The True Cost Of Meat

"Psalm 110" <MOONIES DeleteThis @SwiftVets.NK> wrote in message news:r2bvh0h65uovvj26ttfrs8lm8ssn14209u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:54:11 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <nilknoc DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> >>
> >> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and chicken,
> >> but otherwise a very interesting and informative article;
> >>
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24601
> >>
> >>
> >
> > All this is very old, old news. If you feed an animal grain, you get back
> >9%-15% in food. Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.
> >
> > And then of course is the water, since animals need a lot of it.
> >However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat, not pasta.
> >
> Conversion ratio of feed to live animal weight is about 2:1 for fish,
> 3.7:1 for chickens/rabbits small animals, 4:1 for pigs, up to 10:1 for
> cattle.
>
> Cattle however eat a large portion of their food as (indigestible to
> humans) range and pasteur grasses, hay and silage. They are loaded up
> in the last few months with grains.

.. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring.
Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to
91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification
ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment,
more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface,
are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority
of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia)
of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million
and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to
sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any
other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.'
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html

> Wet/moist manures are generated at rates of 1.5:1 ratio to dry feeds.
>
> Manure lose 50% mass in composting before becoming soil amendments.
> Primary losses are H20 and CO2, neither one in short supply. Residuals
> are then converted into next year's crops.

Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority
Source: Ohio State University
6-10-4

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
should be a top priority among the global community, according
to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the journal Science.

The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global food
security and climate change within our lifetime, said Rattan Lal,
author of the article and director of the carbon management
and sequestration center at Ohio State University.

Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of agriculture
began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion metric tons -
more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once trapped in the
soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
dioxide (CO2).

"Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as
75 percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit into
the atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on the rise."

With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is inefficient.
Right now, the world's agricultural soils are alarmingly depleted
of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, south and central
Asia and the Caribbean and Andean regions, Lal said.

He calls for adopting "recommended management practices"
for increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These
practices include no-till farming - leaving residue from the
previous year's crops on the field; agroforestry - planting trees
or shrubs on or around cropland to enhance the quality of the
soil; planting cover crops, which protect the soil from erosion
during normal growing seasons; and using nutrients such as
manure, compost or biosolids to fertilize crops.

Evidence shows that following such practices greatly increases
and sustains crop yields.

Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields managed
by regular farming practices - tilling the land, using no fertilizer,
leaving fields bare in the non-growing season - produced about
1 ton of maize and beans per hectare (a hectare is about the size
of two football fields). But fields treated with manure, planted
with cover crops and covered with mulch yielded six times that
amount.

"This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at the
continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan Africa,"
said Lal, who is also a professor of natural resources. "Soil needs
enough carbon in order to hold water and nutrients and to grow
crops efficiently.

"But completely removing crop residue for animal fodder and
fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and we
cannot achieve global food security without returning crop residues
and putting carbon back in soil. Both are necessary for improving
soil quality."
..
"Soil carbon sequestration is a natural, cost-effective and
environment-friendly process," he continued. "Once sequestered,
carbon remains in the soil as long as restorative land use, no-till
farming and other recommended management practices are
followed."
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/

> There is ZERO WASTE when intelligent runoff controls keeps excess
> rains from carrying away nutrients.

Describe these 'intelligent runoff controls'.

> It is perpetual recycling that has gone on for over 500 million years
> since the Cambrian explosion.

Not CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

> Water has been recycled for at least 3.7 billion years. Over and over
> and over.

* U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a result of
excess water use for cattle and other livestock. U.S. water shortages,
especially in the West, have now reached critical levels. Overdrafts
now exceed replenishments by 25 percent.

* The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh water
reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas, Texas, and New Mexico.
In California, where 42 percent of irrigation water is used for feed or
livestock production, water tables have dropped so low that in some
areas the earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs and
aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end of the last Ice
Age.- Sandra Postel, _Water: Rethinking Management in an Age of
Scarcity_, Worldwatch Paper 62 (1984), 20.
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/62/

''We're (also) polluting our cheapest and most easily accessible supply
of water,'' says Payal Sampat, author of the report 'Deep Trouble,
The Hidden Threat of Groundwater Pollution'.

Nitrate pollution from livestock waste and common nitrogen fertiliser
has caused much damage to aquifers in high demand, says the 55-page
report.'
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~doetqp-p/courses/env440/env440_2/lectures/lec7...e%20Hid
m

> There are areas here for better practices, better management. There is
> no room for falsehoods and frauds.

Livestock farming is unsustainable, full stop.

> ATKINS is not the authority. 20,000,000 years of teeth evolution has
> identified that the diet has changed many times on the road to modern
> human teeth, which include now both molars and incisors.

'Most "nutritionists" assert that we have definite carnivorous leanings,
and some have even termed our incisor teeth "fangs" in defense of
their erroneous position that humans are natural meat-eaters! If you
look at the various species in the animal kingdom, each is equipped
with teeth that are ideally suited to masticate a particular type of food.
Herbivores (like the cow) have 24 molars, eight jagged incisors in
the lower jaw and a horny palate in the upper jaw. Their jaws move
vertically, laterally, forward, and backward, enabling the herbivore
to tear and grind coarse grasses. Omnivores (like the hog) have
tusk-like canines allowing them to dig up roots. Frugivores (like the
chimpanzee) have 32 teeth: sixteen in each jaw including four incisors,
two cuspids, four bicuspids, and six molars. The cuspids are adapted
for cracking nuts, and the uniform articulation of the teeth enables the
frugivore to mash and grind fruits. On the contrary, carnivores (like
the cat family) have markedly developed canines that are long, sharp,
cylindrical, pointed, and set apart from the other teeth. Fangs and
sharp pointed teeth that penetrate and kill, that rip and tear flesh, are
a feature of all true carnivores (except certain birds). The powerful
jaws of the carnivore move only vertically, and are ideal for ripping
and tearing flesh that is swallowed virtually whole and then acted
upon by extremely potent gastric juices. Human teeth are not designed
for tearing flesh as in the lion, wolf or dog, but rather compare closely
with other fruit-eating animals. Human teeth correspond almost
identically to the chimpanzees and other frugivores. The complete
absence of spaces between human teeth characterizes us as the
archetype frugivore. The "canine" teeth of humans are short, stout,
and slightly triangular. They are less pronounced and developed
than the orangutan's, who rarely kills and eats raw flesh in its natural
environment. Human canines in no way resemble the long, round,
slender canines of the true carnivore. Human teeth are not curved
or sharp like the wolves or tigers, nor are they wide and flat like
the grass and grain-eating species. Human teeth are actually like
the fruit-eating monkeys, and the human mouth is best suited for
eating succulent fruits and vegetables. It would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the
aid of fork and knife. To term our incisor teeth "fangs" or even to
liken them as such is outrageous. '
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

> Humans are
> OMNIVORES, capable of eating a large assortment of foods including
> meats, vegetables, seeds, berries, fish, grubs, and ice cream.

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

> Not all food have equal beneficial or delitarious effects, and need to
> be considered by themselves, in combination with the total diet, and
> their ultimate environmental effects. Global vegetarianism is a recipe
> for global environmental collapse. The world can tolerate some portion
> of vegetarians but not a majority or totality.

False.

> Animals are vital to the global ecology. Their manures fertilize soils
> in ways nothing else does. This world is now adapted to, and requires
> carnivores.

Wild animals produce manure too. The world requires reforestation.
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

"pearl" <tea RemoveThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<cfoq7d$feu$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> "Psalm 110" <MOONIES RemoveThis @SwiftVets.NK> wrote in message news:r2bvh0h65uovvj26ttfrs8lm8ssn14209u@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:54:11 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > <nilknoc RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"pearl" <tea RemoveThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > >news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > >>
> > >> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and chicken,
> > >> but otherwise a very interesting and informative article;
> > >>
> > >> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24601
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > All this is very old, old news. If you feed an animal grain, you get back
> > >9%-15% in food. Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.
> > >
> > > And then of course is the water, since animals need a lot of it.
> > >However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat, not pasta.
> > >
> > Conversion ratio of feed to live animal weight is about 2:1 for fish,
> > 3.7:1 for chickens/rabbits small animals, 4:1 for pigs, up to 10:1 for
> > cattle.
> >
> > Cattle however eat a large portion of their food as (indigestible to
> > humans) range and pasteur grasses, hay and silage. They are loaded up
> > in the last few months with grains.
>
> . Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
> covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
> world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
> ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
> topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
> Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> more than has any other land use, and has transformed
> roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
> of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
> grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
> be seen on every continent."
>
> In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
> on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
> of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
> grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
> 1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
> semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring.
> Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to
> 91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification
> ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment,
> more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface,
> are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
> estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority
> of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
> degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia)
> of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
> unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million
> and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to
> sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any
> other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
> about 20% in the next 20 years.'
> http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
>
> > Wet/moist manures are generated at rates of 1.5:1 ratio to dry feeds.
> >
> > Manure lose 50% mass in composting before becoming soil amendments.
> > Primary losses are H20 and CO2, neither one in short supply. Residuals
> > are then converted into next year's crops.
>
> Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority
> Source: Ohio State University
> 6-10-4
>
> COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
> should be a top priority among the global community, according
> to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the journal Science.
>
> The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
> degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global food
> security and climate change within our lifetime, said Rattan Lal,
> author of the article and director of the carbon management
> and sequestration center at Ohio State University.
>
> Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of agriculture
> began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion metric tons -
> more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once trapped in the
> soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
> dioxide (CO2).
>
> "Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
> and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as
> 75 percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit into
> the atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on the rise."
>
> With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is inefficient.
> Right now, the world's agricultural soils are alarmingly depleted
> of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, south and central
> Asia and the Caribbean and Andean regions, Lal said.
>
> He calls for adopting "recommended management practices"
> for increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These
> practices include no-till farming - leaving residue from the
> previous year's crops on the field; agroforestry - planting trees
> or shrubs on or around cropland to enhance the quality of the
> soil; planting cover crops, which protect the soil from erosion
> during normal growing seasons; and using nutrients such as
> manure, compost or biosolids to fertilize crops.
>
> Evidence shows that following such practices greatly increases
> and sustains crop yields.
>
> Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields managed
> by regular farming practices - tilling the land, using no fertilizer,
> leaving fields bare in the non-growing season - produced about
> 1 ton of maize and beans per hectare (a hectare is about the size
> of two football fields). But fields treated with manure, planted
> with cover crops and covered with mulch yielded six times that
> amount.
>
> "This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at the
> continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan Africa,"
> said Lal, who is also a professor of natural resources. "Soil needs
> enough carbon in order to hold water and nutrients and to grow
> crops efficiently.
>
> "But completely removing crop residue for animal fodder and
> fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
> continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and we
> cannot achieve global food security without returning crop residues
> and putting carbon back in soil. Both are necessary for improving
> soil quality."
> ..
> "Soil carbon sequestration is a natural, cost-effective and
> environment-friendly process," he continued. "Once sequestered,
> carbon remains in the soil as long as restorative land use, no-till
> farming and other recommended management practices are
> followed."
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/
>
> > There is ZERO WASTE when intelligent runoff controls keeps excess
> > rains from carrying away nutrients.
>
> Describe these 'intelligent runoff controls'.
>
> > It is perpetual recycling that has gone on for over 500 million years
> > since the Cambrian explosion.
>
> Not CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).
>
> > Water has been recycled for at least 3.7 billion years. Over and over
> > and over.
>
> * U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a result of
> excess water use for cattle and other livestock. U.S. water shortages,
> especially in the West, have now reached critical levels. Overdrafts
> now exceed replenishments by 25 percent.
>
> * The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh water
> reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas, Texas, and New Mexico.
> In California, where 42 percent of irrigation water is used for feed or
> livestock production, water tables have dropped so low that in some
> areas the earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs and
> aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end of the last Ice
> Age.- Sandra Postel, _Water: Rethinking Management in an Age of
> Scarcity_, Worldwatch Paper 62 (1984), 20.
> http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/62/
>
> ''We're (also) polluting our cheapest and most easily accessible supply
> of water,'' says Payal Sampat, author of the report 'Deep Trouble,
> The Hidden Threat of Groundwater Pollution'.
>
> Nitrate pollution from livestock waste and common nitrogen fertiliser
> has caused much damage to aquifers in high demand, says the 55-page
> report.'
> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~doetqp-p/courses/env440/env440_2/lectures/lec7...e%20Hid
> m
>
> > There are areas here for better practices, better management. There is
> > no room for falsehoods and frauds.
>
> Livestock farming is unsustainable, full stop.
>
> > ATKINS is not the authority. 20,000,000 years of teeth evolution has
> > identified that the diet has changed many times on the road to modern
> > human teeth, which include now both molars and incisors.
>

> Human teeth are actually like
> the fruit-eating monkeys, and the human mouth is best suited for
> eating succulent fruits and vegetables. It would be extremely
> difficult, if not impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the
> aid of fork and knife.

Ahaha you are so full of shit its amazing. On top of that ridiculous
statment do you realize how much more absurd it sounds coming right
after the previous post detailing the severe carnivorous aspects of
chimps.

> '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
> plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
> threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
> will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'

Again unbelievably full of shit. What a false statment that is. You
embody animal rights extremism at its worst. Total disregard for
reality. There are many population groups who have lived in perfect
health completely free of modern degenerative conditions on diets
based on up to 80% or more from animal source foods. At the same time
there are populations(not many howerver do to the fact humans prefer
and thrive off animal source foods) that live close to or completely
on all-plant diets and have extremely poor health AND short life
spans. How easily this fact is ignored by you people.

One does not go to a tobacco company for health information on
smoking, nor does one go to an animal rights extremist for health
information on food. That is common sense. Information from either
source can simply not be taken seriously. It is called conflict of
interest.
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

"pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and chicken,
> but otherwise a very interesting and informative article;
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24601

That crap is from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, now the Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. As in Mayor Bloomberg of
New York. He bought the university. He owns it. It's his personal
possesion. His toy.

Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken swipes at Atkins in
the past. They are anti-meat and pro-vegan.

Interesting how an entire educational institution can be commandeered
to push one person's personal viewpoints. And the guy who owns it has
no medical training. Those "doctors" should be ashamed of themselves.
So much for John's Hopkins being a centre of higher learning. The
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has lost all
credibility in any field of science.

TC
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408151729.3b53461@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<cfo6lb$9io$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > "George Conklin" <nilknoc.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:TyMTc.26047$Jp6.4437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and chicken,
> > > > but otherwise a very interesting and informative article;
> > > >
> > > > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24601
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > All this is very old, old news.
> >
> > To you perhaps.
> >
> > > If you feed an animal grain, you get back
> > > 9%-15% in food. Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.
> >
> > For bovines the ratio is typically16lbs grain for 1lb beef gain,
> > or 6% of input (excluding silage or hay and supplements).
> >
> > 'Typical animal and feeding statistics
> > Daily water consumption - 5-10 gallons
> > Daily day matter consumption
> > 15 pounds corn
> > 4 pounds corn silage
> > 1 pound of protein-mineral supplement
> > Daily gain - 2.7 pounds per day
> > Feed conversion efficiency - 7.4 pounds of feed per pound of gain
> > Initial weight - 700 pounds
> > Market weight - 1175 pounds
> > Cost of gain - $ 45.00 per 100 pounds
> >
http://beef.ans.msu.edu/Facilities/Beef_Cattle_Research_and_Teach/body...ef_catt
> >
> > beef gain = 34.44% of liveweight gain in feedlot.
> > Average 5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 1lb liveweight gain.
> > 5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 0.34lbs beef = just over 16 : 1.
> >
> > > And then of course is the water, since animals need a lot of it.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat, not pasta.
> >
> > Atkins was wrong.
>
> People are not going to stop eating healthy animal foods.

There's no such thing, for humans.

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. *Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol*, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat.
PMID: 10479227

> You will
> have an easyer time getting a Lion to eat tofu.

People can and do adopt a vegetarian diet with ease.

> (like the hippy/animal
> rights fanatic from Futurama heh). Get that through your skull.

Nice.

'There is increasing evidence that animal abusers
go on to commit acts of violence against humans.'
http://rense.com/general56/zimbabwethebeasts.htm

> And
> yes humans evolved to thrive off animal source foods.

Nope.

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat.
PMID: 10479227

> To claim otherwise is just animal rights extremist propaganada.

Twit.

> In fact since
> us foolish meat eating humans do not want to listen to your wisdom why
> dont you just go save all the other carnivorous animals that you love
> so much from their folly of eating meat and convert them all into
> vegans.

I'm sure that you'd enjoy a chat with the author of NeandExtinct.
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408151755.6658bf4d@posting.google.com...
<..>
> Bones and organs also
> provide an exelent source of food heavily relied apon by ancient
> humans and their ancestors.

Relating Chimpanzee Diets to Potential Australopithecine Diets
Conklin-Brittain, Nancy Lou
Wrangham, Richard W.

We report data using an ape model to reconstruct the nutrient
composition of the frugivorous diet of our last common ancestor
with African great apes. We aimed to determine whether the
African ape clade, from which hominids evolved, has any unusual
features. We studied frugivory by comparing chimpanzee diets to
that of three species of cercopithecine monkeys in Kibale Forest,
Uganda.

Data came from a 12-month period that showed inter-monthly
variation in fruit abundance. The monkeys consumed stable
nutrient levels except for lipid, which was low (3.2 +/- 2.0 %
dry matter (DM)), but peaked at about 9% DM during ripe fruit
abundance. Chimpanzees also consumed low lipid and sugar diets
during fruit poor seasons. Protein intake reflected each species'
fallback food: leaf consumption kept the protein levels high for
monkeys (16.7 +/- 1.9% DM); chimpanzees relied on herbaceous piths
and maintained a low protein intake (9.5 +/- 3.0% DM). Fallback
food was probably also responsible for the high fiber (NDF) intakes
by monkeys, which was not significantly different from chimpanzees'
(32.4 +/- 3.6% NDF versus 33.6 +/- 4.5% NDF respectively).

Three conclusions emerge: fat intake was low for all frugivores,
protein intake was low for chimpanzees, and fiber intake was high
for all species. Our data (from a lipid-poor habitat) show that
high lipid or high protein is not needed for normal health and
reproduction of chimpanzees. Therefore, hominids were probably
capable of living on a low-fat, low-protein diet such as would be
provided by fibrous roots commonly found in a seasonal woodland
environment.
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconkli...bstract

'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these behavioral
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
in the diet, to augment plant resources.'
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch12/chap12.htm

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not
least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during
the interglacials. '
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/naturalhistory/devensian.htm

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current
calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet
and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens,
we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust
to by physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy
products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had
a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones.
As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of
17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 '
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408151817.2289f2ab@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<cfoq7d$feu$1@kermit.esat.net>...
<..>
> > Human teeth are actually like
> > the fruit-eating monkeys, and the human mouth is best suited for
> > eating succulent fruits and vegetables. It would be extremely
> > difficult, if not impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the
> > aid of fork and knife.
>
> Ahaha you are so full of shit its amazing.

"All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)

> On top of that ridiculous statment

It's ridiculous of you to say that. We all know it's true.

> do you realize how much more absurd it sounds coming right
> after the previous post detailing the severe carnivorous aspects of
> chimps.

Carnivorous behaviour can arise in nutritionally-poor environments.
As Gombe National Park is a limited, highly primate-populated
habitat, competition for ripe fruits is likely to be relatively high.

'..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about
16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of
Lake Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up
to form the Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by
the dense forest.
...
The dominating vegetation in this park include the open
deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on
the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique
in Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of
Chimpanzee, Baboons, and a large number of bird species.
Other species seen here are colobus, blue and red tail
monkeys. ..'
http://www.utalii.com/gombe%20national%20park.htm

'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets
was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75
days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made
direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour
study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed
"no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although
they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81).

In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967,
Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures
of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees
did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed
meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete,
or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the
chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes
change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the
Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima,
revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees
ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood."
(p.87).

From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati
Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published
in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates,
avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools
that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found
the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only
14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal
foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal
variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding
preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps
groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt
observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.
...
Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below
in his evidence.

# the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive
systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases
# the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
# rarity of pertinent field observations
# the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey
animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments
of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to
be much more common)

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides
both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course,
to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have
never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter
that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
...'
http://web.archive.org/web/20030301130319/http://venus.nildram.co.uk/v...nmc/pol

> > '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
> > plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
> > threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
> > will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
>
> Again unbelievably full of shit. What a false statment that is. You
> embody animal rights extremism at its worst. Total disregard for
> reality.

lol. Let's replace the link, and I suggest you follow it pronto.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

>There are many population groups who have lived in perfect
> health completely free of modern degenerative conditions on diets
> based on up to 80% or more from animal source foods.

Supporting evidence?

> At the same time
> there are populations(not many howerver do to the fact humans prefer
> and thrive off animal source foods)

False.

> that live close to or completely
> on all-plant diets and have extremely poor health AND short life
> spans.

Supporting evidence?

> How easily this fact is ignored by you people.

You have it all backward..

> One does not go to a tobacco company for health information on
> smoking, nor does one go to an animal rights extremist for health
> information on food. That is common sense. Information from either
> source can simply not be taken seriously. It is called conflict of
> interest.

You ignore or ridicule any information that you don't like,
regardless of the source.
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

You really are despearate arent you. Thats just sad. Do you really
think anyone takes you serious? Like I said before one does not get
their information about smoking from a tabacco company. The same
applies to you and other animal rights fanatics. That is obvious why
dont you get it.
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

"pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
>
> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and chicken,
> but otherwise a very interesting and informative article;
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24601

Not to those of us who are members of PETA! That is *P*eople *E*ating
*T*asty *A*nimals.
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

On 15 Aug 2004 18:55:16 -0700, rangerhasten.RemoveThis@yahoo.com (Wolfbrother) wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote in message news:<k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:21:21 +0100, "pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
>> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
>> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>
>That kind of reality is simply deflected by the extreme ideological
>barriers surrounding animal rights fanatics.

Over the years they have taught me that they really only care
about promoting veg*nism, and will do so regardless of human
influence on animals, even in situations where consuming
vegetable products causes more animal deaths than consuming
some types of meat.

>Bones and organs also
>provide an exelent source of food heavily relied apon by ancient
>humans and their ancestors. Not sure if you implied that in the 500
>pounds of meat.

No, I was being extremely generous to the veg*n side. It also
didn't include the products which veg*ns contribute to that
include animal ingredients, and/or cause animal deaths. I don't
remember if I've posted the following in this thread or not, but
the following are things people should keep in mind when they
think about veg*nism--and especially when considering whether
or not to become some type of veg*n--so the more this type of
info is presented the better, imo:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.

>> _________________________________________________________
>> [...]
>> In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes witnessing the largest massacre
>> ever documented at Gombe. Two hunting parties with a total of 33 chimps - two of
>> them swollen females - converged on a group of 25 colobus monkeys. The male chimps
>> chased and shook the monkeys from trees, eventually killing seven. Before Stanford's
>> eyes, a large male chimp plucked a baby monkey from a branch and "dispatched it with
>> a bite to the skull." The chimp then approached a swollen female with the carcass,
>> dangling it just out of her reach until she presented her swelling. Only after copulation
>> did the male share his food.
>>
>> "An important issue today in human male-female relationships is control," Stanford said.
>> "What we're seeing is the evolutionary roots of this kind of mutual attempt to manipulate
>> and control. Male chimps are using meat to control female behavior and female chimps
>> are making use of their reproductive system to get meat."
>> [...]
>> http://www.usc.edu/ext-relations/news_service/chronicle_html/1995.02.0...tml/chi
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>Some very fascinating stuff there thanks for the post. It is amazing
>how they can mirror the basic aspects of what we call "human nature"
>in such a pure form. And to observe that in a non human animal is
>remarkable.

It is pretty interesting. Here is another one, in case you're interested in
reading a bit more about it:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
We might look toward the social aspects of chimpanzee societies to understand their hunting
patterns. One clue to the significance of meat in a chimpanzee society comes from the observation
that males do most of the hunting. During the past decade, adult and adolescent males made over 90
percent of the kills at Gombe. Although females occasionally hunt, they more often receive a share of
meat from the male who captured the prey.

This state of affairs sets up an interesting dynamic between males and females. Sometimes a begging
female does not receive any meat until after the male copulates with her (even while clutching the
freshly killed carcass). Some other observations are also telling. Not only does the size of a hunting
party increase in proportion to the number of estrous females present, but the presence of an estrous
female independently increases the likelihood that there will be a hunt. Such observations suggest that
male chimpanzees use meat as a tool to gain access to sexually receptive females. But females appear
to be getting reproductive benefits as well: William McGrew of Miami University in Ohio showed that
female chimpanzees at Gombe that receive generous shares of meat produce more offspring that
survive.

The distribution of the kill to other male chimpanzees also hints at another social role for meat. The
Japanese primatologist Toshisada Nishida and his colleagues in the Mahale Mountains showed that
the alpha male Ntilogi distributes meat to his allies but consistently withholds it from his rivals. Such
behavior, they suggest, reveals that meat can be used as a political tool in chimpanzee society.
Further studies should tell us whether such actions have consequences for alliances between males.
[...]
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/Stanford-full.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and this about a book on the subject, in case anyone would want
to get a copy, or see if their local library could borrow one for a while:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
What makes humans unique? What makes us the most successful animal
species inhabiting the Earth today? Most scientists agree that the key to our
success is the unusually large size of our brains. Our large brains gave us our
exceptional thinking capacity and led to humans' other distinctive
characteristics, including advanced communication, tool use, and walking on
two legs. Or was it the other way around? Did the challenges faced by early
humans push the species toward communication, tool use, and walking and,
in doing so, drive the evolutionary engine toward a large brain? In this
provocative new book, Craig Stanford presents an intriguing alternative to
this puzzling question--an alternative grounded in recent, groundbreaking
scientific observation. According to Stanford, what made humans unique
was meat. Or, rather, the desire for meat, the eating of meat, the hunting of
meat, and the sharing of meat.

Based on new insights into the behavior of chimps and other great apes, our
now extinct human ancestors, and existing hunting and gathering societies,
Stanford shows the remarkable role that meat has played in these societies.
Perhaps because it provides a highly concentrated source of
protein--essential for the development and health of the brain--meat is
craved by many primates, including humans. This craving has given meat
genuine power--the power to cause males to form hunting parties and
organize entire cultures around hunting. And it has given men the power to
manipulate and control women in these cultures. Stanford argues that the
skills developed and required for successful hunting and especially the
sharing of meat spurred the explosion of human brain size over the past
200,000 years. He then turns his attention to the ways meat is shared within
primate and human societies to argue that this all-important activity has had
profound effects on basic social structures that are still felt today.

Sure to spark a lively debate, Stanford's argument takes the form of an
extended essay on human origins. The book's small format, helpful
illustrations, and moderate tone will appeal to all readers interested in those
fundamental questions about what makes us human.
[...]
http://www.pup.princeton.edu/titles/6549.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 

"tcomeau" <tunderbar.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...

<lots of silly ad hominem>

> Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken swipes at Atkins in
> the past.

Who hasn't..
www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat