutish life in the wild.
Since you’re so opposed to intentionally killing animals, Provoked, I hope you are a true vegan who consumes no dairy, wears no leather, and refuses modern medical treatment as so many procedures, surgeries and medicines were first tried out on lab animals.
No dairy….. no animal product clothing…. No medications for 12 years (pre-vegan) have not been sick since – sorry…..
What would happen to all the animals? Now, you’re inviting my loveliest of dreams. Firstly, there would be a halt to artificially inseminating and breeding them. I am in favor of population control for all human and non-human animals.
I live in Florida – the south is filled with areas that have backyard/urban/sub-urban chickens. Chickens were meant to be wild. The only “problem” animals would be cows & pigs.
I’m pretty certain many people such as myself with ample property could/would foster many/most. There are countless numbers of sanctuaries – all provide quite well for the animals and exist only on donations – If the government now supports the animal-as-food industries to the tune of 87 billion$/year – perhaps some of that $ could be filtered into the care of animals till their “time”?
However, it is said – if all factory farm animals were released they would require 3/4 of the US land mass…. that’s how critical the situation has become. As it is now, it is not sustainable -we have literally created a monster.
Of course nothing happens “overnight” – I believe in time there will be a slow-down on meat eating -so much of the industry is now kept artificially low to keep people buying the “product”. For example the Consumer Price Index records that houses, cars, non-food goods rose approx. 1400% since the 50′s – compared to foods (mainly animal-based foods) which have only risen 300%. If nothing else, I’d like to see my tax dollars not support an industry that I philosophicaly am opposed to. Let the market determine. If the true costs were revealed to people in the $ it takes to clean the water/dispose of remnant wastes, truck/process/refridgerate meats – many would say it’s not worth the expense. Reality would change things slowly – as I think it is already….
Thanks for being open to hear an alternate scenario – it’s not perfect. But certainly the current situation with manure lagoons, tremendous water/fuel/pharmecutical use to grow/process meat is much worse.
Some animals kill other animals for food to survivie on, that’s their instict to do so, they’re designed that way.
So, i believe it’s perfectly OK to eat meat.
“My belief” is that i think everyone should include “clean” meat in their diet occasionally. I used to not eat meat, just fish, turkey, chicken. But, recently i started including some meat in my diet, it’s actually GOOD 4 U!
(Just what i believe, but, to each his own)
So Donna…. just curious – “it’s actually GOOD 4 U” – care to elaborate? I’ve been in and out of books, doctors websites, assorted dietary experts on and off the internet…. have yet to find anything about meat that is not replaceable (most times better) in a plant based diet. Am very receptive to learn differently. Thanks.
Posting this recommendation for anyone who might be interested – farmer Joel Salatin has a couple of really wonderful books that deal with alternatives to factory farms. The best starting place, I think, is his book, Holy Cows and Hog Heaven, which describes how a farm can produce livestock without resorting to manure lagoons and feedlots. Beware, though, if you are sensitive to criticism – Salatin is blunt, and no one group escapes his critical eye. He is equally likely to point out the foibles (as he sees them) of liberals, conservatives, city people, vegans, producers of factory farmed meat, the USDA, the FDA, big business, you name it. It’s a hard book to read if you have a thin skin, but I can accept his criticisms of things I hold dear because he is so intellectually honest. He has actually led me to question some of my previous beliefs, like the notion that regulations fix problems.
“have yet to find anything about meat that is not replaceable (most times better) in a plant based diet”
Really?
I am a normal weight, prediabetic person who takes no meds, but can achieve normal glucose levels with a low carb diet. If I eat starches in even moderate amounts, my BG goes into levels that reach into the officially diabetic range, which if sustained long enough, would definitely progress to full-blown diabetes.
So what can I eat for protein and still stay healthy? Plant based protein sources are starchy.
Beans/legumes? Only in the smallest of portions, more like condiments. The starch is simply too much for my system. Granted my BG won’t go quite as high as with grains, but it still goes into the range where cellular damage is done (over 140 mg/dl) and stays there too long (hours). Soy especially is a legume I avoid because of its negative effect on the thyroid (I am also hypothyroid), except in very small, condiment portions of naturally fermented soy, like raw soy sauce and miso.
Grains, especially high protein grains? Way too starchy, even if the kernal is left completely intact (that is my definition of “whole grain” – ground grains are not whole anymore). I do include a tiny bit of quinoa for variety, but again, more like a condiment or stew thickener, not large portions. I sometimes sprout grains and use more like a garnish, but even so, it would be hard to meet both my protein and BG control requirements with sprouted grain.
I consume lots of non-starchy veggies, probably more than some vegetarians, certainly more than “muffin vegetarians”. But there aren’t enough calories, fat, or protein in veggies to keep anyone going for long on only that. I also put a lot of thought into my plant foods, choosing a lot of locally produced in-season produce from small family farms instead of mechanically harvested, over-processed industrial fruits and veggies from mega-farms. Industrial scale mono-cropping with mechanical harvesting has significant negative effects on wildlife populations, from accidental death (as previously mentioned) to habitat loss, as well as soil degradation and loss. Huge produce farms in the Central Valley of CA (serving the entire country) and other areas have had a devastating effect on the native animals and ecosystems because it is all about *extracting* from nature and returning little or nothing in return. I wish I knew more people promoting “plant-based” diets acknowledged the damage done by the dominant forms of plant food production.
That leaves animal products for my protein. I take great care in those choices. I could probably “get by” with eggs and dairy and not meat, but I have a different view of “compassion” I guess so I don’t draw the line here, though some do.
The meat and eggs I buy are from a small “hobby” farm where the animals live well. They are processed by a local service, not shipped long distance to a huge plant. My dairy source is farther away (but still instate), but I have visited it, too, and the herd is small and on pasture, not confined indoors and eating an unnatural diet. The milking parlor is mobile and goes to the cows in the field. They even keep the gimpy ones around, instead of sending them out for processing into hamburger. If there are truly “happy cows” in CA, they are at my dairy. I doubt there are “happy cows” at the many CAFO dairies in So Cal, where herd sizes are enormous and conditions are miserable.
I also buy some wild fish, but take into account mercury and PCB contamination, overfishing, and long-transport issues, etc.
So given my health constraints, I can’t see that a purely plant based diet simply is an option if I want to stay healthy, nor do I think it is optimal for most people. I would never argue that someone consume animal products if they are dead set against it for whatever reason, but I do chafe if they suggest no one should. A lot thought goes into my food choices, including compassion and awareness of animal suffering, though vegans may not see it that way.
But I think the more important point than arguing about teh correct definition of “compassion” is to just think about our food choices in the first place, and consume with eyes wide open, rather than blindly. A simple way to put it might be consume “everything about the food”, not just the food itself. To me, that is the bigger travesty, that omnivore, vegetarian, or vegan, too many people just know too little about the food they are choosing, how it is produced, and by whom, what *all* the ramifications and costs are, whether the foods are animal-based *or* plant based.
Anna: Just wanted to let you know that I stopped by my public library on the way home and they had a copy of Aidells’ Meat book. It’s mine for two weeks (and I can extend it to six via the computer). Thanks for the tip!!
Dave C.,
I’ve got my eye on Aidell’s pork book next, because I find pork very versatile.
But if you really want to get adventurous, consider Fergus Henderson’s or Hugh Fearnley-Whittingsall’s books (British), both of which provide ample ideas for nose-to-tail eating.
I didn’t mention it earlier, but I think that making use of as much of the animal as possible is part of honoring the animals whose lives end to nourish ours.
Admittedly, much of this is new territory for me though I’ve made a lot of progress already. Just today, I took delivery of a cooler full of many of the “odd bits” from my farm source, such as pig’s feet & ears, organs, leaf lard, etc. for my freezer. Some of the organ meat will go into the cat food, but the majority I will try to use for us. My husband, living in Britain until age 25 and of very modest means growing up, won’t find this difficult at all (his mom used to roast a pig’s head for holidays and buy cold cooked tongue slices at the deli because the low cost).
Time to dive into the cooler and see what I’ve got here. Wish me luck!
Anna….. ya got me – I’m not a doctor – like my previous post mentioned I haven’t been ill for 12 years since becoming vegan. But, I did Google Vegan Diabetic and was surprised to see that there are many sites that actually encourage experimentations with vegan diets to curtail/eliminate diabetes…. Certainly, you and your doctors know best. I’m so sorry you’re ill. But thanks for reminding me of my own (sometimes taken for granted) good health – Best to you….
I’m pretty certain many people such as myself with ample property could/would foster many/most. There are countless numbers of sanctuaries – all provide quite well for the animals and exist only on donations – If the government now supports the animal-as-food industries to the tune of 87 billion$/year – perhaps some of that $ could be filtered into the care of animals till their “time”?
Nearly a billion of the world’s people suffer from chronic malnutrition, not to mention lack of access to clean drinking water and decent medical care, and you want people and the government to spend money on livestock sanctuaries. Provoked, you’ve certainly got your priorities in order. I’m touched by your compassion.
Compassion????
“Spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.” -Gandhi
Water/Gas/Resources?
“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ” Albert Einstein
Gandhi said that because he was a Hindu and was influenced by the Hindu belief that every living being has a soul and this soul either transcends to a higher being or a lower being based on its Karma.
Albert Einstein although not exactly religious in the dogmatic sense was influenced by Hinduism as well as other eastern philosophies as were many other prominent people of his times.
Also; Gandhi ate diary, drank milk, used honey regularly etc – maybe he should have practiced what he preached given your interpretation of his statement Provoked
Regardless, someone’s religious outlook or personal moral code is not decider of what is right or wrong. Also; what is even more ironic is that Hindu religious texts actually prescribe eating meat and serving them as sacrifices and religious offerings. This even includes bovine; cows which are considered holy are described as sacrificial animals which were meant to be offered to the Gods as well as eaten as per Hindu texts – A quick read of Swami Vivekananda’s complete works details this irony as well other such quirks.
In fact; there is a theory that the practice of untouchablity itself came about due to the refusal of some groups to consider the cow holy (this holy status was given due to various reasons such as increased importance in farming; for dairy; basic agricultural usage; result of myths and folklore in Hindu religion which gave it an almost mythical status; most importantly increased belief in the soul and Karmic theory etc – maybe there were a few crazy vegans there too
)
Due to the refusal of these groups to consider cows or any other life as holy and their continued consumption of these animals as forms of food and use them for other purposes such as clothing etc they came to be ostracized by main stream Hindu society which had largely become Vegetarian and even vegan or partially vegan in some cases.
This is no different from the case of the Buraku in Japanese society who were treated even worse off mainly because of their dealing with animal carcasses and consumption of meat considered forbidden due to Buddhism and its version of Karmic Belief.
Gandhi was a Political Leader and Einstein was a Physicist; neither was a dietitian let alone someone fully capable of making an informed statement about this and even they do not entirely agree with your outlook as not using animals as food sources (they did consume animal derived products such as milk, diary, honey etc).
They only were against consumption of animal meat and even there Gandhi ate eggs (although he was not supposed to as per his religious beliefs as well as the community he was born into) if I am not mistaken.
So Provoked don’t get all self righteous about this!
Cheers and more Love
It takes 6 times more land and resources to produce a pound of meat than does plant based foods…..
The water! Ha! 2500 gallons = 1 pound of beef
Things that grow from the ground? 80.
One more suggestion if Livestock’s Long Shadow is too technical….
New York Times: Mark Bittman “Rethinking the Meat Guzzler”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
You’d be amazed at water usage/waste that fuel consumption creates:
http://www.h2oconserve.org/home.php?pd=index
I have no idea why some of my comment will not post – it’s very odd….
Since I’ve tried to respond to and have been unsuccessful – I can only assume that perhaps links are not permitted.
If you Google “Livestock’s Long Shadow” – a well researched study, it shows that a meat based diet encourages starvation. Instead of growing plant based foods third world countries are being deforestized to graze American cattle. All benefits to powerful finacial interests. Instead of sending money in emergencies our Government sends foods (mostly animal based and not these people’s normal diet). These releif animal based foods have to be refridgerated during transport and uses a huge amount of fuel/time to transport.
Meat as food become nearly useless for those it’s intended to help. It is riddled with “special safety handeling” issues. I know, I lived through “government emergency aid” in a hurricane – No roof over our heads – no electricity for weeks. Meat???? What we had on hand spoiled quickly – and was nasty to dispose of. It was the shipments of fruits, vegetables, water and our own shelves of cereals, grains and canned goods that made the difference. This is on a small scale – multiply this by millions, thousands of miles away…… No, people would not starve…. Just gotta stop feeding 3/4 of the worlds grain to factory farm animals. It’s about distribution.
It takes 6 times more land and resources to produce a pound of meat than does plant based foods…..
The water! Ha! 2500 gallons = 1 pound of beef
Things that grow from the ground – vegetable protein? 80.
New York Times: Mark Bittman “Rethinking the Meat Guzzler” You’d be amazed at water usage/waste that fuel consumption of meat based diets create.
Provoked, all your assumptions about efficiency are about grain-fed meat. I can tell you’re new to Mark’s blog, because both Mark and most of his regular commenters recognize grass-fed meat to be preferable. There are huge tracts of land in the world that would grow grass quite readily but need chemical inputs and irrigation in order to grow grain and soy. In those cases, the efficiency equation reverses solidly in favor of livestock production.
It seems like you keep shifting your arguments. When someone takes on your arguments about factory farming, you shift to absolutist statements about the morality of taking animal lives. When someone points out that animal lives are taken no matter what you eat, you turn to arguments about health. When someone questions the health value of a vegetarian diet, you turn back to factory farming. And although you haven’t said this explicitly, I sense a desire to equate human and animal life; otherwise, why is animal life so inviolable? And yet when I say that humans take lives more compassionately than foxes, you seem to resent my lowering humans to the standards of the animal kingdom. This position seems to me to be inconsistent – either we are equal to animals or we are not.
You have, however, expressed some willingness to hear the other side, so I have a few reading suggestions for you. Do check out Joel Salatin’s books to learn more about why some of us think livestock raising can be humane. Check out the Weston A. Price Foundation for information about nutrition. Google “Diabetes low-carb” for a huge body of info about why grains and legumes are not a health food for anyone who is predisposed to obesity and diabetes. Or look for a book called Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution at your library.
As for links, I think comments with links are moderated (you get a little italic message at the top saying your comment is awaiting moderation) to help protect the blog from spammers. As you’ve probably noticed, they do show up eventually.
Provoked, you are describing efficient production of calories. And by promoting that, you are accepting that the population numbers that have to be supported are optimum, simply because they exist.
For instance, might it be possible that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of a given geographical area, if we define that carrying capacity as having to provide a diet that leads to optimal health?
And despite what you say, it is not at all settled that a plant-based diet is optimum for humans. In fact, it is becoming incresingly clear that it isn’t.
You are basically saying we should keep people crowding into cities, and since we can only feed the billions of people now on the planet by feeding them grains, then grains must be the optimal diet. That just doesn’t follow.
If you want to make the arguement that plant-based diets are healthier, make that argument, and back it up with research supporting it. (You’ll be hard-pressed to do that, but go ahead and try.)
But just stating that it’s more efficient to feed people with grains is meaningless if we are trying to figure out what’s healthy. When you do that, you just treat humans like some great herd of cattle.
You’re right, Migraineur. Most comments with links get dropped into our moderation bin. I can assure you that only spam comments are deleted. All of Provoked’s comments have been posted.
to Charles:
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Red meat, dairy foods, and eggs are the biggest sources of saturated fat and cholesterol, which promote heart disease, the number-one killer in the United States. I estimate that eliminating saturated fat and cholesterol by not eating meat, dairy foods, poultry, and eggs would save about 65,000 lives per year.
What’s more, replacing those animal foods with plant foods that are rich in vitamins, minerals, and fiber–which is absent from animal foods–would save thousands more lives every year.
American Institute for Cancer Research: World Cancer Research Fund International:The result of a five-year process involving nine independent teams of scientists from around the world, hundreds of peer reviewers, and 21 international experts who reviewed and analyzed over 7,000 large-scale studies, the report recommendations for cancer prevention: excerps: obesitiy is a problem (most vegetarians are on the slim side)…. The association between diet and cancer, the new assessment finds the evidence linking red meat (beef, pork and lamb) to colorectal cancer is more convincing than it was a decade ago. Every 1.7 ounces of processed meat consumed per day increases risk of colorectal cancer by 21 percent. “We are recommending 5 servings or more of vegetables and fruit daily because, like physical activity, they pack a double whammy against cancer. Probable evidence indicates they help reduce cancer risk on their own, and as low-energy-dense foods, they help maintain a healthy weight, which the evidence shows has a big influence on cancer risk”. Of course alchol consumption, excersize and lifestyle changes are also recommended…..
Please research: The China Sudy best selling book by Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II.
Scientists have been trying to figure out why vegetarians have only about half the cancer risk of meat-eaters. The latest plant supernutrient, beta-sitosterol, was lauded at the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology by University of Buffalo nutrition researcher Atif Awad, Ph.D. Beta-sitosterol was shown to inhibit the growth of breast cancer cells in the test tube, cutting the number of cancer cells by 66 percent compared with control cell cultures.
Osteoporosis. High protein intake is known to encourage urinary calcium losses
Impaired Kidney Function. When people eat too much protein, it releases nitrogen into the blood or is digested and metabolized. This places a strain on the kidneys, which must expel the waste through the urine. High-protein diets are associated with reduced kidney function.
Heart Disease. Typical high-protein diets are extremely high in dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. The effect of such diets on blood cholesterol levels is a matter of ongoing research. However, such diets pose additional risks to the heart, including increased risk for heart problems immediately following a meal. Evidence indicates that meals high in saturated fat adversely affect the compliance of arteries, increasing the risk of heart attacks.
some foods are addictive?
Studies suggest that cheese, chocolate, sugar, and meat all spark the release of opiate-like substances that trigger the brain’s pleasure center and seduce us into eating them again and again. These foods stimulate the same opiate receptors in your brain as heroin or morphine, but to a much lesser degree….
I really would love to just link you to the many studies supporting my position – but this site does not permit such. You can do your own research…..
On a personal level – I’ve been vegetarian/vegan for a decade+ ….. I encouraged 3 neighborhood couples to give it a try….. since the beginning of the year 6 of the 8 folks have lost considerable (excess weight) – 7 of the 8 have had their chlorestoral blood points drop – 8 of 8 are “never hungry”. And everyone feels like they have “more energy”.
You know, I can’t say what’s right for everybody – but I’ve done enough poking around environmental “green” sites to know that animal based foods are just not sustainable – A cow and pig make about 8 times more poop than a human – multiply that by billions of animals….. that’s a lot of methane. It is said that raising animals for food is the single biggest contriubutor to global warming.
This is an awful long response, but you did ask for something to back up my argument…… I challenge you now to show me where any health study recommends eating “more” animal based foods? Or any environmentally concerned organization that doesn’t support an increase in plant based foods?
“Have exceeded the carrying capacity of a given geographical area?”….. Yeah, I was one of those “hippies” 30 years ago screaming about population control – I did my “green” then – I went child-free…..
.
You won’t get an argument from me that the dominant US system of meat production (CAFOs, grain-feeding to herbivores, overseas deforestation for grain production, US & international policies that push cash-crops at the expense of local food production, etc. ) is seriously flawed and worth dismantling. Each year I am finding new ways to reduce my participation or drop out of that system.
But where I will differ is that the *only* solution to the problems is to not raise meat for food by any method. Also, it’s time to put those tired statistics of what it takes to produce a pound of beef put to bed; I’ve been hearing that mantra and watching the hand-wringing for 25 or more years. It’s no more helpful now than it was back then. It shuts down thinkidoesn’t give people a clue that there is another way, and there is.
As I’ve mentioned before, but non-meat eaters seem to conveniently ignore, it isn’t only industrial-scale animal production that is unsustainable and detrimental to health, local economies, and the environment. The same charges *equally* apply to modern industrial scale plant food production; it is also very energy and water intensive, creates massive ecosystem imbalances, and undermines local *and* distant economies.
Small, poly-cultural farms with plants *and* animals raised in a way suitable to their individual nature simply do not wreak a toll on the ecosystem, in fact they can support it, because they don’t extract resources, as industrial scale agriculture does (plant or animal).
Provoked:
Ah, the old lipid hypothesis. As someone (I think Mark) said earlier, you must be new on this site, as it is pretty much dedicated to demonstrating that argument is unsupported by any dependable science.
I would recommend Gary Taubes’s book, good Calories, Bad Calories,” which makes it clear that the whole saturated fat and cholesterol theory is not only unsupported by good research, it’s contradicted.
Seriously, you have just displayed yourself as someone who really hasn’t read the research, and looked into the history of the whole “saturated fat will kill you” myth. And it is just that, a myth.
I really would suggest you look back in the archives of this site and many others with a similar bent and educate yourself. All of your arguments have been refuted at one time or another, and increasingly so.
Oh, and as to colon cancer, one study (I think it was Framingham) demonstrated that if your cholesterol level was below 190, you had three times as great a risk of getting colon cancer as someone with a total cholesterol of 220, and twice as great a risk of all cancers as someone with a total cholesterol of 260.
And as to the China study, Campbell’s description of it was contradicted by the actual data.
But really, you are just arguing from a real ignorance of the science. Not what you read about the science in the popular media, but the real science.
Provoked,
I think this discussion is getting beat to death and we should move on.
If you had been reading this site for a while, you would know that I and most of my readers are convinced that 1) blood levels of cholesterol per se have little to do with increased risk for heart disease 2) that dietary fat (even sat fat) and dietary cholesterol are “red herrings” when it comes to heart disease and that the main culprit is excess carbohydrate. And by that I mean pretty much any form of carbohydrate in excess of 200 grams a day. The PCRM statement that cutting meat,etc would save 65,000 lives a year is way out of context vis a vis the science. Like any committee, they are 20 years behind the curve. I would submit that if we could get people to eliminate grains, simple sugars and processed carbs we could save 500,000 lives a year (and that’s just from heart disease and stroke…)