They're coming after meat, now..

Here's more of the 'propaganda'...a WAPO opinion piece!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-have-no-idea-yet-how-to-feed-the-planet-without-frying-it/2019/08/12/21225228-b961-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_campaign=Sightline%20News%20Selections&utm_medium=web-email&utm_source=Sightline%20Institute

I don’t keep up with the news, and was reluctant to read the article because it’s on the washington post, but I want to raise cows, so I read the article.

Interestingly, the article is somewhat right, in a sense that to keep up growing demand of cheap commodity beef requires deforestation to expand the acreage for the soil to be abused with steel and chemicals to grow mono crops of grain to feed beef cattle in CAFO’s, will indeed cause major environmental problems.

What I don’t like about the article is it’s very narrow sighted as there is no mention of grazing cows on pasture and eliminating feeding grain altogether. Instead, the author, who is hiding behind the pen name Editorial Board, supports a solution of getting cows to grow faster, inventing new feed additives, using new gene modification to boost crop efficiency and using new “food preservation technologies” which I read as chemical preservatives.

To conclude the article, Mr. Board starts to offer a glimmer of hope, stating that humanity has a surprising range of options to clean up food production, but since Mr. Board has an axe to grind and can't upset his boss with broad viewed and fair journalism, there is no mention of regenerative agricultural practices and wants to leave the reader with the notion that technology is the solution.

At least it’s an opinion article, and this opinion means nothing to me.

(I'm not one to rant much, but yay cider press!)

"we-have-no-idea-yet-how-to-feed-the-planet-without-frying-it"

Author doesn't know about stuff therefore it doesn't exist.

Exactly my take-away, you two :)   And I think it's just one more 'bullet' in this well-orchestrated campaign to vilify meat.  They seem to be coming from many directions, but with one aim.

I was turned off meat 4 years ago after watching a doc called "Earthlings" and haven't had a bite since. It's more focused on large scale factory farming and the associated horrors. Terrible sights to see

I said that I would never eat it again unless I killed it and prepared it myself. I went vegan overnight! I was a HUGE meat eater, going for steak and eggs as much as I could afford.

Over the last 6 months I have went back to eating some cheeses and eggs - mainly to keep the weight on as I work hard outdoors and felt the need to keep my fat and muscle alive. I went from a solid 205 lb.  to 165 lb. over the 3 years vegan and since I went back to eggs and some cheese I am now maintaining 185 lb.

I'm still open to the idea of hunting for myself and my dogs, but haven't taken self-sustainability that far yet.

Yes I do still buy some processed foods from a grocery store...so do all the meat eaters I know. I eat pretty darn healthy and it shows in my health and work ability. No adverse effects felt by me from lack of meat - in fact my flexibility has increased and my joint pain has decreased since cutting out meat and cutting WAY down on eggs and dairy. I'm strong as I ever was!

I am not completely against small scale animal farmers but personally I wouldn't feel good about making money off of the planned killing of another creature.

I also  work on an organic vegetable farm and bring home lots of home grown goodies...and planning on attempting some canning soon to see the limits of healthy sustenance during winter from a plant-based diet.

As long as I have successful veggie harvests and a varied diet then so far I haven't felt the need to go back to eating meat. Sure, I would like to cut down on grocery purchases and when the day comes I am able to live on my property in a permaculture manner (stuck in the 'burbs for now lol) I will consider some hunting and chickens for eggs...but still weary about killing a domesticated animal for food!

The more I learn and see how people are doing things in an environmentally friendly way I am learning to appreciate some aspects of animal farming but not sure it would ever be right for me.

...Just some random thoughts from a day-dreaming plant-based dude, if you happened to care

BTW I dislike most aspects of media, corporations and government in the use of smear and/or fear campaigns to promote or demote a certain aspect of a culture, society, or individual lifestyles. There are good and bad ways to do things, and mostly I think that it takes a little bit of research and a lot of common sense to come to a conclusion that works comfortably for your own set of values!

If we keep it to ourselves then we'll probably be happy with that conclusion - but trying to get others to agree won't always work in your favor. I've learned the hard way and try to be more open minded and friendly now, or just keep my mouth shut lol

Just to reiterate, my goal here is to alert any interested folks to the clear possibility that those of us who do eat meat, may not have that opportunity in the future... either it will be priced out of reach, or just not there.   It is about a concerted effort by large political players to vilify meat consumption, which some of us might like to keep an eye on.  I guess it's really about ... our freedom to choose our individual diet, whatever it may be.

nancy sutton wrote:Just to reiterate, my goal here is to alert any interested folks to the clear possibility that those of us who do eat meat, may not have that opportunity in the future... either it will be priced out of reach, or just not there.   It is about a concerted effort by large political players to vilify meat consumption, which some of us might like to keep an eye on.  I guess it's really about ... our freedom to choose our individual diet, whatever it may be.

Hi! Hopefully you didn't take my post in a hurtful, personal way.

I re-read it and at the end I can see how maybe you or another could feel like I was being pushy but it's not intentional, and actually it's more directed to my own experience of failures in the past about trying to convert others to a plant-based diet.

Thanks for clarifying your point, and again I feel like maybe I should not even have commented at all but it is a subject that means a lot to me, my apologies if I de-railed things a bit

Ty.... no problem : )  And, BTW, here's more follow up to the 'dangerous red meat' campaign... from Chris Kresser

"Hi, Everyone,

I’m sure you all saw the media headlines about the study that suggested that both processed and fresh red meat may not be so bad for us after all.

[  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html?utm_campaign=Chris%20Kresser&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=78610068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9VfV107wLhJStnf3RUXKxIGgT_iAIGqo2Q5KT_ePWljX88nnt_pNLaab4f-7P0a0hWJk9T612JKDjhdSn1x7Vf__H5JQ&_hsmi=78610068  ]

This study certainly caused a splash—and that’s an understatement.  It was somewhat entertaining, I admit, to watch the conventional diet establishment and media go into hysteria. There were calls for retraction of the study, suggestions that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should get involved, and articles everywhere professing righteous indignation that anyone could even suggest that the evidence linking red meat to disease is weak, at best.
And that’s exactly what this paper did suggest.

It was one of the largest epidemiological studies ever done on red meat consumption. In short, here’s a summary of their findings, from a New York Times article that covered the study:

“If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.”

What’s more, even when there is an effect, the size is so small that it is indistinguishable from chance, especially when you consider confounding factors like the “healthy-user bias”—the fact that people who eat less red meat in studies are likely to engage in other behaviors that are perceived as healthy, like exercise, eating more fruits and vegetables and less processed food, and maintaining a healthy weight.

In a commentary on the study, Dr. Dennis Bier of Baylor said in a telephone interview:

“The rules of scientific proof are the same for physics as for nutrition.” But unlike experiments in physics, where investigators can control variables and determine causality, in nutrition, “you can’t conduct the experiment.”

This is a reference to what I mentioned above: that the effect sizes seen in many epidemiological nutrition studies are so small that they would be disregarded in any scientific field other than nutrition.

Now, is there any reason to be skeptical of this study?

Yes. In a follow-up article a few days after the findings were published, the New York Times reported that the lead author, Dr. Bradley Johnston, had ties to industry that he failed to report.  While Dr. Johnston wasn’t technically required to report this conflict of interest because it was more than three years before the study was performed, his failure to report violated the spirit of this practice.  However, as disappointing as this was, it doesn’t change the facts of the underlying studies that were reviewed by Dr. Johnston and his team.  Many other epidemiologists without conflicts of interest have reviewed them and come to the same conclusion. I discussed this at length in my recent debate with vegan physician Dr. Joel Kahn on the Joe Rogan Experience, and I also wrote several articles with detailed analyses on this page that I published on the day of the debate.

I realize that this can be confusing and disconcerting for laypeople who aren’t familiar with the intricacies of the research.  But as Dr. Bier remarked:

“The [nutrition] guidelines are based on papers that presumably say there is evidence for what they say. And there isn’t. That’s the history of nutrition. People should be aware of the uncertainty and make their decisions based on that awareness.”

In health,
Chris

P.S. One thing virtually all nutrition experts agree on is that creating your own meals at home from real foods is the most controllable action you can take toward great health. And it’s way simpler than you might think. Check out the power of food as medicine in my friend Dr. Mark Hyman’s new cookbook, Food: What the Heck Should I Cook?

(and if you wonder about how those 'nutrition guidelines' have been created, you might like 'Death by Food Pyramid' by Debra Minger... a very entertaining and educational read, with no diet bias... just the actual amazing history)

I don't have a link handy, but a friend of mine played a podcast when we were driving somewhere that was really interesting.  It was an interview of a guy that was a power-lifting champion and a PhD nutritionist.  When it came to health aspects of various diets he said that basically it doesn't matter what kind of dietary regime you follow (vegan, paleo, keto, etc), and that what really matters is getting down to a good weight and exercising.  He talked about a guy that decided to prove that by doing a junk food diet.  That person ate only junk food for I think 2-3 months.  Literally Twinkies, candy bars, and the like.  Did blood work before starting, and throughout the process.  He maintained a calorie deficit so he was losing weight the whole time.  I think he was exercising too, but not certain.  All of the blood markers for healthiness improved throughout the experiment, and he successfully lost I think 20lbs or so.  My memory on the details might a bit hazy but the overall point is intact.  

Bottom line is, to be healthy, eat a quantity that allows you to lose weight until you reach a healthy weight, then maintain that weight by not overeating, and exercise.  The details of the kinds of food you eat, and the type of exercise you engage in matter only to the extent that it makes it easier for you to keep it going.  E.g. I like to bicycle, but despise running.  So I ride a bike.  If someone else prefers running, or swimming, or jumping jacks, or whatever then do that.  I like to eat an omnivore diet, but if you like to eat vegan, or keto or whatever go for it.  Due to medication I have to take 4 times a day that dietary protein interferes with I have to eat on a fairly strict schedule, but I'm not going to recommend schedule that to others (and if I could get off that schedule honestly I would, even though it probably helps me constrict my calories).

Some people lose weight on particular diets, but mostly because that particular diet makes it easy for them, as an individual, to maintain a calorie deficit.  High fat and high protein diets work for a lot of people because you typically feel fuller for longer on fewer total calories than on a high carb diet.  But if you can maintain the discipline to not overeat on a high carb diet you can lose weight and improve your health on that too.

Note that I'm really only talking about losing weight and the health improvements people see from that.  Some folks will need a special diet due to their unique needs, like the poster that had serious psoriasis problems on a high carb diet.  But the average person doesn't have those concerns, so for them it's a matter of what is best for them is whatever gives them the best chance of success at losing excess weight and maintaining a steady weight afterwards.

Studies saying anything else, like the anti-meat screed the OP highlighted, is most likely coming from someone with a vested (or even corrupt) interest in pushing the population in a given direction.

Andrew Mayflower wrote:I don't have a link handy, but a friend of mine played a podcast when we were driving somewhere that was really interesting.  It was an interview of a guy that was a power-lifting champion and a PhD nutritionist.  When it came to health aspects of various diets he said that basically it doesn't matter what kind of dietary regime you follow (vegan, paleo, keto, etc), and that what really matters is getting down to a good weight and exercising.  He talked about a guy that decided to prove that by doing a junk food diet.  That person ate only junk food for I think 2-3 months.  Literally Twinkies, candy bars, and the like.  Did blood work before starting, and throughout the process.  He maintained a calorie deficit so he was losing weight the whole time.  I think he was exercising too, but not certain.  All of the blood markers for healthiness improved throughout the experiment, and he successfully lost I think 20lbs or so.  My memory on the details might a bit hazy but the overall point is intact.  

Bottom line is, to be healthy, eat a quantity that allows you to lose weight until you reach a healthy weight, then maintain that weight by not overeating, and exercise.  The details of the kinds of food you eat, and the type of exercise you engage in matter only to the extent that it makes it easier for you to keep it going.  

I read the same thing. In fact I read several articles about it.  Google "twinkie diet" for lots of results.  I'm  not certain that I believe the basic premise though, that it doesn't matter what you eat.  Do I believe I can lose weight for 2 or 3 months by eating shit food but restricting my calories to lower than maintenance?  Absolutely.  But do people honestly believe that my health will be the same no matter what I eat?  Let's take two examples.  One, I eat butter and sugar exclusively, and throw in a vitamin supplement to ward off scurvy and other deficiency-induced nasties.  Two, I eat the exact same number of calories, but I eat meat, fruits, and vegetables.  I do either of these for thirty years.  Are there people that really believe my health and appearance will be the same no matter which of these I choose?

Re: Andrew's post, just FYI, FWIW, I think this may be the 'junk food diet' that was mentioned  (I'm not going to eat it :)
https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/oh-dear-the-twinkie-diet-actually-works-268743/

Trace Oswald wrote:

Andrew Mayflower wrote:I don't have a link handy, but a friend of mine played a podcast when we were driving somewhere that was really interesting.  It was an interview of a guy that was a power-lifting champion and a PhD nutritionist.  When it came to health aspects of various diets he said that basically it doesn't matter what kind of dietary regime you follow (vegan, paleo, keto, etc), and that what really matters is getting down to a good weight and exercising.  He talked about a guy that decided to prove that by doing a junk food diet.  That person ate only junk food for I think 2-3 months.  Literally Twinkies, candy bars, and the like.  Did blood work before starting, and throughout the process.  He maintained a calorie deficit so he was losing weight the whole time.  I think he was exercising too, but not certain.  All of the blood markers for healthiness improved throughout the experiment, and he successfully lost I think 20lbs or so.  My memory on the details might a bit hazy but the overall point is intact.  

Bottom line is, to be healthy, eat a quantity that allows you to lose weight until you reach a healthy weight, then maintain that weight by not overeating, and exercise.  The details of the kinds of food you eat, and the type of exercise you engage in matter only to the extent that it makes it easier for you to keep it going.  

I read the same thing. In fact I read several articles about it.  Google "twinkie diet" for lots of results.  I'm  not certain that I believe the basic premise though, that it doesn't matter what you eat.  Do I believe I can lose weight for 2 or 3 months by eating shit food but restricting my calories to lower than maintenance?  Absolutely.  But do people honestly believe that my health will be the same no matter what I eat?  Let's take two examples.  One, I eat butter and sugar exclusively, and throw in a vitamin supplement to ward off scurvy and other deficiency-induced nasties.  Two, I eat the exact same number of calories, but I eat meat, fruits, and vegetables.  I do either of these for thirty years.  Are there people that really believe my health and appearance will be the same no matter which of these I choose?

I think you're misunderstanding the point (or I didn't make it very clear, which is likely).  The point was that to improve your overall health for most Americans (myself included) losing weight is the number 1 thing you can do.  Once you are at a good, healthy weight, then what you eat will be a lot more important to your overall health.  But all the major measurable criteria (blood pressure, cholesterols, triglycerides, various blood chemistries, etc) will improve with little discernible difference while you lose weight whether you're on a "twinkie diet" or a well balanced, cooked from scratch and home grown permie diet.  Of course a diet of butter and sugar will result in 30+ year long term outcomes that are less desirable than a proper omnivore diet (assuming neither result in subsequent weight gain).  But that's a separate discussion.  

I haven't weighed myself is a while, but I've been hovering around 206lbs just before my morning shower, which is an improvement of 5-7lbs since I started trying to at least stop gaining weight.  I should be around 165-175 to be at a good "fighting" weight.  In high school and college I was 145-160, and especially the light end of that range was too light.  But even 185 would be a big improvement, and I'm hoping that if I can pull that off that maybe I will be able to cut back on the medications I take (going back to taking it 3 times a day would make eating a lot easier/more flexible), or at least forestall the need to increase them for a while longer.

nancy sutton wrote:Re: Andrew's post, just FYI, FWIW, I think this may be the 'junk food diet' that was mentioned  (I'm not going to eat it :)
https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/oh-dear-the-twinkie-diet-actually-works-268743/

Yeah, I'm not about to eat it either.  For one I don't like twinkies or other junk food anyway.  But besides that, you can hit your calorie budget on "food" like that so quickly that it's really hard to not feel hungry pretty much all the time.  And on my meds, if I get too hungry I also get nauseous.  

The campaign against meat continues unabated.... and well funded! (I do wonder who stands to gain from eliminating meat?)  But there is yet another anti-meat documentary out, this time aimed at the health/muscle crowd.. 'The Game Changers'.  Again, filled with misleading claims.  Here's a rebuttal...
https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a29067926/the-game-changers-movie-fact-check/

I'm a huge Formula 1 fan, and generally a fan of Lewis Hamilton.  That documentary is unfortunate.

https://www.fginsight.com/news/red-meat-most-perfect-food-for-humans-closely-followed-by-milk-97570?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=redmeatAK

Found this as a counter point in the war on meat.  😀

Re: the latest vegan documentary, 'The Game Changers', here's Chris Kresser debunking it on The Joe Rogan Show (I don't follow Joe Rogan, typically : )


and here's Chris' website with his text and references:
https://chriskresser.com/debunking-the-game-changers-joe-rogan/

I especially liked the last segment of the Notes, re: the effect of cattle raising on the environment.  This is an accurate take on this very professional, well funded propaganda film.  (I just have to wonder who benefits the most from this anti-meat campaign.)

I googled a few keywords and these are the search results:  

https://www.google.com/search?q=future+meat+replacement+business


It's a new money scheme.  Most likely the best that might be done, is talk talk talk about the implications, face-to-face with anyone who will listen.  Here, I imagine, we are preaching to the choir :)  Children and young people especially need to be aware, because they are the long term audience who will most likely be the most heavily targeted.

Yes... I get tired of preaching to the choir, too!  But, I figure the more info we have the more we have to share.  And, I agree, when Smithfield (biggest pork 'producer') is pushing vegan 'non meat', you know they want to move the attention away from their CAFO cruelty.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-02-05/clean-meat-is-neither-we-can-and-must-do-better  (interesting links below the article, too : )

The longer this spiel continues, the more I feel that if everyone could just get over the idea that there was a single, perfect solution to all problems, or any problems, that we'd be in a much better position.

My opinions can be found in my earlier post to this thread, as well as in a thread I started entitled Conversations with Vegans. They really haven't changed, except that I am increasingly tired of seeing well-groomed, obviously well-off vegan protesters in front of small, often struggling, meat-themed restaurants who have gone to extreme lengths to provide ethically-raised and harvested meat, when they could instead be protesting CAFOs.

Now there's a target to drool over, intellectually speaking. There's so much about CAFOs that is bad for us, from the concentration of animal feces encouraging eutrophication of waterways, the need to treat livestock prophylactically with antibiotics, which leads to antibiotic-resistant disease in livestock and humans both, and that meat from stressed-out animals tastes bad as compared to that from graduates of the "One Bad Day University."

I don't mind if many other people stop eating meat, such that the CAFO system is unsustainable even under the current economic model, and so everyone who still eats meat eats maybe half or a quarter of what they do now, but of the best grass-fed, One-Bad-Day meat available. But for me, it's the evangelisation thing; I don't need to be preached at, or enlightened, especially to ideas that I have already encountered and discarded. The very idea that I am so lacking in my understanding of morality that I don't see that eating animals is murder is insulting to me, as it assumes that instead of having heard the argument, assessed it as baseless, and discarded it, that I somehow need indoctrination, because as I am still killing animals, I have obviously not understood.

I will not be evangelised to by veganism or any other ideology. I respect vegans as I respect all individuals, no more, no less, except on a case-by-case basis. I see their willingness to take personal responsibility for perceived societal ills as laudable, but I don't agree oftentimes with their underlying assumptions, and I don't think that the steps they take are as environmentally beneficial as some seem to think, in the majority of cases, considering the environmental degredation for which conventional agriculture is responsible, of which vegan foodstuffs are usually a product.

As to lab-grown meat, plant-based "meat alternatives," and other results of chemical or industrial production, I like the margarine example.

As to butter vs. margarine for human health, who do you trust more, the cow or the chemist?

I'll choose the cow every day, and twice on Sundays, thank you. Maybe she'll stay for dinner.

-CK

I agree, Chris... the 'evangelizing' turns me off... as do all 'my way or the highway' approaches.  And, after reading Catherine's link (thanks : ), I see that profit, as usual, are a major factor.  If the profit margin in CAFO meat production is going to drop, they'll get in front of the fake meat parade.  

BTW - "Sacred Cow - The Case for (Better) Meat" by Diana Rodgers & Robb Wolf can now be pre-ordered.  (The film will be coming shortly after ;)
https://www.sacredcow.info/book
“The current war against meat eaters and livestock farmers promises ethical, ecological, and health benefits from fake lab meat and plant-only diets. Sacred Cow debunks every utopian promise with precision missiles from science and a deep understanding of how life and the planet actually work.”  Joel Salatin :)

I like the way he 'paints a picture' of the 'no diet is correct for EVERYONE"...
"I think one very often overlooked point is that diet is extremely personal. I like to compare it to sunbathing: some people can sit in the blistering sun for 40 minutes without any problems, while others with the same complexion get a terrible sunburn after only 8 minutes of the same exposure.
For some reason, when it comes to tanning, we all accept that people respond differently. Yet, when it comes to diet, many still preach that there should be a one-size-fits-all solution.

(And to repeat, my goal here is not to promote any particular diet, just to alert that we might end up with a 'no red meat diet' for everyone, if we don't watch out :)

And the well-funded drum beat continues - latest article, this time in The Guardian (London) --
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/19/why-you-should-go-animal-free-arguments-in-favour-of-meat-eating-debunked-plant-based

And here's Diana Rodgers rebuttal --
https://www.sacredcow.info/blog/an-open-response-to-the-guardian

Again, I just want to alert those who might be concerned, about this well organized and funded, multi-pronged, global campaign to remove red meat from our diet (or make it prohibitively expensive).  My usual question, "Would they (remove meat), if they could?"  Who are the 'they' who would benefit, because 'they' obviously think they 'can' drive down meat production and consumption.   Hmmm....

Me again... here's an excerpt from Diane Rodger's new book - 'Sacred Cow'
"..Don’t cattle waste water, friend?

One common narrative that makes for great, simplistic posters for school children is that it takes 10 full bathtubs of water to produce a quarter-pound burger.
Let's take a closer look at this....
It turns out that almost all of the water attributed to the water footprint of cattle is the rain that would have fallen on the pasture, whether or not the animals were there.
What cattle need for drinking water is a very small percentage of the water calculation.
Let me explain....
With any study examining water usage, it’s important to know what exactly we’re measuring. Types of water measured include green water, blue water, and gray water.
Green water is precipitation stored in the soil or rests on top of the soil or plants. Eventually, this water evaporates or the crops take it up.
Blue water is fresh surface and groundwater—what’s found in lakes, rivers, and aquifers.
Grey water is something else altogether.
In typical cattle production, green water is about 92% of the total water
This means 92% of the water attributed to beef production is rain that would have fallen even if the cattle weren’t alive. In grass-finished beef, the green water number is closer to 97–98%.
The actual “blue water” or fresh surface or groundwater needed for a pound of beef is LESS than what is needed for rice, avocados, walnuts, and sugar.
Maybe instead of Meatless Mondays, we should recommend “Rice-Free Fridays” and “Sugar-Free Saturdays”?
What about land use, greenhouse gasses, feed, and the other environmental concerns about livestock? .... "

I think what’s going on here isn’t exactly new, only the target, beef, is new. I believe there will always be people or groups of people, perhaps even cabals, who want to decide what other people should do and use power, influence and junk science to persuade. If we look back in history for examples, the sugar industry might take the spotlight. One day it was decided by scientists that fat was unhealthy and increased heart disease, and a low-fat diet promoted good health, but this research was secretly funded by the sugar industry which included bribing Harvard scientists(1,2,3). With evidence amounting 60 years ago showing sugar to be the likely culprit behind the increase in preventable disease, big sugar industry needed to maintain their position of power and profits. It’s now understood that fat plays a critical role in good health (4,5).


I don't want to derail this thread and keep the focus on meat. I mention the above as an example in reference to:

nancy sutton wrote: Who are the 'they' who would benefit, because 'they' obviously think they 'can' drive down meat production and consumption.   Hmmm....

I don’t know who the “they” are behind this traducing campaign against meat, but I’ll wager a bet that money is the root of the vilifying tactics, which I believe come from a louche group with vested interests. Like everything happening in cycles, I think one day this anti-meat house of cards will collapse and those behind the non-information, half-truths and downright lies will be revealed.


1) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
2) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
3) https://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/sugar-papers-reveal-industry-role-in-shifting-focus.html#.Xv36LC2ZP1w
4) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/
5) https://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltmedicine/study-balanced-high-fat-diet-improves-body-composition-inflammation/

Right on, James!!  You hit the nail on the head...the bulls'eye, so to speak :)  And I think that our health is the last thing 'they' care about, plus they lie.

I don’t know what it says about me, but I’m becoming more of a Joe Rogan fan...Who knew primates ease their B12 deficiencies by eating their poo 🤢.   Could change pot lucks at the lab ;) However the only 60 more harvests left in mono cropping soil is stuff that should keep a lot of people awake at night.

OK - is he crazy?  or am I nuts? (well I've always been a bubble off plumb... but .... )  or do we all need to pay attention... and DO something?  'Super pigs' with 'diseases' requiring meat production to stop?  (Someone tell me this is not for real!)

There is African swine fever virus which mostly affects factory farms, where pigs are tightly packed together. Also wild boars are affected here and there. But this video you mentioned looks like fear mongering.

Rob, I'm a big fan of Joe Rogan!!

I've been thinking about this a lot the past few days. Once again I came to the conclusion that the cows in our pasture have a better life than most vegetables. Never exposed to chemicals or other nasties except for deworming when they are first born. They are happy healthy free ranging cows. They are never overcrowded & never experience feed lots or any sort of cruelty. Almost zero use of fossil fuel. Much less than plowing, tilling, & harvesting a typical vegetable crop of comparable size. The cows also produce a humongous amount of tasty food that feeds (& clothes) many hungry people. Most of whom probably don't even have the desire or ability to produce food for themselves. So there's that.

Cows have directly & indirectly kept this ranch/homestead going for over 100 years. If it were sold off it would quickly become a housing development. The trees would be cut down & the water features would mostly disappear. How would that be an improvement on anything? This place was built on love for the animals & out of respect for the environment. Nothing less is acceptable here.

Yes, they have their one bad day ... we all do eventually.

Lab meat? I'll pass.

BTW, you can sign up on the waitlist for a free viewing of the FILM, 'Sacred Cow'
https://www.sacredcow.info
And I think you painted a very accurate picture of 'sacred' cow life, Mike .... thanks ; )  (Plus, of course, all the cows only exist because a farmer arranged to breed them..)
And, another btw, the book/film answers the question, "Yeah, but can we feed EVERYONE with pastured animals?  Huh ??? ")

Mike Barkley wrote:
This place was built on love for the animals & out of respect for the environment. Nothing less is acceptable here.
Yes, they have their one bad day ... we all do eventually.

To me, that's the way the world was meant to be. I hate seeing CAFO lots or the big chicken and turkey houses around here. I see live turkeys in tight cages by the truckful going by on the road past this house. Saddens me that the world has become like this.

From the link in the OP ( by Georgia Ede, MD  )

Although their diet plan is intended for all “generally healthy individuals aged two years and older,” the authors admit it falls short of providing proper nutrition for growing children, adolescent girls, pregnant women, aging adults, the malnourished, and the impoverished — and that even those not within these special categories will need to take supplements to meet their basic requirements.

Sadder still is the fact that the majority of people in this country and in many other countries around the world are no longer metabolically healthy, and this high-carbohydrate plan doesn’t take them into consideration.

And that, to me, is the crux of it. I'm a big fan of nutrient dense food, and preventing chronic disease with good diets, and see horrifying things done in the name of profits or politics, and too many people who don't listen to their own bodies falling for the propaganda that is pushed by the profit motive. It's very sad  that people listen to advertising of any stripe more than their own bodies, and ignore the realities of how their food is grown and processed in making their food choices. And seem surprised when it catches up to them health-wise.

If I could wish one thing on this culture, it would be to get the big money out of the discussions about food, that would change so much. Instead, as the OP mentioned, " They're doing it AGAIN!" and people will probably fall for it, again...  Saddens me.

OK  another chance to view, for FREE, the great DVD  - 'Sacred Cow' - sign up to view free for a week - 11/22 to 30.  The book is has more detail, and website has indepth interviews .... let's spread this around : )   (It's up to us.. there is a gigantic global campaign to, apparently, eliminate our access to red meat! - Note, I didn't say anything about value of vegan or meat... just OUR ACCESS!!)

https://www.sacredcow.info/

I support people eating meat that is grown in fields. Animals that can walk around. That have good lives.   I do not support Confined Animal Feeding Operations.  They create giant environmental disasters.  They are sources of giant animal cruelty.  People who work there get sick in many ways and they are underpaid.  Honestly, 98% of meat that Americans eat is from CAFO's.  People say, "Let them choose." Well, lazy people will choose CAFO meat almost every time, just like they do now, and cruelty to humans and animals will continue with the environmental disasters.  I would support limits on numbers of animals for CAFO's and making sure that the chickens don't have their beaks torn off, cows aren't trapped in their own shit, and the animals can have a good life.  People get addicted to lots of cheap meat, and we need to stop the cruel, environmental disaster way from being the easy way. This is our culture. A culture of cruelty and environmental disaster, unless we change it.

John S
PDX OR

For there to be a change in CAFOs, I think the whole system needs to change.

Here in Australia, it is normal to feed cattle grass and raise outdoors with plenty of space. There are no grain subsidies. Some cattle are finished on grain, but there's no cradle to grave cattle feedlots.

In the US, I've heard that feeding grain is subsidised by the government, so grain-fed meat appears to be cheap, but it actually isn't.

I hope the solution involves a switch to homesteading, or buying from small-scale farmers who are doing the right thing. Eating less meat can be an option for people whose health can handle it - eggs and milk are easy to produce on a small homestead and are good sources of protein.

I like the idea of more and more people dropping out of the supermarket/CAFO system, and making that system obselete through our own choices.

I completely agree Kate.  Great post.
John S
PDX OR