MYTH 1
Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's
natural resources.
Some have argued that cows and sheep require pasturage that could
be better used to raise grains to feed starving millions in Third
World countries. Additionally, claims are made that raising
livestock requires more water than raising plant foods. Both
arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The pasturage argument ignores the fact that a large portion of our
Earth's dry land is unsuited to cultivation. The open range and
desert and mountainous areas yield their fruits to grazing
animals.
Unfortunately, the bulk of commercial livestock are not range fed,
but stall fed. They do not ingest grasses and shrubs (like they
should), but are fed an unnatural array of grains and soybeans. It
is true that these foods could be fed to humans. The argument here,
then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth's resources, but
that commercial farming methods do. Such methods also subject
livestock to deplorable living conditions where infections,
antibiotics, steroids and synthetic hormones are common. These all
lead to an unhealthy animal and, by extension, an unhealthy food
product. Organically raised livestock, then, is a healthier and
more humane choice (see myth #15 for more on this topic).
As for the claims that raising livestock requires more water than
raising plant foods, water that livestock drink would be drunk by
them anyway, even if they were not being raised for food.
Additionally, the urine of grazing animals, which mostly comprises
water, is rich in nitrogen which helps replenish the soil. Much of
the water used in commercial livestock farming, however, is used up
in growing the various grains and soybeans fed to the animals. If a
concerted effort were made to return to the ecologically sound
"mixed farm," (described below), then such huge expenditures of
water would be unnecessary.
A far more serious threat to humanity, and the Earth, is the
monoculture of grains and legumes, advocated by some vegetarian
groups, which depletes the soil and requires the heavy use of
artificial fertilisers and dangerous pesticides; pesticides that
must first be tested on animals for safety (2). The solution?
Astute writers on this dilemma have pointed out:
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring
about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits,
vegetables and grains is
combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is
efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example,
chickens running free
in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality
eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides;
and cows grazing in
woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making
these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal
cultivation that leads to hunger
and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic
distribution systems.
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield
more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. British
organic farmer and dairyman Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out
that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a
year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (4).
Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey
well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" by
saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the
business- besotted farmers running intensive livestock units,
battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their
wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems;
drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. amd
salmoella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must
strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the
old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then
bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating
a more updated application of biological science into farming
systems.
MYTH 5:
Meat-eaters have higher rates of heart and kidney disease, cancer,
obesity and osteoporosis than vegetarians.
Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and
anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily
20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and
animal fat for thousands of years. Further, there are several
native peoples around the world (the Innu, Masai, Swiss, Greeks,
etc.) whose traditional diets are very rich in animal products, but
do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (1. This shows that
other factors besides animal foods are at work in these
diseases.
Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the
cause of heart disease, cancer and bone loss, but such studies,
honestly evaluated, show no such thing (19). For example, the
studies that supposedly proved that meat consumption among the
Innuit caused high rates of osteoporosis, failed to note other
dietary factors that contributed to bone loss (and to the other
chronic diseases listed in myth #5). Things such as refined sugar
consumption, alcoholism and a junk food consumption equalled more
bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated
protein powders (20).
Certainly, when protein is consumed in such an unnatural fashion,
separated from the fat-soluble nutrients required for its
absorption and assimilation, it will lead to problems. Because of
this, the current use of fat-free protein powders as "food
supplements", and low-fat or non-fat dairy products should be
avoided. Trimming off visible fat from meats and removing duck and
chicken skin before eating should also be discouraged.
Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption
increased the risk for heart disease , their authors actually found
the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of
Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian), H. A. Kahn
concluded, "Although our results add some substantial facts to the
diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from
establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or
women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives" . A
similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden . Despite these
startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact
opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their
diets.
Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that
clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and
fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart
disease. Statistician Dr. Russel Smith concluded, "In effect the
Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results
which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically
correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives." When all of
the data are taken into account, the actual differences of heart
disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies
was less than 1%: hardly a significant amount (22).
It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often
studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is
healthier and is associated with a lower risk for heart disease and
cancer (but see the last paragraph in this section). While it is
true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat
meat, they also do not smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee or
tea, all of which may be factors in promoting cancer and heart
disease .
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian
studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not
abstain from meat. Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, declared a
diet devoid of animal products as "not of God." As with the
Adventists, Mormons avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite
being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22%
lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for
colon cancer than the US average (24). A study of Puerto Ricans,
who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low
rates of colon and breast cancer . Similar results can be adduced
to demonstrate that meat consumption by itself does not correlate
with cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, or
obesity (26). Obviously, other factors are at work.
It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than
meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of California Seventh Day Adventists
(who are largely vegetarian) showed that, while they did have lower
rates of some cancers (e.g., breast), they had significantly higher
rates of several others (brain, skin, uterine, cervical and
ovarian)!
MYTH 6:
Saturated fats cause heart disease and cancer, and low-fat,
low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people.
Despite claims that primitive societies are/were largely
vegetarian, diets of native peoples the world over are rich in
saturated fats and animal foods (2 and, as noted above, heart
disease and cancer are primarily modern diseases. Saturated fat
consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. As
with the poorly done studies of the Inuit, modern-day researchers
fail to take into account other dietary factors of people who have
heart disease and cancer. As a result, the harmful effects of
eating refined sugar, nutrient-poor "foods," trans-fats (found in
margarine and hydrogenated oils) and vegetable oils get mixed up
with animal fat consumption. It is commonly believed that saturated
fats and cholesterol "clog arteries", but such ideas have been
shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, George Mann,
John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig and others . On the contrary,
studies have shown that arterial plaque is primarily composed of
UNsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones, and not the
saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (30).
Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by
researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative
factors in atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and
other assorted diseases.
A recent study of thousands of Swedish women showed no correlation
between saturated fat consumption and increased risk for breast
cancer. However, the study did show a strong link between vegetable
oil intake and higher breast cancer rates.
The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary
cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill
health. Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups
over several years at five-year intervals. One group consumed
little cholesterol and saturated fat, while the other consumed high
amounts. Surprisingly, Dr William Castelli, the study's director,
is quoted in the Archives of Internal Medicine (July 1992) as
saying:
In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more
cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the
person's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the
most cholesterol ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories,
weighed the least and were the most physically active.
It is true that the study did show that those who weighed more and
had higher serum cholesterol levels were more at risk for heart
disease, but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse
correlation with dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other
words, there was no correlation at all .
In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial,
sponsored by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared
mortality rates and eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate
less saturated fat and cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate
of coronary heart disease (CHD), but had an overall mortality rate
much higher than the other men in the study .
The few studies that indicate a correlation between saturated fat
reduction and a lower CHD rate also clearly document a sizeable
increase in deaths from cancer, suicide, violence and brain
haemorrhage . Like the bone density experiments, such things are
not told to the public.
Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are decidedly not healthier
for people. Studies have proven over and over that such diets are
associated with depression, cancer, psychological problems,
fatigue, violence and suicide .
Children on low-fat diets suffer from growth problems, failure to
thrive, and learning disabilities (36). Despite this, sources from
Dr. Benjamin Spock to the American Heart Association recommend
low-fat diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those
unfortunate youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents
taken in by such misinformation.
There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the
fat in question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid,
a potent antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also
contains appreciable amounts of caprylic acid, also an effective
antifungal. Butter from free-range cows is rich in trace minerals,
especially selenium, as well as all of the fat-soluble vitamins and
beneficial fatty acids that protect against cancer and fungal
infections.
In general, however, saturated fats provide a good energy source
for the vital organs, protect arteries against damage by the
atherogenic lipoprotein (a), are rich in fat-soluble vitamins, help
raise HDL levels in the blood, and make possible the utilisation of
essential fatty acids. They are excellent for cooking, as they are
chemically stable and do not break down under heat, unlike
polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's diet,
then, is ill-advised .
MYTH #7:
Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than
meat-eaters.
Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual
all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that
of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual
all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be
significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs
0.54%).
Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative
study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption
increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such
results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example,
in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of
mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly
(.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the
all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians .
It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating
peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who
traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for
their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within
Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42).
Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have
existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price
has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the
world . Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great
longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation).
Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great
ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas,
also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial
portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content
than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian
inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the
world . Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the
1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he
found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with
robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss
athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In
Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in
fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off
the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always
dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian .
It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for
athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies
done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true:
athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than
those who "fat loaded" before athletic events .
MYTH 9:
Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th
century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and
cancer.
Statistics do not bear out such fancies. Butter consumption has
plummeted from 18 lb (8.165 kg) per person a year in 1900, to less
than 5 lb (2.27 kg) per person a year today . Additionally,
Westerners, urged on by government health agencies, have reduced
their intake of eggs, cream, lard, beef and pork. Chicken
consumption has risen in the past few decades, but chicken is low
in saturated fat (chicken skin contains primarily polyunsaturated
fat).
Furthermore, a survey of cookbooks published in the last century
shows that people of earlier times ate plenty of animal foods and
saturated fats. For example, in the Baptist Ladies Cook Book
(Monmouth, Illinois, 1895), virtually every recipe calls for
butter, cream or lard. Recipes for creamed vegetables are numerous
as well. A scan of the Searchlight Recipe Book (Capper
Publications, 1931) also has similar recipes: creamed liver,
creamed cucumbers, hearts braised in buttermilk, etc. British Jews,
as shown by the Jewish Housewives Cookbook (London, 1846), also had
diets rich in cream, butter, eggs, and lamb and beef tallows. One
recipe for German waffles, for example, calls for an entire pound
of butter! A recipe for Oyster Pie from the Baptist cookbook calls
for a quart of cream and a dozen eggs, and so forth and so
on.
It does not appear, then, that meat or saturated fat consumption
has risen in this century. What has gone up, however, is
consumption of margarine and other trans-fatty acids, lifeless,
packaged "foods," processed vegetable oils, pasteurised/homogenised
milk, commercially raised livestock and plant foods, and refined
sugar. These, along with exposure to a growing number of
environmental poisons, are our real culprits in the modern
epidemics of cancer and coronary heart disease (and other chronic
illnesses)
