NewScientist.com
8-13-4
Americans each chomp their way through an astounding 100 kilos of meat every year - that's a medium steak per person per day. This worries Robert Lawrence, because a meaty diet with so many calories in saturated fats squeezes out healthier fruits, vegetables and grains. But, as he told Liz Else, he's busy providing the academic ballast for a national campaign to save the country from itself. And fortunately for him, he's an optimist
*What is the campaign called? Can you really change the way Americans eat?
It's called Meatless Monday - the name goes back to the first world war when it was used as a catchy phrase to help people live with rationing. In a way we're doing the same thing but it's a voluntary rationing at a time when the average citizen is "eating" 800 kilos of grain per year compared with 250 kilos in China. Our grain feeds animals, mainly beef, where 1 kilo of beef takes around 7 kilos of grain to produce. And yes, the food industry is enormous but I'm a great believer that the truth will ultimately out, and the more good data that we have the more likely it is that we will be able to persuade people either to change their behaviour or, even more importantly, to use their behaviour to change policy.
*Why Mondays?
We liked the way it sounded! But also people often overdo things at the weekend so it makes a different start to the week.
*How meatless is Meatless?
Basically, no red meat, pork or poultry. Fish - which is high in nutritional value - and "good fats" are fine.
*What was the motivation?
Maybe it was because I had my first grandchild and started worrying about the future. I began to think a great deal more about what policy interventions we could develop that would integrate human health with the health of the ecosystem. After all, we've known for years about the important environmental effects, starting back with the London chimney sweeps in the 18th century who got scrotal cancer because they were being exposed to all the tars of the soot. But the environment as something that is intimately related to the health of the entire population hasn't been explored in this much depth. It particularly relates to ideas of food security, how we are using arable land and water, and how food production contributes to inequities in food security around the world as well as within our own society.
*This is all highly political.
Oh, highly political. The agricultural industry and the food industry have a lot of political power.
*Could it be as tough as taking on the tobacco industry?
Well, it's interesting that there is a group called the Center for Consumer Freedom in the US which is a front for the tobacco industry, the Cattlemen's Association, the Pork Producers' Association, the Dairy Producers' Association, the Egg Board and so on. They have declared several of us here at the School of Public Health "environmental extremists" because we are talking about the safety of the human food supply, going right back to the safety of the animal feed supply.
*Are there environmental health problems associated with meat production?
Absolutely. One striking example is in our own back yard. We are looking at changes in the microbiologic flora and fauna of the surface water on the eastern shore of Maryland, where a billion chickens a year are raised. The chicken feed contains antibiotics and arsenic, which is used as a biocide. And the arsenic ends up in what we euphemistically call "chicken litter", chicken excrement. That is put back on the fields to grow soybeans and the corn to feed the chickens, but in such quantities that the arsenic is now leaching into the surface water.
A colleague was trying to see whether this enormous industrial agricultural production could explain the arsenic in drinking water on the eastern shore, and the appearance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria because of chronic exposure to low levels of antibiotics.
*What are the risks of doing this kind of research?
There is a risk, particularly in the US, of science being used for political purposes. A few months ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement that was signed by about 60 Nobel prizewinners, criticising the political manipulation of scientific data. And when you get into the environment in the US, of course, it brings out all the worst aspects of that.
*What can you do?
The Center for a Livable Future, which is where we provide the academic background for Meatless Monday, focuses on the way diet, food production, environment and health are interrelated, with particular emphasis on the environmental and health impacts of industrial animal production. Animal rearing on an industrial scale adds to the air quality problem, for example, by releasing ammonia and other chemicals related to intensive agriculture. The centre is all about promoting policies to protect our health, our planet, and our ability to sustain life in the future.
*Why did you pick meat? Why not fizzy drinks, dairy products, cakes or cookies?
One reason was that we could map onto the Healthy People 2010 initiative from our Department of Health and Human Services. Every 10 years, it comes up with a set of objectives - this time cutting saturated fat intake by 15 per cent. Now if you do the math, one day a week without saturated fat from animal sources is about 15 per cent.
And the other reason is that because of subsidies and other factors, we don't capture the externalities in the true cost of things. Meat is a particularly good example of where we don't capture the true costs - environmental degradation - and price that in.
*But you're up against huge sums of money?
Yes, and it's not just the subsidies. Around $34 billion a year is spent by the food and beverage industry on marketing to the American population. By contrast, the social marketing budget of the National Cancer Institute for its big Five-a-Day campaign, promoting five servings of fruit and vegetables a day, was $2 million.
*In such an unequal fight, leverage must be important...
That's right. So the idea of Meatless Monday is to get something that is catchy, that people will remember. What we've really learned from promoting health education is that frequent simple messages work much better than complicated ones. Or, sadly, than talking about the plight of the developing world.
*But you're not going to get anywhere unless you join up with activists, are you?
Right. And we have joined up with a group in New York that is actually where the Meatless Monday campaign is based. We're providing the kind of scientific validation, and we have staff at the centre who vet the recipes on the Meatless website. And the site (www.meatlessmonday.com) has been specially designed to make it very accessible for everyone - bright and jazzy. We also work closely with the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment in New York, and they've been involved with doing a cartoon called The Meatrix.
*Like The Matrix?
Yes, but it's making the point about industrial animal production in the US through a spoof of the film. It's won lots of awards - and does a great job of raising the issues in a way people can relate to.
*This hints at the dark side of animal production...
Yes, it can get quite dark. We've got a couple of studies going on with the chicken industry following hurricane Floyd. In all of the big hog farms in North Carolina, their open septic pools were flooded out by the hurricane. Twenty-three of the 26 river systems in North Carolina were polluted with animal waste run-off from the hog industry. There are 11 million hogs in North Carolina and there are 7.5 million people, and each hog produces about five times the waste of one human.
*Are things improving at all? How many animals are killed in the US?
We now have a population of 286 million, and we kill and consume 9 billion animals a year, 35 million head of cattle, 100 million hogs and 8 billion chickens and turkeys. In terms of total meat consumption, the average American male consumes twice what the US Department of Agriculture recommends, and the average American woman consumes about 1.6 times. Way above even the high meat-eating countries of Europe.
*So what does meat do to you?
No matter how lean the cut of meat you still take in saturated fat, and the saturated fat content of the American diet is much, much higher than it should be. The cholesterol story and the saturated fat story have been around a long time, and the meat industry says that for 30 or 40 years they have been breeding leaner cattle. But when they talk about lean cuts of meat, they don't acknowledge the vast quantities of beef consumed that is in the form of hamburger, and that typically has about 50 per cent fat. In fact, they take the meat that is not used for steaks and chucks and things like that, the part that raises concerns about BSE. Some of that meat is actually quite lean, but then they take some of the trimmed fat, grind it up and add it back to the meat so that the beef patty in McDonalds or Wendy's or Burger King will retain some moisture and juices because a very lean patty ends up being pretty dry.
*That sounds rather contradictory!
You have them talking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand the industry says: "But you can have a 3-ounce portion of lean beef and it has fewer calories, fewer fat calories than lots of other things." But if you go to an American restaurant, and they came out with the 3-oz serving, it would be about the size of a deck of playing cards. The customer would say: "Is that all I'm getting?" A typical serving is 12, 14 or 16 oz. Enormous.
*But that can't be good?
Our agriculture system produces 3900 calories for every man, woman and child in the US every day, and since we only need about 2400 calories on average, what are you going to do with that excess? Well, you're going to super-size everything, and people either throw it away so there's tremendous waste or they consume it and gain waist!
*Where do you shop?
My wife and I go to Whole Food and Trader Joe's in the north of Baltimore, which are good but they are more expensive. And one of the things that is a real equality issue in the US is that poor neighbourhoods like the one our school is in don't have any supermarkets at all. They rely on these little corner stores that don't have any perishables, just canned and packaged food. To get decent produce, a poor person living in east Baltimore would have to take the bus and change twice to get to another part of the city.
*They'd have to be very motivated. Maybe if they knew about the other health effects of eating meat?
Well, maybe. Another big problem with eating a lot of animal fats is the organic pollutants that travel in the fatty layer of tissues. So dioxins, PCBs and pesticides end up in the food supply. About 30 per cent of animal feed for hogs and beef is recycled animal fat. And then there are endocrine disrupters, hormones and growth promoters used in the beef industry and increasingly in some of the other animal products. We need a lot more data, but what is emerging suggests that these endocrine disrupters play a role in everything from lowering the age of menarche to explaining the continued increase in breast cancer compared with other cancers.
*What about food poisoning?
We have about 75 million cases of food-borne diarrhoeal disease in the US each year. And 75 million cases out of 286 million Americans is quite a lot.
*Do these problems with meat-eating show up anywhere else?
Leaving aside the epidemic of obesity, Americans were once the tallest and leanest people in the world and now we are collectively getting shorter too.
*Shorter?
There's a lot of speculation but part of it must be lower nutritional values. This is not unlike what happened in the past. Take my uncle, who grew up in the Rhondda Valley in south Wales and was barely 5 feet tall. He was a conscientious objector in the first world war and served in the ambulance corps. The average enlisted man in the British army was four inches shorter than the average officer. My father was the tallest in his family at 5 foot 3 inches, and my older brother is the same height as me - 6 foot - so in high school we had to endure all these jokes about the tall milkman because they would see my brother and me with our parents!
*But now Americans are getting shorter?
We may be in the midst of stepping back, of seeing collectively some of the real manifestations of a degraded American diet.
*What's it like trying to get the message across to government officials?
I recently chaired a panel at the Institute of Medicine on dioxin in the food supply. It was sponsored, as most of the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine things are, by the US Department of Agriculture; the Food and Drug Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the Centers for Disease Control. And when we met seven or eight of the people from these agencies and told them what we were going to say in advance of the press conference, the EPA and the ATSDR people were fine, the FDA was a bit more concerned but USDA was really unhappy.
*Why?
They have this totally untenable situation where part of their job is to make recommendations to the American people about diet and the other is to promote the US agricultural sector. They were very, very concerned that we were going to make some recommendations that would create huge political problems for them.
*Did you?
One of the things we said was that school lunches needed to be dramatically altered to reduce the animal fat served to school-aged children because that is where the dioxins and other chemicals are accumulating - and nothing has happened yet.
*How much meat do you eat?
I would say on average in a typical week we would end up having fish once and then chicken about once in two weeks and I can't even remember the last time that beef or pork was prepared.
© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opi ... id=ns24601
The True Cost Of Meat
-
illuminati
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:00 pm
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
right at the very top:
because a meaty diet with so many calories in saturated fats squeezes out healthier fruits, vegetables and grains.
false premise to begin with. so why bother reading the rest?
because a meaty diet with so many calories in saturated fats squeezes out healthier fruits, vegetables and grains.
false premise to begin with. so why bother reading the rest?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
The True Cost Of Meat
Because to offer an opinion you need to listen to what the other person has to say in its entireity?
Because dismissing something out of hand without reading the full context in which it is said leaves you open to making assumptions without the full information as to what is actually being said?
Because it does actually affect you as an american, even if you are a vegetarian especially the bit about the effects on your water supply?
Even if you decide it is a load of rubbish it is always worth cross referencing other opinions. You never know there might be something you were unaware of, after all you can check factual content even if you disagree with the concluscions.
In th UK where our farming is very intense and in a much smaller area we have problems in our rivers caused by intensive farming practices. The BSE scandal has made us incredibly sceptical of anything the food industry say.
What happened to that case against Oprah by the way, did she win or lose?
Because dismissing something out of hand without reading the full context in which it is said leaves you open to making assumptions without the full information as to what is actually being said?
Because it does actually affect you as an american, even if you are a vegetarian especially the bit about the effects on your water supply?
Even if you decide it is a load of rubbish it is always worth cross referencing other opinions. You never know there might be something you were unaware of, after all you can check factual content even if you disagree with the concluscions.
In th UK where our farming is very intense and in a much smaller area we have problems in our rivers caused by intensive farming practices. The BSE scandal has made us incredibly sceptical of anything the food industry say.
What happened to that case against Oprah by the way, did she win or lose?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
anastrophe wrote: right at the very top:
because a meaty diet with so many calories in saturated fats squeezes out healthier fruits, vegetables and grains.
false premise to begin with. so why bother reading the rest?
Is it false? Why?
because a meaty diet with so many calories in saturated fats squeezes out healthier fruits, vegetables and grains.
false premise to begin with. so why bother reading the rest?
Is it false? Why?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
Bill Sikes wrote: Is it false? Why?the first assumption is that meat/saturated fats are 'bad' or unhealthy, which is false. the second assumption is that fruits, vegetables and grains are 'healthier' than meat, which is also false.
they are demonstrably false because that are stated as emphatics. there is most assuredly no solid scientific proof that meat or saturated fats are bad for you, or that fruits, vegetables, and grains are better for you than meat.
just for the humor of it, i read a little more. here's another cherished bit of rubbish:
Basically, no red meat, pork or poultry. Fish - which is high in nutritional value - and "good fats" are fine. i see. fish is high in nutritional value. but beef, pork, chicken - they are by implication low in nutritional value. i see. yes of course, how blind i was, but now i see. fish=good, chicken=evil.
what a bunch of horse shite.
they are demonstrably false because that are stated as emphatics. there is most assuredly no solid scientific proof that meat or saturated fats are bad for you, or that fruits, vegetables, and grains are better for you than meat.
just for the humor of it, i read a little more. here's another cherished bit of rubbish:
Basically, no red meat, pork or poultry. Fish - which is high in nutritional value - and "good fats" are fine. i see. fish is high in nutritional value. but beef, pork, chicken - they are by implication low in nutritional value. i see. yes of course, how blind i was, but now i see. fish=good, chicken=evil.
what a bunch of horse shite.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
It seems to me that the best thing is a balanced diet containing some of
everything. AFAIK this has long been recommended by nutritionists. All
these "these things are healthy, these are not" ideas are a lot of rot.
Obviously if you eat much of one thing, you won't eat much of another,
so your diet is unbalanced - or if you do eat too much of everything, the
result is that you will become fat, which is certainly unhealthy.
everything. AFAIK this has long been recommended by nutritionists. All
these "these things are healthy, these are not" ideas are a lot of rot.
Obviously if you eat much of one thing, you won't eat much of another,
so your diet is unbalanced - or if you do eat too much of everything, the
result is that you will become fat, which is certainly unhealthy.
The True Cost Of Meat
i see. fish is high in nutritional value. but beef, pork, chicken - they are by implication low in nutritional value. i see. yes of course, how blind i was, but now i see. fish=good, chicken=evil.
We could have an entertaining but thoroughly pointless discussion about semantics here couldn't we?
She was talking about meatless monday so the implication could also be taken that fish is also high in nutritional value as well as the meat you are doing without.
Personally I would want to know where the fish came from as we have just been warned about eating too much farmed salmon because of the level of toxins contained in some of them.
I like meat bit personally I'm glad I have never been fond of meat pies made with reconstituted meat, I;m fairly sure I haven't eaten anything likely to give me BSE, but if I have it's too late to worry about it.
How did Oprah get on. I am sure i read that she actually won the case but I';m not sure.
We could have an entertaining but thoroughly pointless discussion about semantics here couldn't we?
She was talking about meatless monday so the implication could also be taken that fish is also high in nutritional value as well as the meat you are doing without.
Personally I would want to know where the fish came from as we have just been warned about eating too much farmed salmon because of the level of toxins contained in some of them.
I like meat bit personally I'm glad I have never been fond of meat pies made with reconstituted meat, I;m fairly sure I haven't eaten anything likely to give me BSE, but if I have it's too late to worry about it.
How did Oprah get on. I am sure i read that she actually won the case but I';m not sure.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
gmc wrote: We could have an entertaining but thoroughly pointless discussion about semantics here couldn't we?
we could, but what it boils down to is that the implication was that red meat, pork, and poultry are low in nutritional value, which is both a nonsensical statement, and offensive to anyone with even the mildest understanding of basic nutrition.
She was talking about meatless monday so the implication could also be taken that fish is also high in nutritional value as well as the meat you are doing without.
that seems a stretch to me.
Personally I would want to know where the fish came from as we have just been warned about eating too much farmed salmon because of the level of toxins contained in some of them.
widely promulgated, and with no science behind it. this was a scare story created by the anti-meat lobby. farmed salmon is lower in the very toxins they are complaining about than non-farmed salmon. they sort of kind of failed to mentioned that part of it.
I like meat bit personally I'm glad I have never been fond of meat pies made with reconstituted meat, I;m fairly sure I haven't eaten anything likely to give me BSE, but if I have it's too late to worry about it.
BSE was a serious problem in england, but my understanding is that it is controlled. nevertheless, there are far greater risks to be worried about.
all foods carry the risk of contaminants. every year scores of people get sick from melons. strawberries. alfalfa sprouts. some die.
How did Oprah get on. I am sure i read that she actually won the case but I';m not sure.
she 'won' the case (actually, more accurately the cattlemen's association that filed the lawsuit lost the case, as it was thrown out with prejudice). it was a poorly conceived lawsuit to begin with, and ill-advised to bring it in the first place. she expressed an opinion about eating beef, and that opinion hurt the industry. because oprah is widely known and generally held in high regard, she made both a high-profile target to blame, and a lousy choice to attack. free speech is the order of the day, so rightfully the cattlemen's association lost the lawsuit.
we could, but what it boils down to is that the implication was that red meat, pork, and poultry are low in nutritional value, which is both a nonsensical statement, and offensive to anyone with even the mildest understanding of basic nutrition.
She was talking about meatless monday so the implication could also be taken that fish is also high in nutritional value as well as the meat you are doing without.
that seems a stretch to me.
Personally I would want to know where the fish came from as we have just been warned about eating too much farmed salmon because of the level of toxins contained in some of them.
widely promulgated, and with no science behind it. this was a scare story created by the anti-meat lobby. farmed salmon is lower in the very toxins they are complaining about than non-farmed salmon. they sort of kind of failed to mentioned that part of it.
I like meat bit personally I'm glad I have never been fond of meat pies made with reconstituted meat, I;m fairly sure I haven't eaten anything likely to give me BSE, but if I have it's too late to worry about it.
BSE was a serious problem in england, but my understanding is that it is controlled. nevertheless, there are far greater risks to be worried about.
all foods carry the risk of contaminants. every year scores of people get sick from melons. strawberries. alfalfa sprouts. some die.
How did Oprah get on. I am sure i read that she actually won the case but I';m not sure.
she 'won' the case (actually, more accurately the cattlemen's association that filed the lawsuit lost the case, as it was thrown out with prejudice). it was a poorly conceived lawsuit to begin with, and ill-advised to bring it in the first place. she expressed an opinion about eating beef, and that opinion hurt the industry. because oprah is widely known and generally held in high regard, she made both a high-profile target to blame, and a lousy choice to attack. free speech is the order of the day, so rightfully the cattlemen's association lost the lawsuit.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
anastrophe wrote: we could, but what it boils down to is that the implication was that red meat, pork, and poultry are low in nutritional value
How odd, I did not read any such thing into it.
How odd, I did not read any such thing into it.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
Bill Sikes wrote: How odd, I did not read any such thing into it.really? that seems odd to me, based upon what was originally written:
*How meatless is Meatless?
Basically, no red meat, pork or poultry. Fish - which is high in nutritional value - and "good fats" are fine.
how else does one interpret that? fish - "high in nutritional value" - is allowed on 'meatless' monday, but red meat, pork, or poultry - by implication "low in nutritional value" - are not.
i realize i'm inferring that from the statement, but again, if fish is 'okay' to eat on meatless monday because it is 'high in nutritional value', then what would you suppose they are implying about red meat, pork, or poultry?
*How meatless is Meatless?
Basically, no red meat, pork or poultry. Fish - which is high in nutritional value - and "good fats" are fine.
how else does one interpret that? fish - "high in nutritional value" - is allowed on 'meatless' monday, but red meat, pork, or poultry - by implication "low in nutritional value" - are not.
i realize i'm inferring that from the statement, but again, if fish is 'okay' to eat on meatless monday because it is 'high in nutritional value', then what would you suppose they are implying about red meat, pork, or poultry?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
anastrophe wrote: how else does one interpret that? fish - "high in nutritional value" - is allowed on 'meatless' monday, but red meat, pork, or poultry - by implication "low in nutritional value" - are not.
i realize i'm inferring that from the statement, but again, if fish is 'okay' to eat on meatless monday because it is 'high in nutritional value', then what would you suppose they are implying about red meat, pork, or poultry?
It's a "meatless Monday". On a "meatless Monday" you can't eat meat, else
'twould be a "meaty Monday". To replace the meat, you could eat fish, which
has a high nutritional value. Meat has a high nutritional value, but you can't
eat it on a meatless Monday!
BTW, in days of yore this was called a "banyan day" in the RN.
i realize i'm inferring that from the statement, but again, if fish is 'okay' to eat on meatless monday because it is 'high in nutritional value', then what would you suppose they are implying about red meat, pork, or poultry?
It's a "meatless Monday". On a "meatless Monday" you can't eat meat, else
'twould be a "meaty Monday". To replace the meat, you could eat fish, which
has a high nutritional value. Meat has a high nutritional value, but you can't
eat it on a meatless Monday!
BTW, in days of yore this was called a "banyan day" in the RN.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
Bill Sikes wrote: It's a "meatless Monday". On a "meatless Monday" you can't eat meat, else
'twould be a "meaty Monday". To replace the meat, you could eat fish, which
has a high nutritional value. Meat has a high nutritional value, but you can't
eat it on a meatless Monday!
BTW, in days of yore this was called a "banyan day" in the RN.
this is really boiling down to a definition/usage issue then. i tend to consider 'meat' in the admittedly expansive definition of being the flesh of any animal. the narrower definition is that meat is the flesh of mammals, as distinct from that of fish or poultry.
but it's that last that then tosses it back into confusion. if the narrow definition of meat is the flesh of mammals, then why is poultry not allowed on meatless monday? if the broader definition applies, then why is fish allowed?
sigh!
'twould be a "meaty Monday". To replace the meat, you could eat fish, which
has a high nutritional value. Meat has a high nutritional value, but you can't
eat it on a meatless Monday!
BTW, in days of yore this was called a "banyan day" in the RN.
this is really boiling down to a definition/usage issue then. i tend to consider 'meat' in the admittedly expansive definition of being the flesh of any animal. the narrower definition is that meat is the flesh of mammals, as distinct from that of fish or poultry.
but it's that last that then tosses it back into confusion. if the narrow definition of meat is the flesh of mammals, then why is poultry not allowed on meatless monday? if the broader definition applies, then why is fish allowed?
sigh!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
Bill Sikes wrote:
BTW, in days of yore this was called a "banyan day" in the RN.
by the way, what's 'the RN' - the Royal Navy?
BTW, in days of yore this was called a "banyan day" in the RN.
by the way, what's 'the RN' - the Royal Navy?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
anastrophe wrote: by the way, what's 'the RN' - the Royal Navy?
Yup.
Yup.
The True Cost Of Meat
i realize i'm inferring that from the statement, but again, if fish is 'okay' to eat on meatless monday because it is 'high in nutritional value', then what would you suppose they are implying about red meat, pork, or poultry?
oersonally I wouldn't infer anything. perhaps if he'd said "which is also high in nutritional vale", anyway it's kind of pointless and takes away from the main point.
BSE was a serious problem in england, but my understanding is that it is controlled. nevertheless, there are far greater risks to be worried about.
all foods carry the risk of contaminants. every year scores of people get sick from melons. strawberries. alfalfa sprouts. some die.
Only after exports were to the EEC banned and it bacame clear the government was not being entirely honest about the situation. It's one of the reasons when the govt tells us that GM crops are safe they get a collective raspberry from the consumers (or is that too much fruit )
The thing about BSE is if it has infected the population it will be some years before we know if it is an epidemic or not. Infected sheep meat with scrapies has been sold illegally for quite some time to pie producers and sold as cheap meat so whether it can cross the species barrier or not is still moot. ( I know a couple of old time vets who knew condemned meat was being sold on especially pre war) People are now healthier and live longer so if it did cross the species then the odds are something killed those infected before the symptoms of BSE were apparent.
Given the amount of burgers americans consume if Oprah is right you will probably find out first.
Incidentally they also have it in France and Germany, the cattle cakes were exported all over europe for them not to have been affected as well defies all logic. They were a bit quicker about dealing with it perhaps.
What did come out of it was that most farmers were apparently not aware that cattle cakes contained protein from sheep in the first place. That seems to have been the root cause and most people with half an ounce of common sense would consider meeting animal protein to grazing animals was not entirely sensible, yet scientists said it was O.K. Now they say it is not safe.
There have also been a number of high profile incidents with the food industry throughout europe as well, the funniest was in Italy where male members of the population on parts northern italy started developing breasts, the cause was eventually traced back to chickens produced locally, they use oestrogen to fatten the birds, poor quality control meant they were being slaughterd and sold too soon.
Maybe funny is the wrong word but it did get a lot of publicity at the time.
Do you wonder we are incredibly suspicious about the food industry. especially big agri businesses like monsanto?
The EEC labelling requirements are nothing to do with restricting trade, the actions of mainly american companies to get them changes is perceived by most in europe as an attempt to get us to eat GM crops whether we want them or not. consumer resistance is phenomenal. Nowadays we also want to know what they have been feeding cattle on as well.
To go back to anastrophe's earlier post
false premise to begin with. so why bother reading the rest?
Some of the points he makes can be verified yourself, you can and do take issue with his grammar but if I can say so without giving offence it's a daft reason to dismiss out og habd what somebody is saying.
oersonally I wouldn't infer anything. perhaps if he'd said "which is also high in nutritional vale", anyway it's kind of pointless and takes away from the main point.
BSE was a serious problem in england, but my understanding is that it is controlled. nevertheless, there are far greater risks to be worried about.
all foods carry the risk of contaminants. every year scores of people get sick from melons. strawberries. alfalfa sprouts. some die.
Only after exports were to the EEC banned and it bacame clear the government was not being entirely honest about the situation. It's one of the reasons when the govt tells us that GM crops are safe they get a collective raspberry from the consumers (or is that too much fruit
)The thing about BSE is if it has infected the population it will be some years before we know if it is an epidemic or not. Infected sheep meat with scrapies has been sold illegally for quite some time to pie producers and sold as cheap meat so whether it can cross the species barrier or not is still moot. ( I know a couple of old time vets who knew condemned meat was being sold on especially pre war) People are now healthier and live longer so if it did cross the species then the odds are something killed those infected before the symptoms of BSE were apparent.
Given the amount of burgers americans consume if Oprah is right you will probably find out first.
Incidentally they also have it in France and Germany, the cattle cakes were exported all over europe for them not to have been affected as well defies all logic. They were a bit quicker about dealing with it perhaps.
What did come out of it was that most farmers were apparently not aware that cattle cakes contained protein from sheep in the first place. That seems to have been the root cause and most people with half an ounce of common sense would consider meeting animal protein to grazing animals was not entirely sensible, yet scientists said it was O.K. Now they say it is not safe.
There have also been a number of high profile incidents with the food industry throughout europe as well, the funniest was in Italy where male members of the population on parts northern italy started developing breasts, the cause was eventually traced back to chickens produced locally, they use oestrogen to fatten the birds, poor quality control meant they were being slaughterd and sold too soon.
Maybe funny is the wrong word but it did get a lot of publicity at the time.
Do you wonder we are incredibly suspicious about the food industry. especially big agri businesses like monsanto?
The EEC labelling requirements are nothing to do with restricting trade, the actions of mainly american companies to get them changes is perceived by most in europe as an attempt to get us to eat GM crops whether we want them or not. consumer resistance is phenomenal. Nowadays we also want to know what they have been feeding cattle on as well.
To go back to anastrophe's earlier post
false premise to begin with. so why bother reading the rest?
Some of the points he makes can be verified yourself, you can and do take issue with his grammar but if I can say so without giving offence it's a daft reason to dismiss out og habd what somebody is saying.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
gmc wrote: Infected sheep meat with scrapies has been sold illegally for quite some time to pie producers and sold as cheap meat so whether it can cross the species barrier or not is still moot.
Scrapie has been known for nearly 300 years, there has been plenty of time to
find out whether it can affect us.
gmc wrote: Incidentally they also have it in France and Germany, the cattle cakes were exported all over europe for them not to have been affected as well defies all logic. They were a bit quicker about dealing with it perhaps.
It's not certain that BSE resulted from feeding sheep to cows. In France and
Germany it seems clear that there has been a cover-up. It is interesting to
note that here in Britian we did not ban imports of beef from Europe - why,
I wonder?
gmc wrote: What did come out of it was that most farmers were apparently not aware that cattle cakes contained protein from sheep in the first place. That seems to have been the root cause and most people with half an ounce of common sense would consider meeting animal protein to grazing animals was not entirely sensible, yet scientists said it was O.K. Now they say it is not safe.
Personally I find the idea of feeding sheep to cattle repugnant in any case.
gmc wrote: The EEC labelling requirements are nothing to do with restricting trade, the actions of mainly american companies to get them changes is perceived by most in europe as an attempt to get us to eat GM crops whether we want them or not. consumer resistance is phenomenal. Nowadays we also want to know what they have been feeding cattle on as well.
I want to know what I'm eating, and have the ability to choose what I eat. The
labelling requirements must be rigorously enforced. I also want to know where
my food comes from, which is where European regulations irritate me no end.
Today I bought some British ham sliced from the joint at Tesco. This was
more expensive than the other sorts of ham, which were labelled with such
titles as "EU pork cured in Ireland", "EU pork packed in the UK" and suchlike
meaningless garbage.
Scrapie has been known for nearly 300 years, there has been plenty of time to
find out whether it can affect us.
gmc wrote: Incidentally they also have it in France and Germany, the cattle cakes were exported all over europe for them not to have been affected as well defies all logic. They were a bit quicker about dealing with it perhaps.
It's not certain that BSE resulted from feeding sheep to cows. In France and
Germany it seems clear that there has been a cover-up. It is interesting to
note that here in Britian we did not ban imports of beef from Europe - why,
I wonder?
gmc wrote: What did come out of it was that most farmers were apparently not aware that cattle cakes contained protein from sheep in the first place. That seems to have been the root cause and most people with half an ounce of common sense would consider meeting animal protein to grazing animals was not entirely sensible, yet scientists said it was O.K. Now they say it is not safe.
Personally I find the idea of feeding sheep to cattle repugnant in any case.
gmc wrote: The EEC labelling requirements are nothing to do with restricting trade, the actions of mainly american companies to get them changes is perceived by most in europe as an attempt to get us to eat GM crops whether we want them or not. consumer resistance is phenomenal. Nowadays we also want to know what they have been feeding cattle on as well.
I want to know what I'm eating, and have the ability to choose what I eat. The
labelling requirements must be rigorously enforced. I also want to know where
my food comes from, which is where European regulations irritate me no end.
Today I bought some British ham sliced from the joint at Tesco. This was
more expensive than the other sorts of ham, which were labelled with such
titles as "EU pork cured in Ireland", "EU pork packed in the UK" and suchlike
meaningless garbage.
The True Cost Of Meat
Scrapie has been known for nearly 300 years, there has been plenty of time to
find out whether it can affect us.
That was my point, what is different is having the protein eaten by a cow and then by us, it's like something out of a weird sci fi book.
Sign seen at highland farm shop, adjacent to a field where highland cattle were being kept.
"You've met Angus now eat his relatives"
It was removed after complaints from tourists who, while they could see the intended humour thought it was a bit sick.
find out whether it can affect us.
That was my point, what is different is having the protein eaten by a cow and then by us, it's like something out of a weird sci fi book.
Sign seen at highland farm shop, adjacent to a field where highland cattle were being kept.
"You've met Angus now eat his relatives"
It was removed after complaints from tourists who, while they could see the intended humour thought it was a bit sick.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
gmc wrote: Sign seen at highland farm shop, adjacent to a field where highland cattle were being kept.
"You've met Angus now eat his relatives"
It was removed after complaints from tourists who, while they could see the intended humour thought it was a bit sick.
I remember going into a pub. in Yorkshire, where a large sign on the wall
proclaimed "All our meat comes from animals killed in the local abbatoir and
butchered by ". I suppose it'd put people off their food now.
"You've met Angus now eat his relatives"
It was removed after complaints from tourists who, while they could see the intended humour thought it was a bit sick.
I remember going into a pub. in Yorkshire, where a large sign on the wall
proclaimed "All our meat comes from animals killed in the local abbatoir and
butchered by ". I suppose it'd put people off their food now.
-
LottomagicZ4941
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
With mad cow and those types of issues with meat I'm eating less meat.
Started eating more fruits and vegtables especially Olives which have more fat then the average veg. I've also been eating more nuts though I'm not afraid of carbs.
Growing up on a dairy farm it was not really considered a meal with out meat.
My dad got upset when I named the one we were going to eat "beafy"
And my first thought upon seeing this post? PETA---People eating tastey animals
__________________
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
Started eating more fruits and vegtables especially Olives which have more fat then the average veg. I've also been eating more nuts though I'm not afraid of carbs.
Growing up on a dairy farm it was not really considered a meal with out meat.
My dad got upset when I named the one we were going to eat "beafy"
And my first thought upon seeing this post? PETA---People eating tastey animals
__________________
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
-
LottomagicZ4941
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:00 pm
The True Cost Of Meat
"Personally I find the idea of feeding sheep to cattle repugnant in any case."
Perhaps they are feeding it to the Strabs as someone said people have died from eating bad strabs and some other vegies.
My brother who has been known to eat more then one big mac at a time says "Gotta go sometimes"
My eating less meat is largly due to my wife's worries.
The whole Altar(SP) scare with the apples. People all washing their fruits and veggies. Yet Coffee is the most pesticide ladened food people consume.
At any rate this thread is making me want some Lamb. Have not had that in a while. Just muched down some Olives, Tomatoes, cheeze, and some toast, No meat yet today.
__________________
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
Perhaps they are feeding it to the Strabs as someone said people have died from eating bad strabs and some other vegies.
My brother who has been known to eat more then one big mac at a time says "Gotta go sometimes"
My eating less meat is largly due to my wife's worries.
The whole Altar(SP) scare with the apples. People all washing their fruits and veggies. Yet Coffee is the most pesticide ladened food people consume.
At any rate this thread is making me want some Lamb. Have not had that in a while. Just muched down some Olives, Tomatoes, cheeze, and some toast, No meat yet today.
__________________
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
The True Cost Of Meat
To me, the most sensible approach is balance - that applies to everything we do.
But, it's also wise to look into the way animals are raised and the way they are slaughtered. If we really are what we eat, seems like we'd want to make sure our food is reasonably healthy and clean.
Fast Food Nation is an excellent read. It's not for the faint of heart, though. There is one line in there that still makes me throw up when I think on it; and I read the book some time ago.
My reaction to it all? I buy organics whenever possible. I'd like to grow my own Victory Garden but I doubt I'll have the time to tend it. (sad sigh).
But, it's also wise to look into the way animals are raised and the way they are slaughtered. If we really are what we eat, seems like we'd want to make sure our food is reasonably healthy and clean.
Fast Food Nation is an excellent read. It's not for the faint of heart, though. There is one line in there that still makes me throw up when I think on it; and I read the book some time ago.
My reaction to it all? I buy organics whenever possible. I'd like to grow my own Victory Garden but I doubt I'll have the time to tend it. (sad sigh).
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
The True Cost Of Meat
This discussion is similar to the ones where one group touts the advantages of red wine and another proclaims red wine to be bad for your health. The anti red meat, anti red wine people each have their own agenda. You will never find "Seventh Day Adventists" for example, proclaiming the virtues of meat, or wine, for that matter.
Much has to do with our genes. I am 70 years old, good health, take no meds, have barely measureable cholesterol level at under 100, and normal blood pressure. Both parents lived into their mid 90's. I LOVE MEAT & GOOD RED WINE. I have a pretty balanced diet of veggies, poultry, fish & beef. As the saying goes---"Moderation in all
things".
Much has to do with our genes. I am 70 years old, good health, take no meds, have barely measureable cholesterol level at under 100, and normal blood pressure. Both parents lived into their mid 90's. I LOVE MEAT & GOOD RED WINE. I have a pretty balanced diet of veggies, poultry, fish & beef. As the saying goes---"Moderation in all
things".
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
Sikes>"Personally I find the idea of feeding sheep to cattle repugnant in any case."
LottomagicZ4941 wrote:
Perhaps they are feeding it to the Strabs as someone said people have died from eating bad strabs and some other vegies.
Strabs? What's that/what're they?
LottomagicZ4941 wrote:
Perhaps they are feeding it to the Strabs as someone said people have died from eating bad strabs and some other vegies.
Strabs? What's that/what're they?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
The True Cost Of Meat
Lon wrote: As the saying goes---"Moderation in all things".
Or "Moderation in everything - everything in moderation"! AOL!
Or "Moderation in everything - everything in moderation"! AOL!
The True Cost Of Meat
One of the nice things about being my age is that you have some perspective.
A lot of years of medical history as it relates to food. I eat what I consider a pretty balanced diet of beef, poultry, chicken, fish, veggies and fruits. I just polished off a big New York steak with mushrooms, brocolli & carrots. A cucumber, red onion & tomato salad on the side. No desert. All washed down with a bottle (shared with spouse) of Merlot. I am fortunate to have great genes. My cholesterol has always been really low (100), normal blood pressure & no meds other than synthroid (thyroidectomy 2002).
My father was raised in the SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST faith, was born in a Missionary Compound in Haiti and never ate meat until he was 15 as most people of that faith are Vegetarians. I asked him why he left that faith and he replied "the first time I tasted a steak". He passed on two years ago at 96.
A lot of years of medical history as it relates to food. I eat what I consider a pretty balanced diet of beef, poultry, chicken, fish, veggies and fruits. I just polished off a big New York steak with mushrooms, brocolli & carrots. A cucumber, red onion & tomato salad on the side. No desert. All washed down with a bottle (shared with spouse) of Merlot. I am fortunate to have great genes. My cholesterol has always been really low (100), normal blood pressure & no meds other than synthroid (thyroidectomy 2002).
My father was raised in the SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST faith, was born in a Missionary Compound in Haiti and never ate meat until he was 15 as most people of that faith are Vegetarians. I asked him why he left that faith and he replied "the first time I tasted a steak". He passed on two years ago at 96.
The True Cost Of Meat
illuminati wrote: NewScientist.com
8-13-4
- that's a medium steak per person per day.
This is about right for a person with either blood type O or B.
Can you really change the way Americans eat?
Absolutely. We've reduced our intake of fat considerably over the last 30 years, yet we keep getting fatter.
*Why did you pick meat? Why not fizzy drinks, dairy products, cakes or cookies?
I wondered that, myself.
cutting saturated fat intake by 15 per cent. Now if you do the math...
skinless chicken breast-14% saturated fat
London Broil-6% saturated fat
The saturated fat arguement for beef doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
...frequent simple messages work much better than complicated ones.
True. Unfortunately this one's got holes in it, nutritionally.
*So what does meat do to you?
For blood type O and B, it revs up your metabolism, burns fat, and strengthens your immune system. Not so with A or AB.
The cholesterol story and the saturated fat story have been around a long time,
Yes, it has, and it's been misrepresented for a pretty long time. Cholesterol doesn't cause a heart attack, it's what the body does to the cholesterol. In fact, in blood types O and B their is an an enzyme in their intestines, intestinal alkaline phosphatase, which prevents cholesterol from turning rancid, which effectively makes it impossible for cholesterol to cause a heart attack in those people.
They still have heart attacks, but they get them from different causes.
Leaving aside the epidemic of obesity, Americans were once the tallest and leanest people in the world and now we are collectively getting shorter too.
It's not because of meat.
They have this totally untenable situation where part of their job is to make recommendations to the American people about diet and the other is to promote the US agricultural sector. They were very, very concerned that we were going to make some recommendations that would create huge political problems for them.
This is true. An unbelievable conflict of interest.
© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opi ... id=ns24601
The end of Fast Food Nation profiles an organic beef farm that is raising hormone free, grass fed cattle, and in a way that could be implemented on a larger scale.
Our collective health problems have very little to do with meat and almost everything to do with grain, specifically high gluten wheat.
The humane treatment of animals and raising hormone free, grass fed animals are crucial issues which I do not mean to minimize here.
But the nutritional assumptions made in this article are way off base, and simply cannot be supported by the facts.
8-13-4
- that's a medium steak per person per day.
This is about right for a person with either blood type O or B.
Can you really change the way Americans eat?
Absolutely. We've reduced our intake of fat considerably over the last 30 years, yet we keep getting fatter.
*Why did you pick meat? Why not fizzy drinks, dairy products, cakes or cookies?
I wondered that, myself.
cutting saturated fat intake by 15 per cent. Now if you do the math...
skinless chicken breast-14% saturated fat
London Broil-6% saturated fat
The saturated fat arguement for beef doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
...frequent simple messages work much better than complicated ones.
True. Unfortunately this one's got holes in it, nutritionally.
*So what does meat do to you?
For blood type O and B, it revs up your metabolism, burns fat, and strengthens your immune system. Not so with A or AB.
The cholesterol story and the saturated fat story have been around a long time,
Yes, it has, and it's been misrepresented for a pretty long time. Cholesterol doesn't cause a heart attack, it's what the body does to the cholesterol. In fact, in blood types O and B their is an an enzyme in their intestines, intestinal alkaline phosphatase, which prevents cholesterol from turning rancid, which effectively makes it impossible for cholesterol to cause a heart attack in those people.
They still have heart attacks, but they get them from different causes.
Leaving aside the epidemic of obesity, Americans were once the tallest and leanest people in the world and now we are collectively getting shorter too.
It's not because of meat.
They have this totally untenable situation where part of their job is to make recommendations to the American people about diet and the other is to promote the US agricultural sector. They were very, very concerned that we were going to make some recommendations that would create huge political problems for them.
This is true. An unbelievable conflict of interest.
© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opi ... id=ns24601
The end of Fast Food Nation profiles an organic beef farm that is raising hormone free, grass fed cattle, and in a way that could be implemented on a larger scale.
Our collective health problems have very little to do with meat and almost everything to do with grain, specifically high gluten wheat.
The humane treatment of animals and raising hormone free, grass fed animals are crucial issues which I do not mean to minimize here.
But the nutritional assumptions made in this article are way off base, and simply cannot be supported by the facts.