Eating Animals is Making us Sick

reply to post by dzonatas


out natural habitat? you want the entire earth's population to move to ... where exactly?

it is precisely the influence of diverse habitats that shaped our omnivorous nature, whch the rapidly changing climates of the african plains necessitated. Archeologists are clear on the fact that our ancestors ate meat to survive - yes, even in our 'natural habitat' - which if you consider our origins, is not a particular climate zone, but rather an environment that is always changing, sometimes radically.

it is fallacious therefore, given that our cultural advances have muted the force of natural selection, to assert that any of our climate zones is our 'true' climate zone.


we are defined by our considerable adaptability, which for thousands of years, has included eating meat. those who couldn't died a looooong time ago.

k so if meat amkes us super intelleigent how come other carnivores havent evolved into super smart beings? and stuff.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Tuberculosis is an infectious disease. Eating animals has nothing to do with tuberculosis.

Did you miss the point of the OP, the book, and the health issues all related to 'eating animals'?

The Department is concerned about the affects of TB on the industry for several reasons. First, there is a zoonotic risk for individuals consuming raw milk from TB–infected animals. Second, there is concern about the establishment of infection in a wide host range including free–ranging wild species. Additionally, infection with Bovine TB reduces production in affected cattle and imposes trade restrictions. While the risk of humans contracting bovine TB is extremely low, positive cases in the state’s cattle herd can negatively affect consumer confidence in milk and beef products. It is important for consumers and public health officials to understand that the TB bacteria is killed when meat is cooked and milk is pasteurized—steps that provide a final barrier to protect public health.

Source: California Department of Food and Agriculture

What species are susceptible to Bovine Tb?

Bovine Tb can be transmitted from cattle to other farm animals, bison, and all of the deer species under certain conditions. Cattle are the usual host for this bacteria, but transmission can occur between wild deer.

How is Bovine Tb transmitted?

The most common means is by airborne transmission. Infected animals exhale bacteria through breathing, coughing and sneezing. Animals are more likely to infect each other when they share a common watering and feeding place.

Is Tb common in wild animals?

Bovine tuberculosis is not a naturally occurring disease in wild animals. It is thought that it was introduced into wildlife populations through contact with domestic animals. Although it is known that wild herds can become infected with Tb, results from specific hunter surveys in Manitoba and Alberta, and the capture and testing of wild animals for domestic and zoological purposes indicate that the disease is still not common in wild animals in Canada.

Source: Canadian Food Inspection Agency

In Canada, Aboriginals, and particularly the Arctic Inuit communities, have witnessed dramatic decreases in TB during the 1960s to 1970s, but rates remain at least 10 to 20 times higher than the national average.

Source: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003 Dec 1;168(11):1353-7. Epub 2003 Sep 18. Tuberculosis in the Inuit community of Quebec, Canada.

The success of [Inuit's] trips was dependent on their accurate timing of the various animals' migration patterns. Disruption of the whether by mining, military activity, or natural causes, could spell disaster for the group.

Source: A Long Way from Home: The Tuberculosis Epidemic Among the Inuit, Pat Sandiford Grygier, 1997

Continue to read that book and you will see that your narrowed means of "westernization" was after the fact of of the start of the epidemic tuberculous. Despite you narrow view of westernization, the book mentions various exposure cases before "westernization." It wasn't until later that the Inuit started to rely on food from the "westernized" areas due to the lack of the migration patterns that they once knew, now disrupted. Here, the key to their health wasn't just the 'all meat' diet, they very much relied on migration. The book notes that the food the westernized stores didn't provide the same levels of nutrients they were used to. Due to the lower nutrients levels (despite infected food), the epidemic tuberculous continued to increase sickness and mortality rates.

You asked:

Why do traditional Inuit's seem to be immune to all of the diseases of civilization? It's an observation that can not be ignored.

And, you stated:

Once again, I simply referred to a group of individuals that thrive on meat without incidence of the diseases of civilization and then said it can't be ignored...

They are still not immune to tuberculous, especially when their sickness rate is 10 to 20 times higher than the national average. This is what you obviously ignored when you stated "without incidence."

Further, this thread never claims it is impossible to live on meat alone. This thread shows you those "incidences," and through process to compare and contrast, you can determine why.

The only thing you really shown is that in order to eat an 'all meat' diet and stay healthy is for everybody to live like the Inuit and hunt animals in their natural migration. How are people suppose to do this when they live in cities and other populated areas that have destroyed natural migration (and would lead to diseases like stated above)?

Now why do Native Americans, like me, move on from such a pre-westernized diet and take on a vegetarian diet??? We obviously learned to 'move on' where we could live in populated areas and avoid foods (your version of "westernized" foods) that do not help sustain nutrients. A vegetarian diet means one doesn't have to live in unpopulated areas and doesn't have to follow natural migration patterns. Aha!

Originally posted by TrueTruth
out natural habitat? you want the entire earth's population to move to ... where exactly?

You should ask Devo that question based on his "can't be ignored" claims of the Inuit. (How ironic you tried to state that against me, and it's actually against Devo's claims!)

I think there is one word that can sum up direction of the argument in this thread (and what the book 'Eating animals' is about): "Organic food"... ok, well that was two words.

Nice little article i cam across on another forum.

Devolution raw meat does cause osteoporosis, along with grains due to the acidic nature of both these foods. You haveno evidence that proves to the contrary



Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by TheBorg]

reply to post by Rawhemp


That's great. How hard is it, really, to post the source of your quotes?

I'm not nagging, it's just really frustrating when you constantly ignore ATS T&C, preventing me from reviewing the source of your information. I have no way of knowing the validity of this information or if you've taken it out of context. Plus, it's plagiarism.

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I'm not nagging, it's just really frustrating when you constantly ignore ATS T&C, preventing me from reviewing the source of your information. I have no way of knowing the validity of this information or if you've taken it out of context. Plus, it's plagiarism.

Then why can I find it here.

So... there is the link.

Originally posted by Doc Tesla
reply to post by Rawhemp

 

our bodies are meant to ingest meat. meat is easily digestible while things like fiber found in vegetables is completely non digestible. while this is good for our colon and whatever else it just proves that our body wasn't made to handle it.

best answer over.

PERIOD, no more debates.

reply to post by dzonatas


Your ability to copy and paste into a search engine is beside the point. It's against T&C to post a quote without giving credit to the original source. It's still plagiarism.

-Dev

reply to post by dzonatas


You're still misrepresenting what Devo was getting at with the Inuit example, I see.

You simply refuse to have a fair and level discussion; every response you type involves distortion and a commensurate amount of dishonesty.

I'm am assuming you are aware of this.

Originally posted by IceDash

Originally posted by Doc Tesla
reply to post by Rawhemp

 

our bodies are meant to ingest meat. meat is easily digestible while things like fiber found in vegetables is completely non digestible. while this is good for our colon and whatever else it just proves that our body wasn't made to handle it.

best answer over.

PERIOD, no more debates.

ok, so why do you cook meat then?

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER

Originally posted by IceDash

Originally posted by Doc Tesla
reply to post by Rawhemp

 

our bodies are meant to ingest meat. meat is easily digestible while things like fiber found in vegetables is completely non digestible. while this is good for our colon and whatever else it just proves that our body wasn't made to handle it.

best answer over.

PERIOD, no more debates.

ok, so why do you cook meat then?

lol, sorry.

Debates is over, we eat meat and fruit and vegetable, even God himself said it okay to eat meat

if you stuck on the ocean with no fruit and vegetable (because they don't grow on water) but you see many tuna fish....what would be your choices?

DEBATE IS OVER, we eat meat, period.

reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER


This is a false duality - once upon a time, our ancestors cooked neither. in fact, there are still tribes today that consume unpreserved and uncooked meat. Over the generations, they've developed immunity to the bacteria in question, with respect to their own habitat.

I tend to think that humans started cooking in general, because it tastes good. How did we even discover it? I'd assume by accident - just as a result of fire somewhere.

Meat consumption predates cooking. As does eating veggies, fruits, etc.

I remember eating fresh veggies in a strange country .... didn't go over so very well. I did fine with cooked veggies, however.

It's just what we're adapted to, and tradition.

reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER


how come eating carrots hasn't turned me into a bunny?

silly rabbit.

why does nature exhibit ANY diversity if we all started from the same basic set of organic molecules? How come we all aren't just long strings of protein?

Why does nature manifest patterns and change ....

you see my point.

I wish to become a vegetarian but meat tastes so good, yummy..yummy.
I tried it and after a week I felt weak and tierd, other products don't have
enought proteins and I don't like pills. Beans, milk and egs have proteins but it's just not the same level, concetration of proteins, one would have to eat alot more to get enough proteins if he or she go's on to be a vegetarian. It all depends on the stress level, on sexual contact, on energy cost. The more you have this things the more you need to eat.

We the human rase are still primitive if we still eat other animals.
All the morality and all the etics are gone when we stick our teeth in meat, we eat anything that tastes good, horses, caws, chicken, pigs, some eat cats and dogs, some like willd animals meat, willd pigs meat, birds, elephant meat and even lion meat.

We eat dolphins, an inteligent animal but hey it's good. We eat anything that moves and tastes good, and then we preach how important it is to act nice in public. HAHAHAHHA

We are not only primitive, we are primitive whores.



[edit on 8-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Did you miss the point of the OP, the book, and the health issues all related to 'eating animals'?

No, I'm very well aware of the OP, the book, and I am very well aware of the consequences of factory farming. However, I have specifically responded to other members suggesting that the CONSUMPTION of meat is making us sick. The definition of "sick" has included, but not limited to, the diseases of civilization.

Tuberculosis is an infectious, airborne disease that is transmitted from human to human by inhaling bacteria from droplets. Zoonose, or the transmission of a disease from animal to human, is quite rare, especially considering the way food is prepared/cooked.

Tb is not caused by the direct consumption of meat, in the vast majority of cases. Your own sources confirmed this.

Continue to read that book and you will see that your narrowed means of "westernization" was after the fact of of the start of the epidemic tuberculous.

I'd rather not read the book as it is of no importance to the conversation. I mean, you are seriously making a stretch trying to associate the Inuit's wild meat consumption with Tb incidence. Occam's Razor......Let's use the simple hypothesis instead of complicating a simple problem to support your preconception. Simple: Tb in the Inuit is easily explained by their isolation from infectious diseases before the Europeans introduced it to their culture.

You asked:

Why do traditional Inuit's seem to be immune to all of the diseases of civilization? It's an observation that can not be ignored.

And, you stated:

Once again, I simply referred to a group of individuals that thrive on meat without incidence of the diseases of civilization and then said it can't be ignored...

They are still not immune to tuberculous, especially when their sickness rate is 10 to 20 times higher than the national average. This is what you obviously ignored when you stated "without incidence."

Here. I'll make this simple. Tb is not a disease of civilization:

Lifestyle diseases (also sometimes called diseases of longevity or diseases of civilization interchangably) are diseases that appear to increase in frequency as countries become more industrialized and people live longer. They can include Alzheimer's disease, atherosclerosis, asthma, cancer, chronic liver disease or cirrhosis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, nephritis or chronic renal failure, osteoporosis, acne, stroke, depression and obesity.

Some commenters maintain a distinction between diseases of longevity, and diseases of civilization. Certain diseases, such as diabetes or asthma appear at greater rates in young populations living in the "western" way; their increased incidence is not related to age, so the terms cannot accurately be used interchangeably for all diseases.

I was very clearly speaking of diseases of civilization that are directly associated with dietary choice. Tb....is not one.

Further, this thread never claims it is impossible to live on meat alone.

I know. It was, however, directly implied.

The only thing you really shown is that in order to eat an 'all meat' diet and stay healthy is for everybody to live like the Inuit and hunt animals in their natural migration.

I agree that epidemiology/observations do not prove causation. But to make the assumption above is absolutely ridiculous for two reasons. 1) There are corroborating epidemiological/observational data in different climates consuming different types of meat (The masai are just one example). 2) If your above statement is true then epidemiology has no place in nutritional science and every observation, including the ones made by you and rawhemp, are moot.

You should ask Devo that question based on his "can't be ignored" claims of the Inuit. (How ironic you tried to state that against me, and it's actually against Devo's claims!)

I can't believe the amount of misrepresentation, dishonesty and deflections in your attempts to discredit me. Unless you just have a true problem with comprehension, you are purposefully twisting my posts/points and striving to present them as false, all the while arguing points that are ultimately moot.

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
[...]

It's easier for you to spout out those cheap shots than it is for you to google a source!

Meh.

There is nothing left for you to argue about, so now you have grasped straws.

One specific problem I noticed is how you take a point someone else made and then claim they have twisted your points. That is just ridiculous because it is perfectly fine for two people to have two different points. Don't try to own a thread like you are the only one allowed to make points, and how you think everybody else only tries to twist your points when they make theirs. Just because you use certain terminology that is narrower than the topic doesn't mean it just became law that everybody else has to limit their terminology to yours.

The topic of 'Eating animals' is not limited to the mere act of meat consumption. It's all about related health issues of civilization, industry, factory farms, produce, the effects on non-meat eaters, the effects on Earth, agriculture, and etc. The thread was never just about meat consumption, but you obviously wanted it to be.

Meat doesn't magically appear on your diner plate.

I took my time to review your case of the Inuit. You don't seem appreciative of that at all.



Back on topic, here something that the book "Eating Animals" points out that shouldn't be ignored:

CAFO

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, a.k.a. factory farm. Tellingly, this formal designation was created not by the meat industry but by the Environmental Protection Agency (see also: environmentalism). All CAFOs harm animals in ways that would be illegal according to even relatively weak animal welfare legislation. Thus:

CFE

Common Farming Exemptions make legal any method of raising farmed animals so long as it is commonly practiced within the industry. In other words, farmers — corporations is the right word — have the power to define cruelty. If the industry adopts a practice — hacking off unwanted appendages with no painkillers, for example, but you can let your imagination run with this — it automatically becomes legal.

Sounds like one is the judge, jury, witness, and defendant all at the same time. A conspiracy!

[edit on 9-12-2009 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by IceDash
even God himself said it okay to eat meat

Read the bible again, god says to eat nothing containing blood. Its nearly impossible to get blood less meat.

Originally posted by IceDashif you stuck on the ocean with no fruit and vegetable (because they don't grow on water) but you see many tuna fish....what would be your choices?

making crazy life threatening scenarios to prove your point just proves your point fails.


@devolution, cry more. If you think I'm disobeying the ATS t&c feel free to report me

My brother brought up a good point last night. Most people eat meat for every meal, 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 365. This is completely unnatural anyway you look at it, if you were in the wild and actively hunting animals you would be lucky to eat meat a couple times a week. If even that.


@the poster that thinks because meat is fiberless its somehow better for us, your a moron. The fiber protects our digestive tract, the fiber less nature of meat causes our colon walls to becomes thick and bumpy. Most people who eat meat are lucky if they crap one time a day, this is bad .

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
[...]

It's easier for you to spout out those cheap shots than it is for you to google a source!

It's not my place.

Meat doesn't magically appear on your diner plate.

Neither does any other food. Think about that. There are health implications associated with the secondary effects of consuming any food.

There is nothing left for you to argue about, so now you have grasped straws.

Yep. I'm done here. You win.

-Dev

[edit on 9-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]