Where is the outrage? Truth about 'fake' foods; Russia bans U.S. meat

Originally posted by MaMaa
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

As a moral choice I do not eat beef, chicken, or pork anymore. I have seen how animals are treated and it was vile. This is not to say that I don't love a good burger, but I made the choice not to eat it anymore. Not that I ever ate McCrap much before making this choice though. We have our own veggie garden, our own chickens for eggs and I cut out the majority of animal products. I still eat fish and eggs.

I asked myself if I would be willing to kill the animal or support the way they were being treated, I without a doubt had to say no. Because of that it seemed hypocritical of me to continue eating what I wasn't willing to kill or support the treatment of, kwim?

I'm glad they banned US beef, maybe it will be a wake up call, although I doubt it.

Hey there, you should consider supporting a local wild/game meats provider. Choosing not to eat meat weakens the normal meat business, but choosing to eat animals that are treated well helps make a viable financial alternative. It's also alot easier to convince other people to change over to - in fact usually it just takes for them to taste it - the quality of the animals life is reflected in the quality of the meat. Up to you of course, but I think ultimately turning the industry over would be more ethically sound than a small portion of the population opting out altogether.

Originally posted by cartesia

Hey there, you should consider supporting a local wild/game meats provider. Choosing not to eat meat weakens the normal meat business, but choosing to eat animals that are treated well helps make a viable financial alternative. It's also alot easier to convince other people to change over to - in fact usually it just takes for them to taste it - the quality of the animals life is reflected in the quality of the meat. Up to you of course, but I think ultimately turning the industry over would be more ethically sound than a small portion of the population opting out altogether.

I do actually. I don't eat it myself because I'm not willing to kill the animal myself, but my husband and four boys do like eating meat. There are a couple of places that we get chicken, beef and pork from locally for the meat eaters in the family. My oldest actually hunts rabbit..which saddens me since I love bunnies, and not on my plate. LOL

reply to post by FyreByrd


Thank you for the replies

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Son of Will
If you are actually interested in health, you would stay away from meat and dairy altogether. Even eating organic, free-range livestock is directly linked to a laundry list of diseases, including the top killer in the USA, heart disease, as well as diabetes and a long list of cancers. There is an especially strong link between dairy and breast cancer in women.

It's certainly healthier to eat cleaner meat, but the meat itself is probably doing just as much damage. If this is news to you, I suggest reading The China Study.

And where is the link? Where are your sources.

Humankind evolved eating meat... and diary products have been a stable for millennia. The problems with meat and dairy come from the chemicals, drugs and practises of factory farming to increase yield and profit for the industry not from unpolluted sources.

The link? Read the last sentence of my post. The China Study is the largest epidemiological study ever conducted on human nutrition. It is quite famous in nutrition science and finding info on it is not difficult. (Okay it's more a reference than a link But on a handheld, posting proper links poses unique problems)

First of all, dairy was not a common food staple until very recently in our history. Until domestication of animals, also very recently in our history, consumption of meat was quite rare. Our physiological adaptation to consuming them has been minimal, but even that is a moot point because of my following point.

Second of all, humans evolved to procreate. We adapt to our environments only to the extent that a species can optimize its rate of procreation, so as to maximize its competitiveness in the wild. So even though we have a couple adaptations which aid in digesting animal products, evolution and natural selection only "care" about whether that adaptation aids procreation.

So you see, there is no "natural" diet for humans, as far as evolution is concerned. (Sorry, paleo/primal dieters) It could very easily be that the healthiest diet involves some food mixture that nobody's even conceived of yet. But for now, the only way to truly peer into what can give us vitality into old age is the field of Epidemiology. It is basically the art of taking every piece of data relevant to the subject being studied, and checking for statistically significant correlations.

That is what makes epidemiology studies so unique - they can be weak and thus meaningless if not done correctly. But if done properly, they can reveal unexpected results. Many forget that epidemiology studies are what convinced the public of the dangers of tobacco. Since there are countless environmental factors which combine to determine the health of any individual, you need to study a LOT of people over a LONG period of time, for any kind of meaningful result.

Back to the China Study, it examined millions of Chinese over 20 years. They are still collecting data, even. Furthermore, and responding to the second part of your post, the study specifically used animal products from remote villages in China that hadn't changed their lifestyles and farming practices in generations. That means none of the poisons used in modern Western farms. No rBGH or antibiotics. The result? Strong association with disease.

And just take a step back and think about it. Do you really want to be drinking concentrated hormone soup specifically tailored for infant cows which need to pack on hundreds of pounds within a matter of months? And people wonder why America has an obesity epidemic. And you think fluoride makes you passive and docile? Yeah, milk does that too, but much more effectively.