Oh Meat...A Rant

Chapter 18 - The Encyclopedia of Healing Foods, Michael Murray MD

"While moderate consumption of meat and animal products may be health promoting, there isno question that overconsumption of these foods is spurring a global epidemic of lifestyle diseases suchas heart attacks, strokes, and cancers, as well as creating new pressures on land and water resources, contributing to water pollution, and exacerbating global warming. World meat production has surged nearly sixfold since 1950."

"...meat production is an inefficient use of natural resources..."

"...one in six pople goes hungry each day, the politics of meat consumption are increasingly heated..."

"70 per cent of the grain grown goes to feed livestock and poultry."

"If the 670 million tons of the world's grain used for feed were reduced by just 10 per cent, this would free up 67 million tons of grain, enough to sustain 225 million people, or keep up withworld population growth for the next three years. In addition, if each American reduced his or her meat consumption by only 5%, roughly equivalent to eating one dish less of meat each week, 7.5 million tons of grain would be saved, enough to feed 25 million people-roughly the number estimated to go hungry in the US each day."



...oh man what can I say to this but wow! What the hell are we doing to our earth and to our people guys? None of these statements even begin to address the issues of humane treatment with regards to the animals that are actually being eaten. This is a heavily faceted situation...many issues all in one, all having to do with MEAT. Or do they really?

I think there is a big, huge, ginormous issue that is being left out of this conversation in the nutrition text book. And perhaps the author doesn't want to get too political, but since Mr. Murray skims the fringe of food politics in his book, I absolutely have to point out that he's overly idealistic about the situation of world hunger and it's relationship to meat production. Before I go there though, I have to say that I agree 100% with the statements that the methods utilized for meat production in this country and probably all the other developed countries in the world, are at best, f'd up, at worst, purely evil. All of everything natural is threatened and people are eating themselves to death with processed, poisoned, energetically negative, toxic meat products. But is that also causing hunger? Or would world hunger be reduced if meat production was reduced? I seriously doubt it...

I don't think it's possible to say a positive correlation exists between grain production for livestock and rates of hunger...there are too many questions involved...what qualifies as hunger? What quantifies it? Or are we talking about starvation here? And...if we stop using all that grain to feed livestock, is some generous philanthropist gonna ship it some place where hungry people can eat it? NO WAY! Even if that nice guy existed, there would probably end up being some organization on the other end mandating who could receive the donation and what they'd have to do to get it...There's is an even bigger problem than the way factory farms ruin our landscapes and deplete our ozone (not more important, but more relevant, and that's what I mean by bigger). That problem has to do with money. That's what it's all about, and whoever has it is is calling the shots. It also has to do with the relationships between agribusiness and government, and there are several positive correlations there for sure...but if average Joe cuts out his weekly hotdog (which I definitely think he should do, for a million reasons), it's not gonna reduce world hunger. Even if every average Joe and Jane and their Jack and Jill children cut out their weekly hotdogs, people in this world are still going to be hungry.

I guess my point is that our text might be encouraging its audience to be naive. It reminds me of those commercials saying that if every person just changed one of their household light bulbs to a compact fluorescent something or other we'd reduce all these dependencies on electricity and save the whole earth. It's bull. These problems calls for something much more radical, and much more active. Like what we are learning with the other parts of our holistic educations, we also have to learn and REMEMBER that every problem has a cause, and eradicating that cause is the only way to eradicate the symptom. The symptom of world hunger is not caused by grain overproduction for cows to feed fat Americans. It's caused by inadequate support systems, overindulgence of material goods by people with insatiable appetites, and dis-integral relationships by the people who own the food and the people who run the world. So what is the solution?

If you want to fight hunger, do it locally. Start a community garden, and teach people how to catch their own fish.

Some links. I like the Economist. It's straightforward reporting.

Guatemala


A really good movie about Jamaica's agricultural issues...and more: Life + Debt

Choice/Voice

What are some of your ideas about what we can do to decrease the use of hormones, antibiotics, and environmental pollutants in our food supply and still meet worldwide food demands?

This is a really tough question.

I'd like to remain optimistic in my belief that if only we could educate people who are buying food, that they would change their habits and happily (and willingly) adopt eating habits that say to food producers, "We're not gonna buy your crap any more!" I like to think that if enough consumers are educated then we can change anything. As consumers we are the ones with the power to change what's made available to us. And so half of my brain is wrapped around this ideal that we can get growth hormones and antibiotics and pesticides and maltreatment of animals far far away from our food, and far away from our consciousness(Individual and collective).

On the other hand.

Being an American, a citizen of the Western and Northern Hemispheres, I have to accept that most people are complacent, lazy, and ignorant, and unfortunately it seems that a lot of people have chosen to be that way. Those of us who want better options (who only want the best options, actually), likely plan to work hard toward these goals despite the fact that so many others are just obstacles in our path, who aren't necessarily doing anything wrong, but they aren't doing anything to help either. Because of this FACT, it's going to be much more difficult to regain the strength and power we should never have lost as consumers in a capitalist society.

So how do we reconcile this...

I think it just means that those of us who care about our health as individuals and the health of our societies in general, are gonna have to work extra hard. Obviously we don't want to exclude anyone from the fruits of these labors, but we have to put a lot of energy and information into the people who don't know, don't care, or don't act. What this really means is that in order to get this 'crap' out of our grocery stores, we have to be very picky about where we shop, what we buy, and who we give our money to, in addition to filing complaints, sharing information (and pushing it on people who resist), and choosing NOT TO SETTLE when we feel tired, hungry, and worn out from fighting the good fight.

I failed to mention in my original post how I think we can still meet food demands worldwide. The truth is, there is no shortage of food on this planet. The fact that people are starving has to do with money, corrupt government, and the abuses of capital imperialism. To this end, I don't think pesticides, growth hormones, or antibiotics have anything to do with global food crisis. That is an issue that must be resolved by again, making the reality of these situations known, and choosing as consumers to be more selective in our shopping habits in all areas of life. We have to do our research and know what the companies we support are doing, down to where and how the ingredients of the fabrics in the clothes we buy are manufactured and produced.

Week 8

2 Visit the SCDiet website. Using the Mineral Wheel, show which minerals antagonize zinc in the body. Pick one mineral that you found interesting, what did you learn about it? What foods can the mineral be found in and what minerals antagonize this mineral? Report your findings in a blog entry.

I've been a bad student lately, mostly due to a crazy schedule and several weeks of illness. Now I think I'm gettin back on the wagon, so here is what I've found regarding my chosen blog req's:

Interactive Mineral Wheel

Calcium, Copper, and Phosphorous are all antagonists for zinc. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to write about this discovery, because the question seems to lead into a second part...about a mineral I find interesting.

So I'm pretty interested in learning more about Potassium (K). I was told as a track runner in high school that Potassium is important for people who use their legs a lot, and later learned that Magnesium is necessary for preventing muscle cramps and Charlie horsing in the legs as well. As an electrolyte, Potassium is essential for proper neurological functioning, and ensures good nerve firing and signaling. It's also important for balancing sodium in the body, too much of which leads to high blood pressure because it causes too much water to be retained in the cells (leading to higher blood volume, too much water in the blood). It is good for muscles because it inhibits muscle contraction.


Potassium is best found in plant foods like bananas, avocados, oranges, tomatoes, and soybeans. There are several mineral antagonists to Potassium, including Manganese, Sodium, and Iron.