.jpg) |
| Today's voice belongs to Guest Columnist William Silveira |
I read Jim Rix's November 20 post, "What is the cause of Heart Disease," and the comments readers made on it. To the whole discussion about avoiding meat and dairy products for reasons of health, I would add that there are other reasons, as well, to forgo mass-produced meat products.
There was an article in the Fresno Bee on December 9 (the first of a 3-part series and available online) that detailed the health hazards associated with the marketing of beef in this country. I had already gotten the big picture by seeing Robert Kenner's 2008 film, Food, Inc. However, the article in the Bee focuses on the health hazards of processed meat. The huge and quasi-monopolistic production and marketing of food products in this country is yet another example of the age-old habit of greed easily overtaking business enterprise.
It can be summed up as follows: You create a supply curve that intersects with the demand curve (which you constantly attempt to massage upward) at the point at which nearly everyone can afford the product—meat). You do this by making it convenient to use (hamburgers and other processed foods) and setting a low price. You can set a low price (to prop up demand) only by having high-speed meat processing plants that are inhumane to the employees as well as to the animals thrown into the production process.
It should surprise no one that there will be fecal matter with coliform bacteria on the carcasses. When there is an outbreak of coliform infection, the food industry then blames it on the consumer for not cooking the product well enough. If you cook fecal matter well enough you won't get sick, and our processing will make it taste good!
And then there is the whole issue of the sickening cruelty to which the animals that pass through these places are subjected. Infection with coliform bacteria can have immediate and deadly consequences (unlike arteriolsclerosis, which is also deadly, but not so immediate and painful). Should we then attempt to be frugal and careful—buy cheap meat, but always cook it well and order it well-done at restaurants and fast-food establishments? My answer to that is NO! I find these business practices so outrageous that I personally refuse to purchase and use products from these businesses. So, in addition to the strong reasons Jim advances for a vegan dietary approach I would add moral concerns.
The Bee followed that up with two more articles on two subsequent consecutive days. The last of the three articles attempted to set forth the meat industry's position on the issues, but it also described their efforts to counteract the bad publicity that the big meat industry has gotten. The second of the two articles also set forth in explicit detail the ill health suffered by cattle raised on corn in feed lots. The meat industry goes to great lengths to suppress criticism. Remember the slander suit they filed against Oprah Winfrey in Texas? It went all the way to trial. Oprah prevailed, but I have no idea what she had to spend on attorney's fees.
By the way, my gardeners brought me home-made tamales today (a Mexican Christmas custom) and they were entirely vegan and delicious. They told me that their whole family has been following a vegan diet for the last two years and that the impetus for this was not health concerns, but moral ones (the mistreatment of animals).
I had observed that they seemed far healthier in appearance than they were a few years ago. They had one child who was seriously overweight; she has lost weight and looks far healthier.
They also brought me packages of vegan "chicken" patties and vegan "shrimp" which they purchase at a vegan food store in San Jose. I'm looking forward to trying them.
_______________
Copyright © 2012 by William Silveira
| Please comment |
If I believed that animal cruelty and lack of sanitation were as prevalent as you do, I'd feel the pressure of conscience as well. It's my understanding that there are laws against both and enforcement agencies. Yes, I know that laws and enforcement can be ineffective. You leave the impression that this is almost always true in the meat-production industry. Do you have any supporting evidence?
ReplyDeleteWilliam, excellent article, and I am very glad to see you raise the issue of morality along with health. As a vegan of 20 years, the healthiest 20 years of my life by the way, I can attest we do not require animal products to live a healthy and fit life. People who choose to eat animal products do it for reasons other than necessity - convenience, cheapness, lack of caring about what they are putting animals through, etc. Or maybe they are like hunters, who get some sort of thrill out of killing animals - perhaps it gives them a vicarious sense of empowerment even if they aren't actually pulling the trigger themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen you get into the topic of cheap, processed food and the risks it poses, your readers might be interested in this list of foodborne illness outbreaks, by death toll, from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foodborne_illness_outbreaks_by_death_toll. Unsafe food processing standards exist across the board, unfortunately, not just with animal products.
As for atrocities committed in meat processing, one has to work at not seeing or hearing the reports on that. Do a quick Google search for "animal cruelty in meat processing" and you get headlines like "Horrific Animal Cruelty Caught on Camera Forces USDA to Shut Down Slaughterhouse with In-N-Out Burger Ties" and "Rampant Animal Cruelty at California Slaughter Plant" along with pages more. In case there are any doubters, many of these reports come complete with undercover video documenting the atrocities. I couldn't stand to watch what was being done to a live dairy cow with a forklift, but perhaps those who blindly support the meat industry will enjoy the show.
If anyone is looking for a New Year's resolution that will improve their physical and mental health, and help conserve the world's resources, hopefully they will at least consider trying a vegan diet. Thank you again for the thought provoking article.
Moto, your link to deaths caused by unsafe food processing proves just the opposite of what you contend. Incidents are rare; in some years none occur. They happen nearly as often to the producers of vegetable products as to meat products.
ReplyDeleteAs to animal cruelty, that fits nicely under your explanation for violent crime: some people are crazy and they do horrible things when instruments of death are at hand. No doubt you'd agree that better enforcement of current laws would help.
Ken, you have an amazing talent for obfuscation. Have you considered coming out of retirement and becoming an "analyst" for Fox News?
ReplyDeleteHow is your statement that food processing incidents "happen nearly as often to the producers of vegetable products as to meat products" anything other than a disingenuous way of saying it happens more often with meat products? And where do you think most of the contaminants such as E coli and salmonella come from that get into vegetables? They come from the intermingling of the animal and vegetable raising processes, from direct contamination to indirect, as when the bacteria is present in manure used on fields of vegetables. If people quit raising and slaughtering animals for food, they would not only get rid of the problem with contaminants in meat and dairy, but in vegetables as well.
Yes, I absolutely agree that better enforcement of current laws would help in preventing animal cruelty, and many other types of crimes. If our society would spend the needed money and effort enforcing the laws we already have, instead of wasting multiple times that money and effort doing more studies and trying to create more laws that won't be enforced, we might actually make some progress on many fronts.
Beyond the legalities, it is the mindset that is most interesting. The fact is people can live happy, healthy and fit lives without killing animals for food, yet diehard animal eaters launch irrational defense of their lifestyle anytime anyone dares suggest the vegetarian alternative. If these people don't really need to kill animals to eat, then why do they do it? Or, in most cases, why do they have it done for them so they don't get their own hands bloody? Are they simply too lazy to consider options, or do they get some sort of primal thrill out of knowing an animal is being killed for them? Some people are irrationally close-minded in their desire to kill other people, others in their desire to kill animals - I am equally concerned about the mindset of those in both groups.
Moto, I really don't know how vegetables get contaminated or why greater contamination rates occur in meat processing. However, I feel confident in saying that meat processing is a larger, more labor-intensive, more complicated business and therefore more difficult to regulate. I'm also sure that the consumers of vegetables would prefer the use of manure to artificial fertilizers and that these can be obtained without slaughtering animals. Remove animals from the equation, and there goes your vegetarian diet! So it is you who obfuscate by implying that animal slaughter is necessarily involved in the contamination of vegetables.
ReplyDeleteMany lifestyles are compatible with health and happiness. Anyone who denigrates other people for not choosing his lifestyle is being arrogant and intolerant. I explain my choice of eating meat by saying that, as a general principle, I want to have the largest variety of experiences I can. I have 5 senses, and I want to stimulate all of them. We have an enormous variety of food sources on our planet. It seems irrational to me to rule out one entire class of these altogether. Naturally, some limits and discretion apply. There you have it—the explanation of my immoral behavior. No blood lust involved.
While I have your attention, there's a question I've been meaning to ask you. Do you own anything made of leather or an animal hide? Maybe a nice leather motorcycle jacket? Can I categorically trust your answer?
I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and got all that you wanted—a pair of Kevlar shoes, a cardboard belt with faux engraving, and a nice plastic wallet.
Ken, if you will read read the least bit of factual information about where E coli and salmonella come from, you will see that I am not at all misrepresenting their role in the contamination of vegetable products. If you remove domestic animals from the equation it will have a positive effect of the situation by removing that risk from our food chain. There are more than enough natural, plant-based fertilizers. We don't need animal blood, bone and feces to raise healthy vegetables - meat eaters need them to raise the maximum amount of their food in the least space possible, and do it as cheaply as possible.
DeleteAs for denigrating someone's lifestyle - I'm not the one challenging you or anyone else with rhetoric instead of facts. I grew up hunting and fishing and working on a family farm. I know what it is like to shoot a cow between the eyes, gut it and skin it. I too was a meat eater the first twenty some years of my life and I made the informed choice to be a vegetarian the rest of my life. That transitioned into my being a vegan, which has proven to be the healthiest decision I have made to date. The people I look at with contempt are those who won't even think about alternatives to the lifestyle they were indoctrinated to, who think meat is raised in a plastic-wrapped container, and who resort to rhetoric to support their position instead of facts.
If your rationale for killing animals is to stimulate all five of your senses, at least you have thought it through - although it does sound rather hollow considering the carnage and the ecological load meat eating puts on the planet compared to a vegetarian diet. If you aren't worried about pollution or global warming, or the needless killing, then stay the course, I guess, however questionable it may seem to those of us who care about the world beyond our own needs.
To answer your question, no I don't own anything made of leather or animal hide. I used to, but those went away along with the decision to quit eating meat. No, I didn't get any Kevlar shoes for Christmas - darn it - but my motorcycle jackets and boots are made of synthetic materials that are indeed reinforced with Kevlar - and they are far superior to leather. I have worn vegan belts and dress and casual shoes for decades - most from a company in England - and find them not only to be longer lasting than leather but much more comfortable as well.
With clothing and food, there are an amazing array of options out there that stimulate all our senses and require no killing. All it takes to enjoy them is to get out of the rut we were raised in and learn to think for ourselves.
If you want to indulge your senses by eating veal from a calf that never lived a day without being chained to a shed, that is your choice. I will indulge mine by killing nothing that doesn't try to kill me, living as healthily and guilt free as possible, and enjoying the comfort and safety of my vegan clothing - especially when I have to ride my motorcycle in the rain, as I have to do now. You and Jim and the rest enjoy the debate. I will check back in when I hopefully return intact from what looks like it will be a most interesting ride - they are calling for snow and ice where I am headed.
I do read, Moto, more in fact than the least bit. I found nothing about the abundant availability of plant fertilizer in a meat-eating world, and I'm unable to extrapolate what it would be in a vegan world.
DeleteYour transition from an omnivore to an herbivore is a "fact," for what it's worth. The use of your decision to demean others as cruel or unthinking or weak-willed is pure "rhetoric." There is nothing factual in self-aggranizement.
It isn't excessive meat eating that's responsible for climate change and pollution, it's overpopulation. Overproduction of everything is what's gotten us into trouble. The planet can't sustain so many of us. To overlook this fact and place the blame on meat eating is not only rhetoric but blind rhetoric.
I applaud you for your consistency. You have indeed gone all the way in ridding your life of leather. But please tell me how your reaction to meat and meat byproducts differs from the reformed alcoholic who becomes a teetotaler. You sought no middle ground; you flipped from black to white. And you call this an example of "thinking for ourselves." Rhetoric again.
Your example sparing the mistreated calf and "respecting" my choice to behave differently is noble and open-minded. So is your respect for life. And, yes, it's more rhetoric.
William aka Bill
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your write-up on meat processing and the ensuing discussion between motomynd and a diehard carnivore in denial aka “the obfuscator”. Obfuscation is necessary when a message backed by objective evidence is unwanted. I certainly hope that an elephant sitting on a chest is not necessary to get the message across.
To me - good health, cruelty to animals and to a lesser extent cruelty to the environment are the same issue because the solution to all three is the same.
I have heard estimates that livestock production accounts for as much as 20% of the greenhouse gases we humans contribute to the atmosphere. So if your motivation is to save the environment, adopting a plant based diet a significant good start.
Adopting a plant based diet for ethical reasons (being kind to animals) is another way to go. However, not all plant based diets are healthy. For example, a diet of French fries and soda pop is friendly to animals and to the environment but not to the human consuming it.
So if you want to be kind to the environment and to animals, be kind to the animal that matters most – yourself – and adopt a low fat (no added oils) plant based diet (rich in starches with the addition of fruits and vegetables) and you will enjoy the best possible health as Bill observed of his gardener’s family.
Finally Bill, I would caution you about fake meats. These products tend to be made from concentrated soy protein flavored and shaped to imitate some meat product. Diets high in protein whether from animals or plants are not healthy. Thou slightly better than animal protein it’s best to use these soy meat substitutes sparingly for flavor and texture. As I see it, the optimum plant based diet should consist of (based upon calories) 80% starch, 15% protein and 5% fat – give or take.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL...
Jim, I know that you live in an obfuscation-free zone, so my disagreements necessarily mean I'm an obfuscator. Can't help wondering why you gave an "as much as" number for greenhouse gases without giving an "as little as" number as well. Nor did you cite a source, but whatever the source, I'll bet the context for that stat was considerable.
DeleteOne thing I am certain of: You have no evidence whatsoever that a low fat plant-based diet endows one with "the best possible health." What you do have is evidence that such a diet is healthier than one based on large quantities of processed meat. In other words, you've created a straw man and drawn absurd conclusions about a healthy diet.
Yes, Ken, I’m a “Kiss It Simple Stupid” (KISS = obfuscation-free) person. One symptom of obfuscation is the attempt to shift focus to the trivial. Does it really matter the exact percentage of greenhouse gases emitted by livestock production?
DeleteAnd I guess the fact that billions of rural Chinese have a very low incidence of heart disease and the that they live on a predominately plant based diet (as reported in “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell) are just a coincidence and anyone who sites these facts as evidence that a plant based diet is superior (in terms of health) is a Straw Man.
“Obfuscation” “Straw Man” – you’d think we were discussing politics or religion.
Jim, if your goal is to flip the eating habits of a lifetime, you don't go with KISS—unless you never intended to be serious in the first place. Of course the exact percentage isn't important. Your failure to offer context or cite a source on request is. If you don't have credibility, you've got nothing. You've got nothing.
DeleteSo, are you maintaining that billions of rural Chinese are vegans? Vegetarians even? Of course you're not. And don't they eat a lot of vegetables because there's little else to eat in the countryside? God, man, if you set a ham sandwich in the road, they'd be all over it like flies. And the obfuscator is who??
(By the way, what do you think the population of China is? Isn't "billions" plural? Oops, there's that zero credibility again.)
“LIMBO LOGIC”
ReplyDeleteAgain you nit-pick:
Does anyone really care if “1.35 billion” or “1.35 billions” is correct?
You obvious didn’t notice that I did quote a source – “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell
And who cares why rural Chinese eat predominately a plant based diet? Which leads to this question “Is it better to be poor and healthy or rich and sick?”
And so what if these poor Chinese would prefer a Ham Sandwich over their daily rice and vegetables? Does that make a ham sandwich a health food?
And, finally, I am reminded of a Rush Limbaugh tactic - when he is unable to attack a message on its scientific merit he attacks the messenger’s “credibility”. For example, when unable to refute the scientific merits of Al Gore’s stand on Global Warming, Limbaugh attacked his “credibility” by making it a big deal that Gore flies in airplanes which contribute significantly to Global Warming. In the past, I have dubbed Limbaugh’s tactic of attacking the messenger rather than his message as “LIMBO LOGIC” which is not unlike obfuscation.
... which doesn't respond to my point that the rural Chinese are not vegetarians. They eat meat whenever they can get it. I don't know how much meat is in their diet and neither do you. You have used as a supporting example a group of people that don't match the criteria of "Who is a vegetarian?"
DeleteApparently, your are prepared to excuse yourself for any amount of sloppiness. And then you pull a desperate Rush Limbaugh slur out of your backsides. Classy, Jim. Adios.
Whether rural Chinese are vegetarians or not is beside the point because the term “vegetarian” is ambiguous. It means different things to different people. To some a “vegetarian” is one who never has and never will eat a single morsel of animal food. To others a “vegetarian” is one who eats “predominately plant based foods” (the category I’m in).
ReplyDeleteMy point is that rural Chinese who eat a predominately plant based diet are, on the whole, far healthier than those Chinese who live in metropolitan areas where animal products are much more available and consumed.
My source is “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell.
Ken has asked me to cite authority for the comments I made about the problems I cited in the meat industry. If he had read my comments carefully, he would have seen that I cited a 3 part series in the Fresno Bee and a documentary film entitled "Food Inc." Of course we have regulatory laws and lawsuits. But if was suggesting anything it was that these giant companies might pay far more attention to a decline in their sales than anything else. Does Ken know that a number of state legislatures have responded to the surreptitious filming of the abuses and neglect in these meat plants by making it a crime to film the slaughter and packaging process without the consent of plant owners. If all were so appropriate in these places why would they fear the filming of their production practices? Reports of the various abuses in our production system are regularly published in various newspapers and magazines throughout the country. Ken invites me to provide the research. I have. I am too busy to take time to provide more. He apparently enjoys polemics as much as hamburger and hotdogs. If he's truly interested he appears perfectly capable of doing his own research.
ReplyDeleteWilliam (Bill), I want to compliment you for complementing my post “What is the cause of Heart Disease?” Not only did you add several very good reasons to avoid animal products (cruelty to animals, tainted processed meats, environmental concerns) to the fact that that “consuming animal products is the cause of Heart Disease”, you sparked a fun and lively debate. Your final words are right on.
DeleteWilliam, your post cited a Fresno Bee series that "detailed the health hazards associated with the marketing of beef in this country." I agree that these health hazards do indeed exist. I wasn't asking for corroboration of this assertion. My question was about how prevalent these hazards were and whether enforcement agencies were effective in curbing them. Was I mistaken that you imply that the hazards are common and largely unchecked? Does the Fresno Bee offer this data? William, if this is your implication, it's your responsibility, not mine, to support it.
ReplyDeleteI have no sympathy for secrecy in slaughterhouses, but "surreptitious filming" tells me that we're talking about trespassers who are conducting a vigilante effort. There is, after all, an official agency that does filming. Here's a link on the subject for you to consider:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/NEWS/NR_082611_01/index.asp
William, I don't believe any of the foregoing is polemical. I'm really interested in the stats that you've found. Do we have an epidemic of unsanitary processing on our hands, or do we have satisfactory safeguards and occasion renegades?
Hello all, safely back from traveling in ice and snow. Looks like the debate has been interesting.
ReplyDeleteThanks to budget cuts, we have less inspectors trying to cover more processing facilities. Common sense tells us that does not make food safer and that the problem is getting worse, not better. For those who choose to be unimpressed with common sense, here is an excerpt from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that states -- "After combining the estimates for the major known pathogens and the unspecified agents, the overall annual estimate of the total burden of disease due to contaminated food consumed in the United States is 47.8 million illnesses, 127,839 hospitalizations, and 3,037 deaths." So there are some specific figures on prevalence, and here is the link to the rest of the story if anyone is interested --
http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/questions-and-answers.html
And here is a link to several current stories on the topic and a bunch of other links you can click on to better educate yourself if you wish --
http://eatocracy.cnn.com/category/news/health-news/tainted-food/
None of this will settle the debate about dangers of processed animal-based foods versus plant based, but common sense should tell us that since most of the highest risk pathogens are carried by animals, it makes food less safe to have them involved in the food chain.
Moto, common sense tells me that we will never get animals out of the food chain. How would we accomplish that? It seems the practical answer is to take all precautions to minimize unsanitary conditions in processing food. I must have missed something on your second link. What I saw there was a report of new measures, conducted by the USDA, to stop the shipment of unsanitary meat.
ReplyDeleteI also looked at your first link and found two things you neglected to mention:
* The "unspecified agents," which comprise more that half of the data you offer, include "unknown" agents, agents for which there is insufficient data, and agents such as "chemicals and unknown substances" (not even microbes). So the total number you give is greatly compromised.
* Some of the known agents are found in dirt. Wikipedia gives me no info on how they get into dirt. Another common agent is usually carried by cats. I don't know anyone who eats cats.
The last item raises the question of pets in general. Shall we give up our cats and dogs? And what of ranchers who produce dairy products and wool? Shall we give those up to protect the food supply?
Good to see motomynd made it back from his ice and snow (on a motorcycle?) adventure.
ReplyDeleteThanks to William for adding 3 reasons to consider foregoing animal products in the diet (ethical treatment of animals, environmental concerns, and dangers of processed foods) in addition to contributing to heart disease.
Thanks to motomynd for pointing that tainted processed animal foods cause about 3,000 deaths per year. Deaths due to heart disease is about 650,000 per year. Consuming animal foods is the cause of heart disease was established in the post “What is the Cause of Heart Disease”. This all means that you are about 215 times more likely to die from heart disease from eating pristine animal products than to die from eating tainted processed animal products.
To answer Ken’s final question “Shall we give up dairy products and wool?” For wool I would say that as long as we don’t eat sheep wool is OK. After all it seems to me that sheep have a pretty good life – they get free room and board in exchange for an occasional coat of wool. However consuming dairy products is a different story. Dairy cows are hardly treated humanely. They spend their entire life pregnant and in and endless circle between water, food and the milking machine while contributing a significant amount of greenhouse gases. Their product is high in cholesterol which contributes to heart disease. And since dairy products are not necessary in the human diet (as evidenced by the billions of Asians who do not consume dairy products and live long productive lives), is not the answer to Ken’s question, “Yes, we should give up diary products!”
Finally, I do not disagree with Ken that “we [Americans] will not get animal out of the food chain”. But you as an individual can do it and in the bargain be nice to the environment, to animals and most importantly to yourself.
Jim, perhaps it would be useful to turn things around and say where you and I agree—I think. We agree that Americans eat too much meat and would be healthier if they ate less. (In fact, Americans would be healthier if they ate less of everything!) We even agree that there's a correlation between health improvement and the amount of meat removed from our diets. But here's where we disagree. I would add "up to a point" to the last assertion. You, on the other hand, take an absolutist position and encourage everyone to cut the meat to zero. You want people to "get animals out of the food chain" on a personal basis. Yet when I say that the rural Chinese are not such people, you say that it doesn't matter because their diet is "plant-based." So you waffle and, in essence, agree with my "up to a point" argument. The net, as I see it, is that we'd put our "points" in different places. And as you back off from your absolutist position, your moral argument for not eating meat begins to lose force.
Delete