Daily Red Meat Raises Chances Of Dying Early

[onehandle]

Source: Washington Post

Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to the first large study to examine whether regularly eating beef or pork increases mortality.

The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.

Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.

"The bottom line is we found an association between red meat and processed meat and an increased risk of mortality," said Rashmi Sinha of the National Cancer Institute, who led the study published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[aquart]

1. So pork ISN'T the other white meat?

[unc70]

35. Never smoked plus white meat also had increased risk

Smoking rates are much higher among red meat eaters in study. Major confounding problem which I don't think they adequately resolved.

They mention various unexplained correlations which could be the result of having so many subjects that everything is statistically significant.

Also interested in their exclusions of those with high or low energy diets, etc.


Finally, none of the people in the study could die really early -- they were all AARP members when it began!

[Le Taz Hot]

48. You are eligible for AARP at 50

so if one of them died at say, 51, yeah, I'd consider that early.

LTH,
Age 53-1/2

[unc70]

71. Relatively few of us join AARP at 50, need to see age spread of cohort

I have read the entire journal article but have not really studied it or the underlying dataset. At this preliminary review, I doubt the data even supports the conclusions of the authors, much less the screaming headlines in the general media like "Red meat can kill you".

While I agree that any deaths among the youngest participants were before they reached my age (60) and therefore "early", the real problem is with starting the study with people who have "survived" to whatever their enrollment age. For example, subjects age 65 when the study began were not drawn from a comparable population as those of age 50.

Doing research like this, at best, is fraught with perils. Start with correlation vs causation, followed by the seduction of "statistical significance" for almost anything when you have an N of half a million. Throw in the self-selection biases -- membership in AARP first, then those willing and able to personally complete questionaire and other items, the obvious biases of self-reported data regarding diet, and much more.

When I have a few days to look at this, I hope to post a short review back here at DU.

[lonestarnot]

158. AARP sucks ass, why would anyone want to join that crap? They helped put us in this mess with their

support for bushitler.

[unc70]

87. I might have seemed overly critical of the researchers in my other post

This study on red meat is the latest of many other studies using the AARP Cohort. Many of the others have been much more focused and much "cleaner" in my opinion. Many of these studies have been reported widely and discussed at DU: no increased risk from sugar or soft drinks on pancreatic cancer, no benefit from vitamin E or selenium on prostate cancer (CaP), no effect from dairy on CaP, increased risk from HRT on ovarian cancer.

In spite of the problems I discussed earlier, there is a lot that can be learned from this cohort concerning an aging population. You just need to realize the limitation inherent in these studies.

The people in the AARP Cohort were born from about 1925 to 1945. Their experiences, their health, and almost everything else are vastly different from those born the next 20 years, the Baby Boomers. The oldest of the AARP cohort fought in WWII, the youngest were raised during the shortages and rationing of the war. They endured the ravages of childhood diseases before antibiotics. Much more to be studied.

[aquart]

100. Good points.

They were raised on butter and margarine, too. And whole milk.

[caseymoz]

174. A very large number of subjects is necessary to cancel the other factors.

I'm thinking that the study's purpose was to adjust for smoking and other factors like that.

[unc70]

186. True, but even the authors state that significant confounding may remain

The "Comment" section at the end of the journal article includes a surprising level of disclaimer (CYA) related to possible issues with this study and its results. I suspect this was added to the article following internal and peer review. I wish I could find an earlier version or maybe some interim one for comparison.

[Honeycombe8]

2. Hmmm. I wonder why. If it's the meat itself, or salt put on it? Or hormones from the cows?

Or is it just because it's fatty? There are lean cuts of red meat, with less fat than baked chicken w/the skin.

But I'm happy to say that I don't eat red meat or pork, and try to stay away from processed poultry. But I eat waaaaay more than my share of chicken.

[Genevieve]

3. Iron.

[Honeycombe8]

15. Isn't iron good for you? I take iron supplements sometimes...hard to get enuf iron,

when you don't eat red meat.

[rhett o rick]

108. Yes if you are a young female. Not for older males and probably not for older females. nm

[Genevieve]

134. According to the article: "meat is high in iron, also believed to promote cancer."

and:

"Although pork is often promoted as "white meat," it is believed to increase the risk of cancer because of its iron content".

[Genevieve]

138. You should only take iron supplements if you are found to be deficient in iron-anything more is

dangerous. Men, especially, rarely have an iron deficiency unless they’ve lost blood from an accident or are diagnosed with internal bleeding. Too much iron can increase your risk for other illnesses and conditions.

[Warpy]

27. More likely a combination of factors, not the lest of them fat

Our cattle aren't fed nice range grass until it's time to go to that big steakhouse in the sky. They get packed into feed lots where there is nothing to do but eat grain, an unnatural food, while they stand in their own waste. It's done this way so that their muscles atrophy and become streaked with fat, that "marbling" so prized by meat eaters because it makes the meat juicier when cooked quickly. Fat also carries flavor, so the more fat in the muscle, the more flavorful it is likely to be.

That fat is probably the worst stuff to eat if you want to live a long life.

Mark Bittman's got the right idea: eat food, good food, mostly plants and cut your meat consumption (that's all types, not just beef) to half a pound a week.

People who eat a heavy red meat and processed meat diet are asking for trouble.

[BadgerKid]

6. Nitrates aren't great for you.

But that doesn't explain red meat.

[MilesColtrane]

12. Carcinogens and fat

From a BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7959128.stm

The researchers said cancer-causing compounds were formed during high-temperature cooking of meat.

Meat is a major source of saturated fat, which has been associated with breast and colorectal cancer.
In addition, lower meat intake has been linked to a reduction in risk factors for heart disease, including lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

[Honeycombe8]

17. But that doesn't explain the connection with red meat and pork. Chicken w/skin is

very fatty....more so than many cuts of red meat (don't know about pork). But the study didn't connect heart disease and cancer to chicken w/skin.

BUT...cows ARE fed types of hormones that chickens are not. Chickens get different hormones, I expect.

I'm not into organic foods, really, but I DO drink fat free organic milk, because non-organic has those hormones that are given to the cows.

[veganlush]

92. have you tried soymilk such as 'silk'?..

...it has all the calcium of milk and more, no cholesterol, more vitamin D and no animal was chained to a machine to make it.

[and-justice-for-all]

149. I did'nt like Silk, I prefer 8th Continent Soy Milk vanilla..its yummy

I'm allergic to cow milk, it tends to irritate my digestive track so I stopped drinking a few years back

[gauguin57]

193. And vanilla soy Silk has the same number of Weight Watchers points as skim milk.

Without all the lactose some of us AARP-ers don't need.

[NashVegas]

103. Ever Take a Good Look at Rendered Beef Fat, aka, Tallow?

At room temp, it's solid like wax. Makes sense you wouldn't want a lot of it floating around your arteries.

[Born Free]

34. Well-done meat contains more carcinogenic material than does lightly cooked meat

Several years ago, when I had colon cancer I remember reading something about the way beef was done made a difference. I don't remember the details but had something to do with a reaction from the high heat. My personal suspicion it has to do more with the growth hormones they used to mass produce modern day beef.

We started using bison more often, a little more expensive but contains less fat and no growth hormones. Ironically, the beef lobby had laws passed to prevent using growth hormones in bison, which makes bison a little safer. I would never say bison taste better than beef, but if it is well done it is very similar and when used as ground beef in something such as stuffed peppers,or almost anything you would use ground beef in it is almost the same as using ground beef . I don't care for bison leftovers more than 1 day old, the flavor seems to change, even if it is properly sealed and kept cool, but that could just be me. Some places sell fresh, well done bison that tastes good and some do not, if you get to place that doesn't make it right it is not very good at all.

[bitchkitty]

33. Probably because our bodies are not designed to

eat meat as a main dish as often as we do. I'm not so sure we're designed to eat flesh at all. Certainly not daily, and in as large portions as we do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Oh, we are definitely designed to be omnivores - just not, as you said,

in the large daily portions so many of us think we need. We could probably get all the benefits, and none of the problems, by keeping to 8-12oz of meat a week.

[bitchkitty]

118. Yep - absolutely right.

Some say that your ancestry determines how much meat you can tolerate - if your tribe lived in a cold northern climate, you can tolerate more meat and animal fat. I don't know how much of that is b.s. of course, I'm no expert. I just feel better when I don't eat meat. I'm sentimental anyway, I like critters, and feel like it's really not fair to eat them if I couldn't bring myself to hunt them.

[OhioChick]

4. Don't know what to believe any more.

My Grandmother has eaten beef forever and is still kicking and healthy in her 90's.

[elleng]

5. My father is 95, tho.

.

[onehandle]

25. My Dad was 48.

When he died.

He liked his red meat.

[superconnected]

102. Was he overweight throughout his life? I doubt it.

Few people make it to 95, especially men who are big beef eaters.

But hey, gamble on the few who make it if you want. Most get taken out by they time they're in their 60's from the heart disease.

[elleng]

128. Never has been overweight.

I certainly don't question the statistics. He's generally healthy, and doesn't over do anything, food-wise or otherwise. Loves fresh tomatoes and fruit, milk, deserts; everything in moderation. That's just the way he is.

[flvegan]

7. This thread should be fun.

I'll start: Fuck nutrition and science, it tastes good!!! nom nom nom.

[davidinalameda]

16. PETA

People Eating Tasty Animals!

YUM!

[flvegan]

22. Yes!

Excellent entry!

[davidinalameda]

144. thank you

[cobalt1999]

69. According to the nutrition & science in this study...

"Walter Willett, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It would be better to shift from red meat to white meat such as chicken and fish, which if anything is associated with LOWER mortality."

Unless you're saying Fuck Science yourself, you'll be dropping the vegan diet and switching to white meats now.

[yewberry]

80. The study didn't address vegetarian or vegan diets in any way.

"Our objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality."

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/6...

[cobalt1999]

83. I know.

I was just yanking his chain a little since he did have the popcorn out and all.

[yewberry]

86. Well, I certainly won't stand in the way of chain-yanking.

The popcorn almost demands it.

[veganlush]

88. the study

apparently was comparing meat-types with each other. So white meat was better only when compared to red. Vegetarian fare was not cited.

[Marrah_G]

73. Wooohoooo!

I'll join you

I'll counter you with: Fuck all of you bloodthirsty, enviroment-hating murderers!

[rhett o rick]

109. LOL. Is that as inflammatory as you can get. nm

[Mojambo]

8. Mmmmm. Steak.

I love red meat.

I'm somewhat indifferent about dying early.

[underpants]

9. The only possible reason for a change from 3,000 years of history is a change in the processing

Eat grass fed beef.

[MilesColtrane]

13. Also the amount of meat eaten.

Most people couldn't afford to gorge themselves like they do now.

[Kali]

20. bingo - AND they were running around scrounging or catching what they did eat.

[underpants]

31. That is true

"Chicken dinner" was a luxury according to what my mother tells me. Steak was a STEAK DINNER!! for crying out loud.

[tinrobot]

14. Even with a 10 year shorter lifespan, modern people live longer

We live so long these days that the beef has time to kill us. 3,000 years ago, there was plenty of other things killing people besides hamburgers.

[FailureToCommunicate]

53. There were stricter gun laws back then. "When spears are outlawed, only outlaws

will have spears!" Fewer people shooting up fast food joints, also.

[xenussister]

28. Uh, how about an increase in carbohydrates? That could be a reason.

The more meat is vilified, the more carbohydrates people will eat, and then we'll see.

Fuck it. I'm on an ultra-low carbohydrate diet because of diabetes. Now that I don't eat carbs, I'm healthier than I ever have been, with perfectly normal blood sugar and blood pressure numbers.

[Locrian]

38. low carb

xenussister - Im the same way (w/o the diatetes). No sugar, no grain, no alcohol. Never felt better or looked better in my life.

Tons of vegetables (raw). Meat. Berries, nuts, fruit. Seems like a pretty primitive diet - ie what we have been eating for 100,000's of years.

[we can do it]

40. Wait Til That Low Carb High Protein BS Kills Your Kidneys

Then tell us how healthy you feel on dialysis

[ShortnFiery]

45. That is an excellent point. High protein diets do lessen your appetite but put ...

a strain on the renal system.

Damn, it always goes back to "the golden mean" = moderation in all things.

[we can do it]

121. Moderation- Something America Needs To Be Reacquainted With

[xenussister]

133. I know, high blood pressure and high blood sugar are so much better

I have regular kidney tests, including sonograms, and they're always normal. All I know is that I had out-of-control blood pressure that medication didn't help, and my blood sugar numbers were alarmingly high. Both became perfectly normal as soon as I cut out carbohydrates, to the point where I went off the blood pressure medicine I'd been on for years (and was told I'd be on for the rest of my life). I haven't taken blood pressure medicine for over two years and check my blood pressure often. It's always normal.

I can't think of what might happen sometime in the future when I have serious medical problems to take care of now. If worse came to worse, I'd rather be on dialysis than be blind, lose limbs or have a stroke.

[we can do it]

137. Dialysis- You Might Live 5 Years of Hell, with Little Protein to Eat

Carbs aren't the problem it's self- its JUNK sugar and processed crap foods. Maybe you should spend a day in a dialysis clinic before making dumbass statements like that.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Grass fed beef is TOUGH. As a former Nebraskan, I like my beef like I like my men.

Corn fed.

[underpants]

49. Not the stuff we eat

especially the way my wife prepares it. I can cut it with a butter knife

YUM!

http://www.brookviewfarm.com/Home.html

[ShortnFiery]

61. Whatever, you haven't lived in Omaha, Nebraska and been to a few Steak Houses that

I've been blessed to frequent. Not even your saintly wife's cooking could make scrawny grass fed cow meat compare to such delicious corn fed BEEF.

[Doremus]

77. Feeding cows corn wreaks havoc with their digestive systems.

They aren't designed to process corn. It congeals in their system, causes liver problems, irritates their digestive tract, requiring massive doses of drugs to offset.

I'm no cow expert, but dollars to donuts they're only fed corn because it's CHEAP thanks to government subsidies. The beef industry has successfully brainwashed us that corn fed = best, taking their cue from Madison Ave. and the repuke propaganda machine.

[WriteDown]

95. Not exactly

I prefer my steaks to be beer fed such as Wagyu beef, but here is a little more info.

Corn Fed

Cattle in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are typically fed corn, soy and other types of feed that can include "by-product feedstuff". As a high-starch, high-energy food, corn decreases the time to fatten cattle and increases yield from dairy cattle. These cattle are called corn-fed or grain-fed. In the United States, most grass fed cattle are raised for beef production. Dairy cattle are usually supplemented with grain to increase the efficiency of production and reduce the area needed to support the energy requirements of the herd. A growing number of health and environmental proponents in the United States such as the Union of Concerned Scientists advocate raising cattle on pasture and other forage. Some claim that the adoption of a grass-fed beef production system would dramatically increase the amount of land needed to raise beef.

Taste

The cow's diet affects the flavor of the resultant meat and milk. A 2003 Colorado State University study<16> found that 80% of consumers in the Denver-Colorado area preferred the taste of United States corn-fed beef to Australian grass-fed beef, and negligible difference in taste preference compared to Canadian barley-fed beef.

Grass-fed beef is not standardized. Most is leaner than conventional feedlot beef, but some is equally marbled due to carefully managed grazing, excellent pastures, and improved genetics. Another technique for producing well-marbled grass-fed cattle is to keep the animals on pasture for two years or more. Most pasture-based ranchers dry-age the beef for 7-21 days, enhancing the flavor and tenderness of the meat.[citation needed

[Doremus]

106. So 80% prefer the taste of corn-fed beef. How nice for them.

Habits are learned, and opinions are subjective.

What isn't subjective is that 1) cows' systems were not meant to process corn and require drugs to combat the effects of eating food they were never meant to consume in large quantities, 2) Corn is subsidized in this country and is preferred by industry because of its low cost, 3) Grass-fed cattle grow slower, i.e. at a natural rate rather than an artificially-stimulated rate, which in turn raises the cost and reduces profit.

But yeah, let's dig in to that tasty corn-fed steak and to hell with nature because it's nothing a few pounds of drugs won't fix!

[WriteDown]

107. Yep, because so many people hate the taste of ice cream

and chocolate. Not all habits are learned. Amazingly, some things just taste better.

I have seen no evidence that cows were "not meant" to eat corn. Also, the amount of land needed for grass fed beef production is staggering.

I'm telling you, beer-fed. Wagyu is the only way to go. About 35$ an ounce, but not corn fed and absolutely delicious.

[Doremus]

175. No evidence cows aren't meant to eat corn? Open your eyes and READ.

GROSS: So the cow now is eating corn instead of eating grass. Its stomach is made for digesting grass and turning it into protein. How does the cow's digestive system handle corn?

Mr. POLLAN: Well, very poorly. It'll go kablooey if it's not done very gradually. And I talked to people who said that most cows, most beef cattle getting a heavy diet of corn--and again, they can tolerate some of it, but when you crank it up to 70, 80, 90 percent grain, their stomachs go haywire. They suffer from a range of different phenomenon, one of which is bloat.

You know, the rumen, this organ, is always producing copious amounts of gas, and these are expelled during rumination, you know, when the animal kind of chews its cud. It regurgitates this bolus of grass and in the process releases all this greenhouse gas, essentially methane and things because when you're digesting grass much gas is produced. But when they're eating corn, this layer of slime forms over the mass in the rumen, and it doesn't allow the gas to escape. So what happens is the rumen begins to expand like a balloon until it's pressing up against the lungs of the animal. And if nothing is done to release the pressure of that gas, the animal suffocates. It can't breathe anymore. So what do they do? Well, if it gets to that point, they force a hose down the esophagus of the animal, and that releases the gas, and they very quickly put them back on hay for a little while.

So that's one of the things that can go wrong. Well, perhaps the most dramatic. But a whole other range of problems are created because the corn acidifies the rumen. The rumen has basically a neutral pH when it's healthy and getting grass, and that's very significant for a lot of reasons. But you feed it corn and it gets a lot more acidic. And the rumen can't deal with acids, and what happens is the acids gradually eat away at the wall of the rumen, creating little lesions or ulcers through which bacteria can pass. And the bacteria get into the bloodstream and travel down to the liver, which collects all such impurities, and infects the liver. And that is why more than 13 percent of the animals slaughtered in this country are found to have abscessed livers that have to be thrown away and is a sign of disease.

But this low-level sickness, acidosis or even subacute acidosis, as they call it, afflicts many, many--probably the majority--of feedlot calves, and it leaves them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases. Their immune systems are compromised. So they get this, you know, horrifying list of feedlot diseases. You know, we have these diseases of civilization, you know, heart disease and such things. Well, they have their own diseases of civilization: feedlot polio, abscessed livers, rumenitis, all these kinds of things that cows in nature simply don't get.

GROSS: Is this where the antibiotics come in?

Mr. POLLAN: Yeah. The only way you can keep a cow alive getting this much corn would be with antibiotics. And they get large quantities of antibiotics with their feed every day. They get rumensin, which is technically an ionophore. It's a kind of antibiotic that helps with the bloat and the acidosis. And then they get tylosin, which is in the erythromycin family. And that antibiotic cuts down on the incidence of liver disease, and without that, they would all have liver disease probably.

More at link:
http://www.math.uic.edu/~takata/some_articles/FreshAir_...

As is also described in this article, cows are fed corn because it's CHEAP and portable. It allows megaconglomerates to assemble huge herds in small spaces, impossible with grazing. The carb-rich diet also increases profits because it causes the animal to grow faster and be slaughtered at a younger age.

The methods used in the cattle industry are yet one more example of the big business run amok. It also demonstrates the gullibility of consumers who have eaten the "corn-fed=best" slogan like it's manna from heaven.

[WriteDown]

176. Nothing like a professor of journalism to clear up matters

on agricultural digestion. You may want to talk to Kevin Trudeau and find out the "real" cures too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau

[Doremus]

179. Don't be stupid. This is simple biology and you could find any number of sources that say the same

Now, thank you for the thought-provoking discussion but I think cleaning the bathroom would be a more productive use of my time today. Ta.

[WriteDown]

180. Simply biology, really?

If if was that, then their would be no dissenting opinion. Good luck with the bathroom.

[Doremus]

187. Where is your evidence to refute it then?

So far all you've done is C&P a "study" that "proves" 80% of people prefer corn-fed beef. So?

People used to prefer cocaine in their Coca-Cola too. It proves nothing, except that people can be idiots. Especially those who buy advertising spin as if its the gospel, and particularly progressives who do so because they know better.

There is no spinning simple bovine biology. Unless you think scientists are liberal elitist partisans, in which case you are on the wrong board.

[WriteDown]

188. Scientists?

All you've cited is a journalist with a master's in history. Start citing some scientists and then we can talk.

[BonnieJW]

54. Correct.

Grass-fed beef has the same amount of omega-3 fatty acids as fish. But they have to be grass-finished as well. No point in pasturing cattle that are finished in feed lots with grain.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. 3000 years?

Men have been hunting for 100,000 years. Raising livestock since 10,000 BCE (at a minimum - that's as early as we've discovered it, but we might just not be digging in the right places). Raising cattle, specifically, at least since 6000 BCE.

[underpants]

67. oops

I guessed wrong

;

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. That's OK - not everyone has had a subscription to

'Archeology' magazine for the past 10 years.

[Lorien]

153. During 3,000 years of history only the unbelievably wealthy could afford

to eat red meat regularly. Even hunter gatherers gathered more often-plus they got one HELL of a lot more exercise than modern man does.

Beef causes more climate change than automobiles do. There is no upside to eating it other than "Mmmm.. it's yummy"! Personally I'll pass.

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html

[The Stranger]

167. 3,000 years wasn't enough time to evolve from a largely vegetable-based diet acquired over millions

of years.

[Demobrat]

10. Breathing the air in most American cities

increases your chances of an asthma attack.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Link to the study

Meat Intake and Mortality, A Prospective Study of Over Half a Million People

--d!

[xchrom]

18. anecdotal evidence isn't evidence -- HOWEVER --

my dad ate red meat most of evening meals and lived to 95 -- mom the same is 99 and still kicking it.

my aunt the same. -- her husband lived to be old -- but i don't remember how old.

i like meat.

[Kali]

19. BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

Living now confirmed, leads to death!!!!

[47of74]

29. Along with...

...the facts that water is wet and fire burns!

[veganlush]

21. meat consumption means poorer health for the eater..

...and needless suffering in 99.9% (at least) of cases, for the eatee. Switching to a low-on-the-food-chain plant based diet is a win for people and their fellow mortals...

[cobalt1999]

65. Well, according to the same study...

"In contrast, routine consumption of fish, chicken, turkey and other poultry decreased the risk of death by a small amount."

[Kali]

66. beef is lower on the food chain than many fish or fowl, pork too if allowed to eat what they like

or even mushrooms, and your 99.9% came out of somebody's ass

[veganlush]

91. take 'pork' for example...

..this is from an animal that has much in common with dogs and cats, in terms of it's brain. It is capable of all the same suffering that your pet is capable of including fear, loneliness, despair, pain, hot, cold, hunger, etc. On the agri-business factory farm, all of it's natural instincts are denied an outlet. They are separated from their mothers, denied normal Territorial instincts, mating instincts, etc. There is no logic behind the choice to make one species a beloved, pampered pet and another simply a meat machine whose suffering is completely irrelevant to those people in denial about it. If I could make one change in the human condition, I wouldn't take away people's meat, I would simply require that everyone has to treat animals humanely and require that no one can eat meat from an animal that they haven't killed for themselves. It is the detachment from animals that allows so many people to be hypocritical of their treatment. Most people don't see what goes on in factory farms and don't want to know. I've had people say they don't want to know about the suffering, it will ruin their enjoyment of the meat. Think about that kind of denial and the scale of atrocities it has allowed.

[WriteDown]

93. Depends on what you mean "in common"

http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/pigs.html

[veganlush]

23. there's an amazing book on the subject, written by

...John Robbins. He turned down his inheritance of the Baskin and Robbins ice cream fortune, in favor of a livelihood that didn't involve feeding animal products to people. His new book is called 'healthy at 100' ( healthyat100.com ). His first book, 'Diet For A New America', inspired me to go vegetarian back in the '80's. Many cultures go healthy and active into old age due to a plant-based diet in contrast to America where heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes are common.

[WriteDown]

94. Seems odd that he wrote healthy at 100 when he was

59. I'll wait until he is 100 until I endorse his book.

[veganlush]

112. he was referring to the data on thousands of people...

...that he examined for his book. The health benefits of a plant-based diet are undeniable. That's why many people, when confronted with the facts, change the course of their argument to their absolute 'need' of meat and/or their enjoyment of it above all else, similar to smokers that I have encountered. I was a smoker in my youth but I never deluded myself about the health hazards. My sister-in-law has tried to quit many times and just can't seem to do it. Now she claims that she really doesn't need to live a long healthy life and that she really just enjoys smoking.


The bottom line is that most people who are honest with themselves would be swayed upon a through investigation of this issue especially if they were to look at the whole story, the big picture. Human health, health of the planet, the needless suffering of animals on factory farms, degradation of antibiotics, our dependence on foreign oil, surface water quality, etc., etc,

[WriteDown]

117. My grandfather ate bologna sandwiches and

mortadella up until he died at 94. A lot of it is genetic predisposition.


Also its interesting to note that the majority of the longest living people are from the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

[veganlush]

119. The World Health Organization study places....

...the U.S. in 33rd place for male longevity and 32nd place for women. There are many countries in the world doing better than us in this regard, according to this Washington Post article. Also, the WHO has a flow chart that shows a near perfect correlation between incidence of colon cancer and the 'westernization' of diet-styles in pre and post WW11 Japan. Before the war, the typical Japanese diet was mostly rice and fish. After the war, they started to emulate us in many ways including diet. Their culture came to idolize ours and a love of beef consumption was born. It showed in other ways too, in recent years plastic surgery to 'westernize' Japanese eyelids became a leading elective procedure.


The aforementioned chart has both arrows going up together, colon cancer rates (which was very rare prior to the war) and the popularity of our meat-based diet.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[WriteDown]

120. That still does not negate the fact that the US

has by far the largest percentage of oldest living people in the world.

[U4ikLefty]

190. souce?

[Scout]

142. you got it right there: "A lot of it is genetic predisposition."

you can eat a vegan diet, exercise, not drink and not smoke and still get hit by a car or get cancer.

we're all going to die sometime. i'd rather enjoy myself more for fewer years than live like a monk.

[8 track mind]

24. interesting

both of my grandparents lived to be quite old and they ate red meat, but they raised the beef that they consumed. They had a small dairy in central Oklahoma and to the best of my knowledge they never ever got pumped them full of hormones or crap grain. They grazed out in the fields all day and they got local hay in the wintertime. They raised red angus for beef and they had two jerseys for milk.

Beef pumped full of antibiotics and all sorts of chemicals can not possibly be good for you.

[burning rain]

26. Maybe there's an upside to it.

You die early and you don't have to put up with shambling around in a shriveled-up husk of a body that isn't good for anything fun.

[hayu_lol]

30. Always remember that our very early ancestors...

were considered to be elderly at about 20. Really 'old' people made it into their early 30s.

Better to have some 'zest' and taste than to eat just veggies etc.

If we only go around once, and it really seems as if that is the case, then really live and enjoy what there is to be enjoyed.

[MichaelHarris]

32. I'm going to eat

meat even if I have to go out in the field, chase the dumb SOB down and gnaw the hide right off of him. Was that the answer PETA was looking for?

[Rebubula]

36. So....

...did people who did not eat red meat live forever and get rich??

Folks....science discovered the leading cause of death years ago - - - BIRTH! Everyone who has been born has or will die. There have not been any exceptions to this rule (although I see no reason that I could not be the one to break that rule).

Death is coming for us all...this consciousness is fleeting. Enjoy your burger, double up on the bacon and drink milkshakes for lunch.

[Hannah Bell]

37. "modest effect": hazard ratios 1.1 - 1.36

[leftchick]

39. Nitrates

bad bad bad

[Vinca]

41. I wish someone would study the chances of dying prematurely

if you're a vegan who contracts a deadly virus and doesn't have health insurance.

[ShortnFiery]

43. Or a vegan who dies early because they've ostracized all their friends and

family through incessant nagging.

[Codeine]

101. Lol. We don't all nag. :-) nt

[veganlush]

177. are you saying that stating the facts on a discussion board..

...is nagging?

[ShortnFiery]

42. Oh, but the QUALITY OF LIFE must be taken into consideration.

You can have the last few years of dementia and drooling all over oneself in adult diapers. I'll order those rib eyes and die a few years to a decade earlier.

I know the risks and I accept the consequences.

[onehandle]

52. Angina and other effects of a bad diet make the years before the diaper years unpleasant.

Basically making you old years before you're old.

Of course smoking can make you appear old years before your time. Example: Carrie Fisher who is 52, but looks like she is in her 70s.

[ShortnFiery]

115. I don't think so - my ancestors most all lived into their 80s eating eggs and cream on the farms

in South Dakota. But if I'm to go fairly young, I have no regrets because vegetarian food IMO sucks pond water.

IMO, it would be better to "let go" than to grass feed for the rest of one's existence.

Here's a clue, none of us will live forever.

[Lorien]

154. Ever hear about what Mad Cow does to a person?

or what beef is doing to the planet?

FACT SHEET: ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEVASTATION

Cattle and beef production is a primary threat to the global environment. It is a major contributor to deforestation, soil erosion and desertification, water scarcity, water pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, global warming, and loss of biodiversity.

Deforestation

* Cattle ranching is a primary cause of deforestation in Latin America. Since 1960, more than one quarter of all Central. American forests have been razed to make pasture for cattle. Nearly 70 percent of deforested land in Panama and Costa Pica is now pasture.1
* Some 40,000 square miles of Amazon forest were cleared for cattle ranching and other commercial development between 1966 and 1983. Brazil estimates that 38 percent of its rain forest was destroyed for cattle pasture.2
* Just one quarter-pound hamburger imported from Latin America requires the clearing of 6 square yards of rain forest and the destruction of 165 pounds of living matter including 20 to 30 different plant species, 100 insect species, and dozens of bird, mammal, and reptile species. 3

Soil Erosion and Desertification

* Cattle production is turning productive land into barren desert in the American West and throughout the world. Soil erosion and desertification is caused directly by cattle and other livestock overgrazing. Overcultivation of the land, improper irrigation techniques, and deforestation are also principal causes of erosion and desertification, and cattle production is a primary factor in each case.
* Cattle degrade the land by stripping vegetation and compacting the earth. Each animal foraging on the open range eats 900 pounds of vegetation every month. Their powerful hoofs trample vegetation and crush the soil with an impact of 24 pounds per square inch.4
* As much as 85 percent of U.S. western rangeland, nearly 685 million acres, is being degraded by overgrazing and other problems, according to a 1991 United Nations report. The study estimates that 430 million acres in the American West is suffering a 25 to 50 percent yield reduction, largely because of overgrazing.5
* The United States has lost one third of its topsoil. An estimated six of the seven billion tons of eroded soil is directly attributable to grazing and unsustainable methods of producing feed crops for cattle and other livestock.6
* Each pound of feedlot steak costs about 35 pounds of eroded American topsoil, according to the Worldwatch Institute.7

Water Scarcity

* Nearly half of the total amount of water used annually in the U. S. goes to grow feed and provide drinking water for cattle and other livestock. Producing a pound of grain-fed steak requires the use of hundreds of gallons of water. Producing a pound of beef protein often requires up to fifteen times more water than producing an equivalent amount of plant protein.8
* U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a result of excess water use for cattle and other livestock. U.S. water shortages, especially in the West, have now reached critical levels. Overdrafts now exceed replenishments by 25 percent.9
* The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh water reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas, Texas, and New Mexico. In California. where 42 percent of irrigation water is used for feed or livestock production, water tables have dropped so low that in some areas the earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs and aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end of the last Ice Age.11

Water Pollution

* Organic waste from cattle and other livestock, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and agricultural salts and sediments are the primary non-point source of water pollution in the U.S.11
* Cattle produce nearly 1 billion tons of organic waste each year. The average feedlot steer produces more than 47 pounds ofmanure every twenty-four hours. Nearly 500,000 pounds of manure are produced daily on a standard 10,000- head feedlot. This is the rough equivalent of what a city of 110,000 would produce in human waste. There are 42,000 feedlots in 13 U.S. states.12

Depletion of Fossil Fuels

* Intensive animal agriculture uses a dis proportionate amount of fossil fuels. Supplying the world with a typical American meat-based diet would deplete all world oil reserves in just a few years.13
* It now takes the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of grainfed beef in the United States. The annual beef consumption of an average American family of four requires more than 260 gallons of fuel and releases 2.5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, as much as the average car over a six month period.14

Global Warming

* Cattle and beef production is a significant factor in the emission of three of the four global warming gases -- carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane.15
* Much of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is directly attributable to beef production: burning forests to make way for cattle pasture and burning massive tracts of agricultural waste from cattle feed crops. When the fifty-five square feet of rain forest needed to produce one quarter-pound hamburger is burned for pasture, 500 pounds of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.16
* CO2 is also generated by the fuel used in the highly mechanized agricultural production of feed crops for cattle and other livestock. With 70 percent of all U.S. grain production now used for livestock feed, the CO2 emitted as a direct result is significant.17
* Petrochemical fertilizers used to produce feed crops for grain-fed cattle release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Worldwide, the use of fertilizers has increased dramatically from 14 million tons in 1950 to 143 million tons in 1989. Nitrous oxide now accounts for 6 percent of the global warming effect.18
* Cattle emit methane, another greenhouse gas, through belching and flatulation. Scientists estimate that more than 500 million tons of methane are released each year and that the world's 1.3 billion cattle and other ruminant livestock emit approximately 60 million tons or 12 percent of the total from all sources. Methane is a serious problem because one methane molecule traps 25 times as much solar heat as a molecule of CO2.19

Loss of Biodiversity

* U.S. cattle production has caused a significant loss of biodiversity on both public and private lands. More plant species in the U.S. have been eliminated or threatened by livestock grazing than by any other cause, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).20
* Riparian zones -- the narrow strips of land that run alongside rivers and streams where most of the range flora and fauna are concentrated -- have been the hardest hit by cattle grazing. More than 90 percent of the original riparian zones of Arizona and New Mexico are gone, according to the Arizona State Park Department. Colorado and Idaho have also been hard hit. The GAO reports that "poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of degraded riparian habitat on federal rangelands."21
* Unable to compete with cattle for food, wild animals are disappearing from the rangs. Pronghorn have decreased from 15 million a century ago to less than 271,000 today. Bighorn sheep, once numbering over 2 million, are now less than 20,000. The elk population has plummeted from 2 million to less than 455,000.22
* The government has worked with ranchers to make cattle grazing the predominant use of Western public lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has long favored ranching over other uses. BLM sprays herbicides over large tracts of range eliminating vegetation eaten by wild animals and replacing it with monocultures of grasses favored by cattle.23
* Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.24
* The predator "control" program cost American taxpayers $29.4 million in 1990 -- more than the amount of losses caused by wild animals.25
* Tens of thousands of wild horses and burros have been rounded up by the federal government because ranchers claim they compete with their cattle for forage. The horses and burros are held in corrals, costing taxpayers millions of dollars per year. Many wild horses have ended up at slaughterhouses.
* For several years, cattle ranchers have blocked efforts to re-introduce the wolf, an endangered species, into the wild, as required by the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

FOOTNOTES

* <1> Catherine Caulfield, "A Reporter at Large: The Rain Forests." New Yorker, January 14, 1985, 79.
* <2> Ibid, 49.
* <3> Julie Denslow and Christine Padoch, People of the Tropical Rainforest (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988), 169.
* <4> John Lancaster, "Public Land. Private Profit," Washington Post, A1, A8. A9; Lynn Jacobs, Waste of the West. Puhlic Lands Ranching (Lynn Jacobs: Tuscon. AZ, 1991). 15.
* <5> Myra Klockenbrinli, "The New Range War Has the Desert As Foe," New York Times. August 20, 1991, G4.
* <6> Frances Moore Lappe Diet for a Small Planet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1982), 80.
* <7> Alan Durning, "Cost of Beef for Health and Habitat," Los Angeles Times, September 21, 1986, V3.
* <8> Lappe, Dietfor a Small Planer, 76-77.
* <9> David Pimentel and Carl W. Hall. Food and Natural Resources (San Diego: Academic Press, 1989),41.
* <10> Sandra Postel, Water: Rethinking Management in an Age of Scarcity, Worldwatch Paper 61 (1984), 20.
* <11> Pimentel and Hall, 89.
* <12>M. E. Ensminger, Animal Science (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, 1991), 187, table 5-9: Based on analysis by John Sweeten, Texas A&M, for the National Cattlemen's Association, 1990.
* <13> Pimentel and Hall, 35.
* <14> Alan Duming, "Cost of Beef For Health and Habitat," Los Angeles Times, 3; Based on 65 pounds of beef consumed per person per year. The auto CO2 emissions comparisons come from Andrew Kimbrell, "On the Road," in Jeremy Rifkin, ed., The Green Lifestyle Handbook (New York, NY:Henry Holt and Co., 1990), 33-42.
* <15> Fred Pearce, "Methane: The Hidden Greenhouse Gas," New Scientist, May 6, 1989; Alan Duming and Holly Brough, Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment, (Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute), 17; World Resources Institute, World Resources 1990-91, 355.
* <16> Greenhouse Crisis Statistical Review, Sources: World Resources Institute, Rainforssr Action Network. U.S. Department of Agriculture. and Worldwatch Institute in U.S. News and World Report, Oct 31, 1988.
* <17> David Pimentel, "Waste in Agriculture and Food Sectors: Environmental and Social Costs," paper for Gross National Waste Product Forum, Arlington. VA. 1989, 9-10. Pimentel concludes that substituting a grass feeding livestock system for the present grain and grass system would reduce energy inputs about 60 percent.
* <18> Lester Brown et al., State of the World 1990 (New Yorer, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1990), 67; Fred Pearce, 38.
* <19> Fred Pearce, 37; Methane emissions from live stock from World Resources Institute et al. 1990-91. 346. Table 24.1; Cattle emissions as a per cent of livestock emissions from Michael Gibbs and Kathleen Hogan, "Methane," EPA Journal, March/April 1990.
* <20> George Wuerthner. "The Price is Wrong," Sierra, September/October 1990. 40-41.
* <21> Wuerthner, 40: Jon Luoma. "Discouraging Words," Audubon, September 1986,92.
* <22> Wuerthner, 41-42; Denzel Ferguson and Nancy Ferguson. Sacrcd Cows At The Puhlic Trough, (Bend. OR: Maverick Publications. 1983). 116.
* <23> Ferguson and Ferguson, 158; Lynn Jacobs, 237.
* <24> Keith Schneider, "Mediating the Federal War of the Jungle," New York Times, July 9. 1991,4E; Carol Grunewald, ed, Animal Activist Alert, 8:3 (Washington D.C.: Humane Society of the United States, 1990), 3.
* <25> Carol Grunewald, ed, Animal Activist Alert, 8:3, 3.

FACT SHEET: DAMAGED HEALTH
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
DAMAGED HEALTH

Beef contains high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat and is frequently contaminated by chemicals and disease. Beef may be one of the more unhealthy foods on the market today.

* Nearly 70 percent, or 1.5 million of the 2.1 million deaths in the United States in 1987, were from diseases associated with diet -- particularly diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol, according to a U.S. Surgeon General's report.1
* Many scientific studies have found a high correlation between the consumption of red meat -- which is high in saturated fats and cholesterol -- and heart disease, stroke. and colon and breast cancer.2
* In 1990, the largest study ever done on the health effects of consuming animalderived foods confirmed the results of previous studies showing a high correlation between meat consumption and the incidence of heart disease and cancer. Participating reseachers followed the eating habits of 6,500 people living in twenty-five procinces in China.3
* The Chinese study found that Chinese consume 20 percent more calories than Americans, but that Americans are 25 percent fatter. That's because 37 percent of the calories in the U.S. diet comes from fat, whereas less than 15 percent of the calories in the rural Chinese diet comes from far. The study also found that 70 percent of the protein in the U'estern diet conies from animal sources and 30 percent from plants. In China, only 11 percent comes from animal products and 89 percent from plants.4
* The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Pediatrics are just a few of the medical, scientific, and professional associations that recommend a reduction in the consumption of red meat and other animal-derived foods and a shift to a more vegetarian diet.5
* Beef contains the highest concentration of herbicides of any food sold in America, according to the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. Eighty percent of all the herbicides used in the U.S. are sprayed on corn and soybeans, which are used primarily as feed for cattle. When consumed by cattle, the chemicals accumulate in their bodies and are passed onto consumers in finished cuts of beef.6
* Beef ranks second only to tomatoes as the food posing the greatest cancer risk due to pesticide contamination. It ranks third of all foods in insecticide contamination. Of all food on the market today, pesticide-tainted beef represents nearly 11 percent of the total cancer risk to consumers from pesticides, according to the NRC.7
* More than 95 percent of all feedlot- raised cattle in the United States are currently receiving growth-promoting hormones and other pharmaceuticals, residues of Which may be present in finished cuts of beef.8
* In order to speed weight gain, feedlot managers administer growth-stimulating hormones and feed additives. Anabolic steroids, in the form of small time-release pellets, are implanted in the animals' ears. The hormones slowly seep into the bloodstream, increasing hormone levels by two to five times. Cattle are given estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone.9
* In 1988, more than 15 million pounds of antibiotics were used as feed additives for livestock in the United States. The drugs were used to promote growth and fight the diseases which run rampant in cramped. contaminated pens and feedlots. While the cattle industry claims that it has discontinued the widespread use of antibiotics in cattle feed, antibiotics are still being given to dairy cows, which account for 15 percent of all beef consumed in the United States. Antibiotic residues often show up in the meat people consume, making the human population increasingly vulnerable to more virulent strains of disease-causing bacteria.10
* Veal calves are so sick that antibiotics and other drugs are routinely used to keep many of them alive until slaughter. Contrary to veal industry claims, no drugs have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in formulafed veal calves. Some of the drugs used routinely, such as sulfamethazine, are carcinogenic. Drug residues are often present in veal purchased by consumers.11
* In a 1985 report, the National Academy of Sciences announced that current federal meat inspection procedures are inadequate to protect the public from meat-related diseases, and recommended ameliorative steps which have never been adopted. Instead, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), working with the meat-packing industry, developed a new, experimental inspection system -- the Streamlined Inspection System (SIS)-- the goal of which is to increase online meat production by up to 40 percent.12
* The SIS virtually eliminates the role of the federal meat inspector by placing responsibility for carcass inspection on packing house employees. Federal meat inspectors no longer inspect every carcass on the production line; instead, they examine less than one percent of the carcasses.13
* Under the SIS, thousands of carcasses with pneumonia, measles, and other diseases, peritonitis, abcesses, fecal and insect contamination, and contaminated heads (called "puke heads" because they are filled with rumen content) are passing through inspection on their way to dinner tables across the country.14
* In 1990, federal meat inspectors from across the country flooded the USDA with affidavits describing major problems throughout the new SIS system. Recently, USDA inspectors sent a letter to the National Academy of Sciences raising concerns about the wholesomeness of the U.S. beef supply.15
* Recent discoveries have suggested a possible link between new cattle diseases and disease in humans. Bovine leukemia virus (BLV), an insect-borne retrovirus that causes malignancy in cattle and which can be found in 20 percent of cattle and 60 percent of herds in the United States, is suspected of having a causal link to some forms of human leukemia. BLV antibodies have been found in human leukemia patients and BLV has infecfed human cells in vitro.16
* Bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV), which was discovered to be widespread in American cattle herds in the 1980s, genetically resembles the human HIV (AIDS) virus and, like the AIDS virus in humans, is believed to suppress the immune systems of cattle, making them susceptible to a wide range of diseases and infections. Scientists have successfully infected human cells with BIV, and at least one study suggested that BIV "may play a role in either malignant or slow viruses in man." In 1991,the USDA stated that it does not yet know "whether exposure to BIV proteins causes human sera to... become HIV positive."17
* The beef packing industry has the second highest rate of injury in American industry -- three times the national average. Injury rates in some plants exceed 85 percent, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.18

FOOTNOTES

* <1> Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 1988. Pub. no. 88-50210.
* <2> George A Bray, "Overweight is Risking Fate..." in Richard J. Wurtman and Judith Wunman, eds. Human Obesity, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 45)0 (1987). 21; Gina Kolata, "Animal Fat is Tied To Colon Cancer," New York Times, December 13, 1990; Waiter Willett et al.. "Relationship of Meat, Fat, and Fiber Intake to the Risk of Colon Cancer in Prospective Study Among Women," New England Journal of Medicine, 333:24 (1990), 1663; J. Raloff, "Breast Cancer Rise: Due to Dietary Fat?" Science News, April 21, 1(1)90. 215; Ibid.. 302: Geoffrey Howe et al.. "A Conort Study of Fat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer." Journal of National Cancer Institute, 85:5 (March 6, 1991).
* <3> Jane E. Brody, ''Huge Study of Diet Indicts Fat and Meat," New York Times, May 8, 1990, C1.
* <4> Nanci Hellmich, "In Healthful Living. East Beats West," USA Today, June 6, 1990; Anne Simon Moffat, "China: A Living Lab for Epidemology," Science 248, May 4, 1990. 554.
* <5> Quoted in Dorothy Mayes, "3 Ounces Per Day," Beef, April 1989, 33; Quoted in K.A. Fackelman, "Health Groups find Consensus on Fat in Diet," Science News 137, March 3, 1990, 132.
* <6> National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Alternative Agriculture, 44; National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Regularing Pesticides in Food, 78. Table 3-20 to 22.
* <7> National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Regulating Pesticides in Food, 78-80, Tables 3-20 to 22.
* <8> Fred Kuchler et al. "Regulating Food Safety: The Case of Animal Gronth Hormones," National Food Review July-December 1989, 26.
* <9> Jim Mason and Peter Singer, Animal Factories (New York. NY: Harmony· Books, 1990), 51; Jeannine Kenney and Dick Fallert, "Livestock Hormone in the United States," National Food Review, July-September 1989, 22-23.
* <10> Mason and Singer, Animal Factories, 70, 83-84; FDA Veterinarian, ''Antihiotics in Animal Feeds Risk Assessment," May/June 1989.
* <11> Mason and Singer, Animal Factories, 81-89.
* <12> Quoted in commentary from Carol Foreman to Linda Carey, May 15, 1989, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Public Docket No. 83-008P, 53 Federal Register 48262, November 30. 1988, Public Comments on Food Safety and Inspection Service Proposed Rule on Streamlined Inspection System for Meat Safety, 5; Government Accountability Project. Fact Sheet on Streamlined Inspection System, August 16, 1989, 1.

FACT SHEET: GLOBAL HUNGER AND POVERTY
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
GLOBAL HUNGER AND
POVERTY

Beef production causes human hunger and poverty by diverting grain and cropland to support livestock instead of people. In developing countries, beef production perpetuates and intensifies poverty and injustice, particularly if beef or livestock feed is produced for export.

* Seventy percent of all U.S. grain -- and one third of the world's total grain harvest -- is fed to cattle and other livestock. At the same time, between 40 and 60 million people die each year from hunger and diseases related to hunger. As many as one billion suffer from chronic hunger and malnourishment.1
* U.S. livestock -- mostly cattle -- consumes almost twice as much grain as is eaten by the entire American population. Globally, about 600 million tons of grain are fed to livestock, much of it to cattle.2
* Two-thirds of all U.S. grain exports foes to feed cattle and other livestock rather than hungry people.3
* In Africa, nearly one in three people is undernourished. In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night. In Asia and the Pacific, 22 percent of the people live at the edge of starvation. In the Near East, one in nine is underfed.4
* Chronic hunger and related disease affect more than 1.3 billion people, according to the World Health Organization. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species -- more than 20 percent -- been undernourished.5
* Undernutrition affects nearly 40 percent of all children in developing nations and contributes directly to an estimated 60 percent of all childhood deaths, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development. More than 15 million children die every year from diseases resulting from, or complicated by, undernourishment.6
* If worldwide agricultural production were shifted fron? livestock feed to food grains for direct human consumption, more than a billion people could be fed -- the precise number which currently suffer from hunger and malnourishment.8
* Feeding grain to livestock is an extremely wasteful method of producing protein. Feedlot cattle require nine pounds of feed to make one pound of gain. Only 11 percent of the feed goes to produce the beef itself. The rest is burned off as energy in the conversion process, used to maintain normal body functions, absorbed into parts of the cattle that are not eaten -- such as hair or bones -- or excreted.8
* Cattle have a feed protein conversion efficiency of only 6 percent, producing less than 50 kg of flesh protein from more than 790 kg of plant protein. A feedlot steer consumes 2,700 pounds of grain by the time it is ready for slaughter.9
* Asian adults consume between 300 and 400 pounds of grain a year; three-fourths or more of the diet of the average Asian is composed of grain. A middle-class American, by contrast, consumes over a ton of grain each year, 80 percent of it through eating cattle and other grain-fed livestock.10
* Two out of every three people around the world consume a primarily vegetarian diet. With one-third of global grain output now going to cattle and other livestock, and with the human population growing by almost 20 percent in the next decade, a worldwide food crisis is imminent.11
* Three quaners of America's public western land -- covering 40 percent of the eleven western statss -- is leased to cattlemen at prices far below market value.12
* Nearly half of the earth's landmass is used as pasture for cattle and other livestock. On very rich grasslands, two and a half acres can support a cow for a year. On marginal grazing land, 50 or more acres may be required.13
* In the 1960s, with the help of loans from the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank, many Central and South America governments began converting millions of acres of tropical rain forest and cropland to pastureland for the international beef market. Between 1971 and 1977, more than $3.5 billion in loans and technical assistance went to Latin America for cattle production.14
* Many major U.S. corporations invested heavily in beef production throughout Central America in the 1970s and 80s, including Borden, United Brands, and International Foods. Other American multinational companies such as Cargill, Ralston Purina, W.R. Grace, Weyerhauser-, Crown Zellerbach, and Fort Dodge Labs, provided most of the technological support for the Central American beef industry, from frozen semen to refrigeration equipment, grass seeds, feed, and medicine. 15
* The beef industry in Central America has enriched the lives of a select few, pauperized much of the rural peasantry, and spawned widespread social unrest and political upheaval. More than half the rural families in Central America -- 35 million people -- are now landless or own too little land to support themselves, while powerful ranchers and large corporations continue to acquire more land for pasture.16
* In Costa Rica, cattle interests cleared 80 percent of the tropical forests in just 20 years, turning half the arable land into cattle pastures. Today, just 2,000 powerful ranchincg families own over half the productive land in Costa Rica, grazing 2 million cattle most of whose meat is exported to the United States.17
* In Guatemala, less than 3 percent of the population owns 70 percent of the agriculitural land, much of it used for raising cattle. Nearly one third of Guatemala's beef production was exported to the U.S. in 1990.18
* In Honduras, land used for cattle pasture increased from just over 40 percent in 1952 to more than 60 percent in 1974. Total beef production tripled between 1960 and 1980 to over 62,000 metric tons annually. In 1990, more than 30 percent of the beef produced in Honduras was exported to the United States.19
* In Nicaragua, beef production increased threefold and beef exports increased five and a half times between 1960 and 1980.20
* By the mid 1980s, Central America had 80 percent more cattle than 20 years before, and produced 170 percent more beef.21
* In Brazil, 4.5 percent of the landowners own 81 percent of the farmland, while 70 percent of the rural households are landless. Between 1966 and 1983, nearly 40,000 square miles of Amazon forest were cleared for commercial development. The Brazilian government estimated that 38 percent of all the rain forest destroyed during that period was attributable to large-scale cattle development benefitting only a few wealthy ranchers.22
* In developing countries, the poor receive no benefit from cattle ranching. Modern beef production is capital intensive but not labor intensive. The average rain forest cattle ranch employs one person per 2,000 head of cattle, or about one person per twelve square miles. By contrast, peasant agriculture can often sustain a hundred people per square mile.23
* Latin American countries are using more of their land to graze cattle, and to grow feed crops. In Mexico, where millions of people are malnourished, one-third of the grain produced is being fed to livestock. Twenty-five years ago, livestock consumed less than 6 percent of Mexico's grain.24
* When land in developing countries is used to produce livestock feed, much of it for export, less land is available to peasant farmers to grow their own food, and so less food is available. As a result, staple food prices rise, and the impact is mostly felt by the poor. In Brazil, black beans, long a staple food for the poor, are becoming more expensive as farmers have switched to growing soybeans for the more lucrative international feed market.25

FOOTNOTES

* <1> U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, WASDE-256, Tables 256-6, -7, -16, -19. -23, World Bank, Poverty and Hunger (Washington DC: World Bank, 1986), 24: Susan Oakie. "Health Crisis Confronts 1.3 Billion," Washington Post, September 25, 1989, A1.
* <2> USDA, Economic Research Service, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimares, WASDE-256, Tables 256-6, -7, -16, -19, -23; World Bank, Poverty. and Hunger. (Washington DC: World Bank, 1986), 24. For two times the entire American population see USDA figures. For third world grain production see World Bank report.
* <3> USDA, Economic Research Service, WASDE 256-6,-16.
* <4> World Resources Institute, World Resources 1990-91, 87; CTnited Nations World Food Council, "The Global State of Hunger and Malnutrition and the Impact of Economic Adjustment on Food and Hunger," World Food Council, Thirteenth Ministerial Session, Report by the Secretariat, Beijing, China, 1987, 16.
* <5> Susan Okie, Al.
* <6> Katrina Galway et al., Child Survival: Risks and the Road to Health; (Columbia, MD: Institute for Resource Development, 1987), 31.
* <7> David Pimentel. Food Energy And The Future of Society (New York: Wiley, 1979), 26. U.S Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, WASDE-256, July 11, 1991,table 256-6; World Bank, Poverty and Hunger (Washington DC: World Bank, 1986). 24. Pimentel estimates that a conversion of the present American grass/grain livestock system to a totally grass-fed system would free up in the United States alone about 130 million tons of grain for direct human consumption, enough to feed about 400 million people. Today worldwide, about one-third of the 1.7 billion metric tons of total grain production is fed to livestock, which would suggest, using Pimentel's rationale, that a totally grass-fed livestock system worldwide might free enough grain up to feed over a billion people.
* <8> M.E. Ensminger, Animal Science (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, 1991). 23, fig 1-25, 20.
* <9> David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, Fond Energy and Society (New York: Wiley, 1979), 58; Ensminger, 23:"Assuming a feeding period of 140 davs and a gain of 450 pounds in the lot, the total market weight (10501h) would represent 2.57 Ib of feed grain expended for each pound of gain (450 x 6 =2,700)."
* <10> Paul Ehrlich et al., Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 1977), 315: Ensminger 20, 27; Pimentel et al., " Energy and Land Constraints in Food Protein production." Science, issue 190; 754.
* <11> David Pimentel and Carl W. Hall, eds., Food and Natural Resources (San Diego: Academic Press, 1989), 38; Jack Doyle, Altered Harvest (New York, NY: Viking/Penguin, 1985), 288; Lester Brown et al., Stare of the World 1990 (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1990), 5, table 1-1.
* <12> Ensminger, 22; Lynn Jacobs, "Amazing Graze: How the Livestock Industry is Ruining the American West." in Desertification ControlBullerin. No. 17 (Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Program, 1988); Public Lands Ranching Statistics.l990 (Free Our Public Lands. P.O Box 5784, Tuscon AZ 85703).
* <13> Paul Ehrlich and Ann Ehrlich, The Population Explosion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 35; David Pimentel and Carl Hall, eds. Food and Natural Resources, 80.
* <14> Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources, U.S. Congress, OTA-F-214, March 1984, Forest Resources, 96-97.
* <15> Tom Barry, Roots of Rebellion (Boston: South End Press, 1987), 84.
* <16> Norman Myers, The Primary Source (New York: W.W. Nonon, 1983), 133.
* <17> Catherine Caulfield, "A Reporter at Large: The Rain Forests," New Yorker, Jan. 14, 1985, 79; Norman Meyers, 134.
* <18> Norman Meyers, 133; export and production figures from USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service as Summarized by Scott Lewis, "The Hamburger Connection Revisited," Rainforest Action Network, San Francisco, 1991.
* <19> Billie DeWalt. "The Cattle are Eating the Forest," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1983, 19; Export and production figures from USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service as summarized by Scott Leuis.
* <20> Meyers 133; Export figures from USDA.
* <21> DeWalt, 19.
* <22> Caulfield. 49; lames Parsons, "The Scourge of Cows." Whole Earth Review, Spring 1988, 43.
* <23> Caulfield, 80.
* <24> David Barkin and Billie DeWalt. "Sorghum, the Internationalization of Capital and the Mexican Food Crisis," paper presented at the American Anthropological Association meeting. Denver, November 16 1983. 16; acreage figures from Scott Lewis, "The Hamburger Connection Revisited..."; grain figures from Barkin and DeWalt. p16; Steven Sanderson. The Transformation ofMesican Agriculture (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
* <25> Associacao Promorora de Estudus da Economica, A Economica Brasil-eira e Suas perspectives. Apecan XXIX, 1990 (Rio de Janeiro: APEC. 1990). 5. FAO of the United Nations, Trade, Commerce. Commercio. 1989 Yearbook (Rome:Italy: FAO, 1990) Vol 43, 29; Femando Homen de Melo, "Unbalanced Technological Change and Income Disparity in a Semi-Open Economy: The Case of Brazil," in Tullis F. Lammond and W. Ladd Hollist, eds. Food, State, and International Political Economy (Lincoln:University of Nebraska, 1986), 262-275..

[veganlush]

182. awesome post lorien...there's

....something about Americans and our need for silver bullet cures and instant gratification that blinds some of us to the potential we all have as individuals to positively effect the world we live in. For the reasons cited in Lorien's post above, there is no single greater contribution we can make to progressive causes than to vote with our wallets, plates and forks. As individuals changing our diet-styles to one lower on the food chain with much less animal consumption we stake a claim and make a recurring vote for less world hunger, better water quality, less reliance of foreign oil, dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases, drastically reduced health care costs, longer, happier lives, less needless animal suffering, less corporate welfare, etc,. etc.,...This is a progressive cause and we don't have to rely on corporations or politicians to get it done, it's something we all can do from home, from our kitchen table. It is the single biggest thing an individual can do for progressive causes.

[Nihil]

165. Hey, reel it in will you?

Your PETA bait worked and you've got the full copy & paste buffer
attached to your line now!