Welcome to PetForumz.com!
FAQFAQ      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

The True Cost Of Meat

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights RSS
Next:  UK politics  
Author Message
pearl

External


Since: Jul 01, 2003
Posts: 632



(Msg. 46) Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:26 pm
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>animals>ethics>vegetarian, others (more info?)

"Hugh" <mightyhugh RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:412b18ae.6376054@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:54:34 +0100, "pearl" <tea RemoveThis @signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:

You need to be asked to indicate snips?

> >> >> Humans are
> >> >> OMNIVORES, capable of eating a large assortment of foods including
> >> >> meats, vegetables, seeds, berries, fish, grubs, and ice cream.
> >> >
> >> We are not omnivores.
> >
> >True, humans are obligate frugivores.
> >
> >> Our digestive tract is that of a typical carnivore,
> >
> >Wrong!

Why did you snip the length of digestive tract argument? Wrong?

> Once it's passed through our stomach, our food is mixed with bile and
> a number of digestive enzymes. The bile acts to emulsify fats,
> breaking them up into small globules that can more easily be acted on
> by the digestive enzymes. These enzymes break down fats into fatty
> acids and protein into amino acids, which are then absorbed through
> the wall of the small intestine.

'The hydrochloric acid concentrations of various species are an
additional determinant of their natural diet. A carnivores gastric
juice is highly acidic, serving to prevent putrefaction while flesh
undergoes digestion. Plant-eaters however, secrete a much less
concentrated and less abundant quantity of hydrochloric acid
that does not curtail the bacterial decomposition of flesh: a
process that begins at the animals moment of death. Flesh is
digested in an acid medium within the stomach. Humans secrete
a very weak concentration of hydrochloric acid relative to the
carnivore, and little of the protein-splitting enzyme pepsin.
Carnivorous animals have concentrations of these flesh-digesting
secretions 1100% greater than do humans. Lions can rip off and
swallow your hand whole and quite readily digest it.'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

> All this takes place without any help
> from bacteria, which means that we don't require bacteria to aid in
> our digestion. The slurry left behind after all the nutrients have
> been removed then passes into the large intestine, where most of the
> water is removed to produce a consolidated fecal mass which is then
> excreted. We don't absorb nutrients in our large intestine, just
> water. There are bacteria in the large intestine, but they are
> putrefactive, not fermentative. The digestive process of other
> carnivores works in exactly the same way.

No. See the part you snipped, re: gut length and structure,
and above, and..

'According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction bacteria
in the large intestine convert amino acids from undigested protein
into toxic amines or ptomaines, such as cadaverine (from lysine),
agmatine (from arginine), tyramine (from tyroseine), putrescine
(from orithine) and histamine (from histidine). And these amines
are "powerful vasopressor substances". Tryptophan undergoes a
series of reactions to form indole and methylindole (skatole), which
produces the distinctive putrefying faecal smell of a high protein diet.
The sulphur-containing amino acids (cysteine and methionine) are
transformed into mercaptans such as ethyl and methyl mercaptan
as well as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). All these compounds are very
poisonous and unpleasant. Phosphatidylcholine, only found in meats,
breaks down into choline and the related toxic amines such as neurine.
This is evidence that meat is not well digested. Herbivores do not
produce putrid excrement, but "dung" instead, some still contains
sufficient nutrients to warrant eating again, as with rabbits.

However, a meal of fruit with similar food energy value would yield
about 2.6 g of protein of which 0.4 g would be wasted. A high protein
food at least doubles the quantity of protein that is potentially subject
to putrefication in the bowels. Worse still, the reason that plant protein
is less digestible is because it is found in the tough cellulose walls of
plant cells which pass through the gut undigested if not sufficiently
masticated. These proteins are not available as soil for putrefying
bacteria in the bowel. Animal protein wastes are highly bioavailable
to putrefying bowel bacteria since they have no cellulose cell wall.
It seems that only putrefying bacteria benefit from the "highly digestible"
animal proteins.'
http://tinyurl.com/3t7qn

Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) Vol5, No 1: 2-9
Intestinal flora and human health
Tomotari Mitsuoka, DVM, PhD
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
...
Other intestinal bacteria produce substances that are harmful to
the host, such as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic
substances. When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines,
essential nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful
substances rises. These substances may not have an immediate
detrimental effect on the host but they are thought to be
contributing factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney
disease, hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
Little is known regarding which intestinal bacteria are responsible
for these effects. A number of factors can change the balance of
intestinal flora in favour of harmful bacteria. These include
peristalsis disorders, surgical operations of stomach or small
intestine, liver or kidney diseases, pernicious anaemia, cancer,
radiation or antibiotic therapies, immune disorders, emotional
stress, poor diet and ageing.
.....
The intestinal flora may play an important role in the causation
of cancer and ageing

Dietary factors are considered important environmental risk
determinants for colorectal cancer development. From
epidemiological observations, a high fat intake is associated
positively and a high fibre intake negatively with colorectal cancer.
This is thought to occur by the following mechanisms. From food
components in the gastrointestinal tract, organisms produce
various carcinogens from the dietary components and endogenous
substances, detoxify carcinogens, or enhance the host's immune
function, which results in changes in the incidence of cancers. The
ingestion of large amounts of animal fat enhances bile secretion,
causing an increase in bile acid and cholesterol in the intestine.
These increased substances are converted by intestinal bacteria
into secondary bile acids, their derivatives, aromatic polycyclic
hydrocarbons, oestrogen and epoxides derivatives that are
related to carcinogenesis. Various tryptophan metabolites (indole,
skatole, 3-hydroxykinurenine, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, etc.)
phenols, amines, and nitroso compounds produced by intestinal
bacteria from protein also participate in carcinogenesis (Fig. 5).
...
Figure 5. Relationships among diet, intestinal bacteria and cancer.

Recent epidemiological studies have revealed that insufficient intake
of dietary fibre is associated with high incidences of Western
diseases such as colorectal cancer, obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
and hypertension. Ingested dietary fibre causes increased volume
of faeces, dilution of noxious substances, and shortening of the
transit time of intestinal contents, resulting in early excretion of
noxious substances such as carcinogens produced by intestinal
bacteria. '
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN/Vol5/Num1/51p02.htm#top

> Herbivores (and also omnivores) digest food in a completely different
> way. They mix the food with fermentative bacteria and have a long,
> convoluted intestine that gives the bacteria plenty of time to break
> down cellulose, the main constituent of fibrous plant matter. Only
> after the fermentative bacteria have had time to digest the cellulose
> does the animal pump in its own digestive enzymes. Herbivores get much
> of their nutrition from digesting these bacteria (which have by then
> converted the cellulose into fatty acids and protein) rather than from
> the plant matter itself.
>
> Fermentative digestion is essential if ordinary fibrous plant tissues
> such as leaves and twigs are to be digested. Because we don't have
> fermentative digestion, we are restricted to a very narrow range of
> plant-sourced foods (those high in starches or oils and low in
> cellulose, such as certain tubers, grains, fruits and nuts).

An ample variety of edible plant foods to meet our needs and wants.

> In other words our digestive system works in exactly the same way as
> that of most carnivores.

Nope. Understand there are more feeding-type adaptations
than herbivore, carnivore and omnivore. We are frugivores.

> Our inability to digest cellulose means that
> we cannot correctly be classified as omnivores. We are carnivores.

Absolutely not.

> The
> fact that we can eat a very limited range of plant-sourced foods means
> nothing -

Oh dear.

> other carnivores can and do eat fruits when the opportunity
> arises.

Even if true, so what.

> ...
> > animal foods
> >decrease the motility of the human intestine and putrefaction
> >almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by foul smelling stools
> >and flatulence), resulting in the release of many poisonous
> >by-products as the low-fiber food passes through, ever so
> >slowly.
>
> In my experience, the foods most likely to cause flatulence and the
> emission of foul-smelling gases are all vegetarian foods, such as
> beans, peanuts, lager and crisps. I don't seem to fart at all when
> eating meat on its own. So if gaseous emissions and foul smells are
> any guide, vegetarian foods putrefy far more in the human intestine
> than meat does.

But you're overlooking what's already sitting in your colon.

> The real reason carnivores have much shorter intestines than
> herbivores is that meat is much easier to digest than plant-sourced
> foods. Carnivores quite simply don't need a long intestine, and having
> one would weigh them down and reduce their agility. Like other
> carnivores, we also have a short intestine - not quite as short as
> that of long-time carnivores such as lions and wolves, but far shorter
> than that of herbivores nonetheless.
>
> We use traps and weapons rather
> than superior agility and speed to capture our prey, which means that
> our intestines can be bulkier than that of other predators without
> affecting our hunting ability.

Carnivores need a (very) short, smooth-walled intestine. See above.

> > In humans, eventual constipation may develop on
> >a meat-centered diet.
>
> You can eat an all-meat diet without becoming constipated. Certain
> societies such as the Inuit have lived on an all-meat diet for
> thousands of years without dying out from chronic constipation and
> putrefying bowels.

"Really now. Virtually every credible account you will ever read
that describes the Eskimo way of life will describe them eating
vegetable matter and great efforts they go to in collecting it
during the months when it is available.

(Plants) made up a *significant* portion of the diet in all Arctic
and sub-Arctic regions. Specifically they made up a significant
portion of Eskimo diets. There is one small area in central
Canada where that was less true than in all other areas, and the
main point to consider is that even in that area Eskimos did eat
vegetable matter on a regular basis.

You've never seen berries preserved in seal oil, or dried leaves
to make tea, or eaten soup made from a mouse nest, or picked
rose hips in the winter, or seen willows on the tundra, or eaten
salmon berries with Pilot Bread?"
- Floyd L. Davidson, Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska).

> > Colon cancer is also common, both
> >of which are rare or non-existent on a high-fiber diet
> >centered around raw fruits and vegetables. '
>
> There are some studies that appear to show an association between meat
> and colon cancer, but then there are others where colon cancer is
> associated with starches, sugars and polyunsaturated vegetable oils. I
> guess the results depend on whether the authors of the study are
> biased towards vegetarianism or not.

Let's see your studies.

> >> it is much shorter than that of herbivores and is
> >> completely unable to digest cellulose.
> >
> >Which is why we need molars- to mash and liquidize our food,
> >breaking open plants' cellulose cell-walls, to get at the nutrients.
> >
> You need to chew fibrous plant matter for a very long time to break
> open a high percentage of the cell walls - herbivores typically spend
> most of their waking hours chewing. They also get most of their
> nutrition from fermentative bacteria, rather than from the plant
> tissues themselves.

Vegetarians and vegans don't spend most of the day chewing, silly.

> >> Herbivores and true omnivores
> >> (such as the rat) have a digesive system that allows fermentative
> >> bacteria to break down cellulose. They derive energy and nutrients
> >> from these fermentative bacteria, which allows them to survive on a
> >> diet of fibrous plant matter alone if need be. We don't have this
> >> capability, which means that most vegetative matter is completely
> >> indigestible for us.
> >
> >There is sufficient variety of plant-foods that we can and do consume.
> >
> >> It also means that even the limited plant foods
> >> we can eat don't give us all the nutrients we need, people who are
> >> forced to live on vegetarian foods alone without animal protein become
> >> severely malnourished.
> >
> >False.
>
> During famines, people often can't obtain meat at all and are forced
> to subsist on starchy plant foods alone. They go on to develop a
> condition called kwashiorkor, which is characterised by a pot belly,
> emaciated appearance, stunted growth, mental retardation etc.
> Eventually if they don't get meat they die. Famine victims typically
> don't die of starvation, they die of malnutrition.

They get malnutrition from lack of FOOD, not meat!

> We can't survive without animal protein.

Millions of long-term veg*ns, myself included, prove you're wrong.

> Herbivores can, because they can synthesize a
> wider range of amino acids and essential fatty acids than we can and
> because they get nutients from the fermentative bacteria in their
> digestive tract (which we don't have). Vegetarians and vegans in
> western societies get round this by either consuming animal protein in
> the form of dairy, eggs or fish, or by taking supplements.

Vegans don't consume any animal protein, and any deficiency of
B12 is due to modern agricultural and medical practices, not diet.

 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
pearl

External


Since: Jul 01, 2003
Posts: 632



(Msg. 47) Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:49 pm
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408241426.6de3c3de@posting.google.com...
> Once again great post. It is too bad that when it comes to reality
> checks like this ideological extremist fanatics like Pearl just cover
> their ears and say lalalal. Another important fact is that not only
> is animal protein most easily digested by humans but RAW animal
> protein is even more efficiently so. Experiments such as those done
> by Francis Pottinger also show the benefits of raw animal foods to
> carnivors. I think the transition of the human diet from containing a
> large percentage of raw food to our modern diet of almost 100% cooked
> food is a big reason in the degeneration of health in our modern
> society. It would be nice if you could comment on that since im sure
> you are more knowledgeable than I.

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

EOS.

 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
Wolfbrother

External


Since: Aug 15, 2004
Posts: 8



(Msg. 48) Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:03 am
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

And what do you want me to do with that BS? Do you think that proves
something? That meat is bad? That it causes colon cancer? You need
a reality check. Other observations disprove such foolish notions.
If a theory does not hold up under all observations it must be
discarded. That joke of a study is worthless.






Writers on women's issues may denigrate animal foods with insouciance
but, in fact, the scientific literature offers very little in the way
of long-term studies on the value of a vegetarian diet. Dr. Russell
Smith, a statistician, analyzed the existing studies on vegetariansim1
and discovered that while there have been ample investigations which
show, quite unsurprisingly, that vegetarian diets significantly
decrease blood cholesterol levels, studies evaluating the effects of
vegetarian diets on mortalities continue to be few in number. In fact,
Smith speculated that the available data from the many existing
prospective studies are being shelved because they reveal no benefits
of vegetarianism. For example, mortality statistics are strangely
absent from the Tromso Heart Study in Norway which showed that
vegetarians had slightly lower blood cholesterol levels than
nonvegetarians.2

In a review of some 3,000 articles in the scientific literature, Smith
found only two that compared mortality data for vegetarians and
nonvegetarians. One was a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs).
Two very poor analyses of the data were published in 1984, one by H.
A. Kahn and one by D. A. Snowden.3 The publication by Kahn rather
arbitrarily threw out most of the data and considered only subjects
who indicated very infrequent or very frequent consumption of the
various foods. They then computed "odds ratios" which showed that
mortality increased as meat or poultry consumption increased (but not
for cheese, eggs, milk or fat attached to meat.)

When Smith analyzed total mortality rates from the study as a function
of the frequencies of consuming cheese, meat, milk, eggs and fat
attached to meat, he found that the total death rate decreased as the
frequencies of consuming cheese, eggs, meat and milk increased. He
called the Kahn publication "yet another example of negative results
which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically
correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives."

The analysis by Snowden published mortality data for coronary heart
disease (CHD), rather than total mortality data, for the 21-year SDA
study. Since he did not eliminate the intermediate frequencies of
consumption data on meat, but did so with eggs, cheese and milk, this
represents further evidence that both Kahn and Snowden based their
results on arbitrary, after-the-fact analysis and not on pre-planned
analyses contingent on the design of their questionnaire. Snowden
computed relative risk ratios and concluded that CHD mortality
increased as meat consumption increased. However, the rates of
increase were trivial at 0.04 percent and 0.01 percent respectively
for males and females. Snowden, like Kahn, also found no relationship
between frequency of consumption of eggs, cheese and milk and CHD
mortality "risk."

Citing the SDA study, other writers have claimed that nonvegetarians
have higher all-cause mortality rates than vegetarians4 and that,
"There seems little doubt that SDA men at least experience less total
heart disease than do others. . ."5 The overpowering motivation to
show that a diet low in animal products protects against CHD (and
other diseases) is no better exemplified than in the SDA study and its
subsequent analysis. While Kahn and Snowden both used the term
"substantial" to describe the effects of meat consumption on
mortalities, it is more obvious that "trivial" is the appropriate
descriptor. It is also interesting that throughout their analyses,
they brushed aside their totally negative findings on foods which have
much greater quantities of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol.

The second study was published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982.6 It was
shown that annual CHD death rate among vegetarians was only 0.01
percent lower than that of nonvegetarians, yet the authors indicated
that the difference was "substantial."

The table below presents the annual death rates for vegetarians and
nonvegetarians which Smith derived from the raw data in the seven-year
Burr and Sweetnam study. As can be seen, the "marked" difference
between vegetarian and nonvegetarian men in Ischemic Heart Disease
(IHD) was only .11 percent. The difference in all-cause death rate was
in the opposite direction, a fact that Burr and Sweetnam failed to
mention. Moreover, the IHD and all-cause death rates among females
were actually slightly greater for heart disease and substantially
greater for all causes in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians.


Annual Death Rates of
Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians

Male vegetarians
Male nonvegetarians
Female vegetarians
Female nonvegetarians
IHD
..22%
..33%
..14%
..10%
All-Cause
..93%
..88%
..86%
..54%





These results are absolutely not supportive of the proposition that
vegetarianism protects against either heart disease or all-cause
mortalities. In fact, they indicate that vegetarianism is more
dangerous for women than for men.

The claim that vegetarians have lower rates of cancer compared to
nonvegetarians has been squarely contradicted by a 1994 study
comparing vegetarians with the general population.7 Researchers found
that although vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists have the same or
slightly lower cancer rates for some sites, for example 91 percent
instead of 100 percent for breast cancer, the rates for numerous other
cancers are much higher than the general US population standard,
especially cancers of the reproductive tract. SDA females had more
Hodgkins disease (131 percent), more brain cancer (118 percent), more
malignant melanoma (171 percent), more uterine cancer (191 percent),
more cervical cancer (180 percent) and more ovarian cancer (129
percent) on average.


http://www.westonaprice.org/women/wise_choices.html
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
jt

External


Since: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 1



(Msg. 49) Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:02 am
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On 24 Aug 2004 15:26:22 -0700, rangerhasten DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Wolfbrother)
wrote:

>Once again great post. It is too bad that when it comes to reality
>checks like this ideological extremist fanatics like Pearl just cover
>their ears and say lalalal.

This coming from one of the most closed minded and ignorant fanatics
around. One whose only source for information is a creepy cultist
webpage offering nothing more than conspiracy theories on why all
generally accepted facts on nutrition are wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
pearl

External


Since: Jul 01, 2003
Posts: 632



(Msg. 50) Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:23 pm
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408250103.40fa6db3@posting.google.com...
> And what do you want me to do with that BS? Do you think that proves
> something? That meat is bad? That it causes colon cancer? You need
> a reality check. Other observations disprove such foolish notions.
> If a theory does not hold up under all observations it must be
> discarded. That joke of a study is worthless.

Your 'review' requires an update.

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

<..>
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
George Conklin

External


Since: Aug 15, 2004
Posts: 7



(Msg. 51) Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:41 pm
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:cgi00c$10t$1@kermit.esat.net...
> "Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> 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
>
> <..>
>
>

> news:6eb8f6eb.0408250103.40fa6db3@posting.google.com...
> > And what do you want me to do with that BS? Do you think that proves
> > something? That meat is bad? That it causes colon cancer? You need
> > a reality check. Other observations disprove such foolish notions.
> > If a theory does not hold up under all observations it must be
> > discarded. That joke of a study is worthless.
>
> Your 'review' requires an update.

It is estimated that people on their very best behavior can add about 2
years to their life expectancy, based on comparisons of Utah and Nevada. Or
maybe it only SEEMS like 2 years....-:)
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
Laurie

External


Since: Jan 17, 2004
Posts: 13



(Msg. 52) Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:30 am
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com...

> one meal of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> derived from grass raised cattle.
"is likely"?? You have been making this crackpot claim for YEARS, and I
have been challenging you to produce some scientifically-credible evidence
supporting it for YEARS, yet you have failed to do so. Any honest person
would stop making unsupportable claims in public, but not you.
Now, how about some science that supports your claim?? Or demonstrate a
little intellectual integrity and politely withdraw it.

> Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
The substitution of mono crop "grass" for the original ecosystem caused
many wildlife deaths which you intentionally ignore, in addition to drastic
reduction in plant biodiversity.

> ... better wildlife habitat, ...
"Disturbance of wetlands by cattle has negatively affected other
amphibian species and may have a negative impact on the Plains Spadefoot
(Cottonwood Consultants 1986). In British Columbia, cattle prints in
breeding wetlands trap Great Basin Spadefoot tadpoles preventing them from
reaching deeper areas of the wetland as it dries (Orchard 1992). High
turbidity, with high nutrient loading from cattle feces, resulting in
greatly reduced dissolved oxygen content has been linked to complete
die-offs of Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) at Suffield National
Wildlife Area and may have impacted other amphibian species (A. Didiuk,
unpubl. data). However, Klassen (1998) found that Plains Spadefoots near
Milk River successfully reproduced in wetlands that were heavily disturbed
by cattle."
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/status/reports/spadefoot/lim.html

"The arrival of more people and cattle, along with the arrival of
commercialized farming, marked the beginning of the end for native prairies
in the basin. Destruction of the native prairie can be attributed to three
main factors: plowing, overgrazing, and fire control."
http://www.mdc.missouri.gov/fish/watershed/nodaway/landuse/280lutxt.htm

"... overgrazing and cultivation were the most dramatic disruptions of
the natural prairie ecosystem, ..."
"Grazing areas have often been subject to spraying with herbicides to
kill broadleaf plants in the misguided belief that pure grass stands make
better forage for cattle. This greatly reduces the plant biodiversity of the
prairie, which though dominated by grasses, contains literally hundreds of
other, non-grass species."
http://accad.osu.edu/womenandtech/2004/research%20pages/Loss/loss.html

"the disastrous effects that livestock grazing has on native wildlife
populations. For example:
a.. Grazing domestic livestock on arid lands is the chief factor
responsible for the decline of native trout in the West. Of 32 fish species
native to Arizona, 5 are extinct and 21 of the remaining 27 are officially
listed as Threatened or Endangered, or are being considered for listing
all due largely to ranching.

b.. Perching bird and songbird populations have been decimated. For
example, at Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge birdcounts were 5-7
times higher on an ungrazed area of the Refuge, compared to surrounding
grazed lands.

c.. Wild turkey and other upland "game" birds such as Ruffed grouse, Blue
grouse and Lesser and Greater prairie-chickens have also suffered, as have
Gambel's quail, Montezuma quail, and Scaled quail. Livestock have destroyed
their food sources, cover, and essential understory vegetation. Intensive
reintroduction and recovery efforts for the wild turkey have restored it to
some areas, though generally only to about 10%-20% of its original
population.

d.. Displaced by domestic livestock, elk populations are estimated at 10%
of their original number; pronghorn at 5%. "
http://www.mikehudak.com/Articles/CowsOnDole9801.html

A Declaration from the RangeNet 2000 Symposium
http://www.rangenet.org/rn2k/declaration.html

"23 of the 29 state-list threatened avian species in Arizona are
impacted adversely by grazing according to the Arizona Game and Fish
Department."
http://www.rangenet.org/directory/witzemanr/cactus%20Feb.%202001.htm

"Service. Each year taxpayers subsidize approximately $100 million to
support grazing on public lands,"
"According to numerous authorities, livestock grazing has had and is
having serious impacts on the varied resources of these federal lands."
"As a result of being consumed beyond their ability to renew themselves,
vegetative species are disappearing from our ranges, to be replaced by
unpalatable weeds, thorny shrubs and unproductive woodlands (BLM, 1989) as
well as by exotic, non-native species (D'Antonio, et al., 1992). A 1994 U.S.
Forest Service report concluded that livestock grazing was the 4th major
cause of overall species endangerment and the 2nd major cause of plant
endangerment (Belsky et al. 2002). An analysis of 54 scientific papers on
the impacts of grazing on lands in the west between 1945 and 1996 found that
total vegetation biomass (weight of vegetation per hectare of land) was
detrimentally affected by grazing in comparison to non-grazed plots in 91%
of the observations made by biologists (Jones, 2002)." "Cattle can denude
land of vegetation causing greater soil erosion and they can compact soils
with their hooves resulting in reduced water infiltration. The removal of
vegetation also exposes the ground to greater solar radiation increasing the
evaporation of moisture (Wuerthner and Matteson, 2002), leaving those plants
not eaten by cattle at increased risk of dying from lack of water. "
"The thin ribbons of green vegetation that border water sources and
provide cover and water vital to the survival of virtually all kinds of
wildlife in the water-poor West are becoming endangered as livestock use of
many of these areas is changing, reducing or eliminating the vegetation on
their borders, trampling their banks, degrading water quality, and
increasing water temperatures"
"In fact, grazing has damaged 80% of western streams and riparian areas
in the U.S. (Belsky et al., 2002). The combined action of cattle trampling
soils and consuming riparian plants collapses stream banks resulting in
sediment loads and channel widening. In addition, the dramatic change in the
physical characteristics of affected streams modifies or terminates the
natural flood regime thus inhibiting the development of cottonwood and
willow gallery forests (Kauffman, 2002). The loss of vegetation and
compaction of soil keeps rainwater from entering the soil and instead,
during storms, causes the water to rush into streams generating high peak
flows that erode stream banks and deepen channels. As a result, water tables
are lowered and less water is available in the soil for the late summer,
potentially drying out the riparian area (Belsky et al., 2002). "
"Waste from livestock is a major cause of pollution, pathogenic bacteria
blooms, and reduced oxygen levels in streams. One cow excretes between 30
and 40 pounds of urine and between 29 and 70 pounds of manure a day that
often is directly deposited in streams. This waste raises the levels of
nitrogen and phosphorous in the aquatic environment causing algae blooms
that lower dissolved oxygen levels threatening fish and other organisms. The
loss of shade from cattle trampling and grazing on riparian vegetation also
raises the water temperature and reduces water oxygen levels (Carter, 2002).
Fish have become increasingly threatened from grazing throughout the West,
including in particular native trout (Fleishner, 1994) and salmon species
(U.S. Forest Service and BLM, 1994). A single cow's daily waste can also
introduce harmful bacteria into waterways. Such waste can contain up to 5.4
billion fecal coliform bacteria and 31 billion fecal streptoccus bacteria.
In a 1997 study of a creek in Utah's Wasatch - Cache National Forest, 0 to
16 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters of water were found upstream
of a cattle-grazing area. In stark comparison, 201 fecal coliform bacteria
per 100 milliliters were found downstream of the grazing area. In some small
tributaries the count was found up around 1400 fecal coliform bacteria per
milliliter of water (Carter, 2002). "
"In many cases, the wildlife are losing and their numbers are declining
(Flather, et al. 1994). Among the species that have been and are being
affected by grazing are prairie dogs, desert tortoise, Sonoran pronghorn
antelope, and numerous bird species, including game birds such as
sharp-tailed grouse and sagehens (Nowakowski, et al., 1982; U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1991).
Bison, bighorn sheep, deer, antelope, and elk are threatened by competition
with domestic cattle. Unlike these native grazers which wander from area to
area, cattle will concentrate in place, particularly riparian areas, for
long periods of time grazing on grasses and trampling on most vegetation.
This greatly reduces the suitability of the land for natural grazers and the
loss of grasses and shrubs eliminates important cover for deer and antelope
fawns and elk calves from predators (Willers, 2002).

Grazing has also negatively affected Neotropical migratory land birds and
their habitats (Bock, et al., 1993). The North American Breeding Bird Survey
has shown that grassland birds are undergoing declines that are more
widespread than any other group of birds. Cowbird populations have increased
dramatically as a result of the expansion of livestock grazing due to the
cowbird's preference to feed on insects flushed out by cattle. Cowbirds -
which lay their eggs in the nests of other birds which usually raise cowbird
nestlings at the expense of their own - have negatively impacted populations
of other birds such as the plumbeous vireo and the willow flycatcher in
areas where the cowbirds were once uncommon or absent. Grazing also removes
refuges from predators for birds and favorable habitats for roosting and
nesting by reducing the height and ground cover of grasses (Bock, 2002). "

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/grazing_enviro_effects.pdf

So, once again, your crackpot claims are refuted by real science. Any
chance you will stop lying, soon??

Laurie
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
dh_ld

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 586



(Msg. 53) Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:16 pm
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:30:10 -1000, "Laurie" <no.TakeThisOut@spam.com> wrote:

>
><dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com...
>
>> one meal of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
>> derived from grass raised cattle.
> "is likely"?? You have been making this crackpot claim for YEARS, and I
>have been challenging you to produce some scientifically-credible evidence
>supporting it for YEARS, yet you have failed to do so. Any honest person
>would stop making unsupportable claims in public, but not you.
> Now, how about some science that supports your claim?? Or demonstrate a
>little intellectual integrity and politely withdraw it.
>
>> Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
> The substitution of mono crop "grass" for the original ecosystem caused
>many wildlife deaths

Once, unlike your mono crop soybeans which cause many wildlife deaths
every season.

>which you intentionally ignore,

For grazing they happen once. For veggies they happen when the
ecosystem is substituted to begin with, plus every season after that.
More for veggies, not less, and you have proven that you don't care.

>in addition to drastic
>reduction in plant biodiversity.
>
>> ... better wildlife habitat, ...
_________________________________________________________
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pastures/Grazing/Systems/Techni...s/MIG/W
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
rick etter

External


Since: Jun 18, 2004
Posts: 163



(Msg. 54) Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 2:44 am
Post subject: Re: The True Cost Of Meat [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Laurie" <no DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:41d305fb$1_4@alt.athenanews.com...
>
> <dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com...
>
>> one meal of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
>> derived from grass raised cattle.
> "is likely"?? You have been making this crackpot claim for YEARS, and
> I have been challenging you to produce some scientifically-credible
> evidence supporting it for YEARS, yet you have failed to do so.]
\

Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/news/archives/ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/agriculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/default.cfm?exec=Page.View&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/Licensed2Killexecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy/project_fact_sheets/500-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/envImp/04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public_Affairs/Policy_Statements/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/articles/2004/cleanup012012004.html



Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html






snippage....
 >> Stay informed about: The True Cost Of Meat 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
Related Topics:
RSPB spend 6,000guineas in public donations, to buy bull f.. - Did you know the RSPB produce and sell meat and livestock? Is this what we give our donations for? Did you know RSPB are also partners with many shooting\hunting groups, who provide sport shooting to the hoity toity? On Islay it owns the 2000 hectare....

MMMMMMMMMMMM MEAT! - If god didn't want us to eat animals, then he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

The Case Against Meat. - Here you are. Never mind the quality feel the width, and it's all true. Sent to me by an active ARA. The Case Against Meat Evidence Shows that Our Meat-Based Diet is Bad for the Environment, Aggravates Global Hunger, Brutalizes Animals and..

Declare independence from meat - Declare independence from meat What ever happened to the good old days, when the Fourth of July was just Independence Day and the worst things we had to fear were traffic jams and wayward fireworks? Recent findings by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control...

Meat eaters contribute to life and death - · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed. The animals...
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]