'Meat' the enemy: New food for thought from noted biochemist

Jul 12, 2010 BY KRISTA CONGER

(PhysOrg.com) -- Pat Brown hates animals. On your plate, that is. And he's going to do something about it.

The School of Medicine biochemist is taking a yearlong sabbatical — starting now — to figure out how to get you, me and, yes, even the rest of the world to stop bolting down hamburgers, chicken and ribs, and turn instead to beans, carrots and avocados. Why? The environmental cost of meat is just too high.

“People are sort of in denial about whether this is even an issue,” said Brown, MD, PhD, a professor of biochemistry and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. “But eating one 4-ounce hamburger is equivalent to leaving your bathroom faucet running 24 hours a day for a week. We can’t go on like this.” (See a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for this and other statistics.)

Brown, who is also a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, has been a vegetarian for decades and a vegan for five years. He doesn’t want to outlaw eating animal products, but he does want us to begin paying for their true cost. Cows, for example, excrete methane and , which contribute to global warming, and gobble down tons of water-sucking grains and plants, exacerbating water shortages worldwide.

“Thirty percent of the world’s land is devoted to animal farming,” said Brown. “People need to begin taking responsibility for their . If they can’t do it voluntarily, then we can use economic incentives.” Incentives that include increasing the price of meat at the supermarket counter so it costs two to three times what you’re paying now.

The attempt to change the world’s eating habits seems quixotic, until you consider Brown’s track record. In the early ’90s, he invented the — a method of scanning the activity levels of tens of thousands of genes simultaneously — that’s since become a workhorse in laboratories around the world. And three years ago he conceived of and launched an entirely new type of scientific journal: one in which every article is publicly available, immediately. The publishing industry scoffed but now the Public Library of Science series of journals is one of the most highly respected in the world.

“Scientists are more inclined to do this sort of thing than most people, because we tend to be almost absurdly optimistic,” said Brown. “We believe that things kind of outside the box may still work.”

As for facing the wrath of the meat lovers? Brown’s not fazed. “I like angry people. If people aren’t angry, I’m not doing my job.”

Explore further: Should the role of afforestation in climate change mitigation policy be re-evaluated?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Why Is The Ground Brown

Apr 12, 2006

Ecologists have long asked, Why is the world green? In other words, why aren't herbivores, such as insects and grazing animals, more successful at eating the world's green leaves, also known as plant biomass?

A link between antidepressants and type 2 diabetes

Mar 25, 2008

While analyzing data from Saskatchewan health databases, Lauren Brown, researcher with the U of A’s School of Public Health, found people with a history of depression had a 30 per cent increased risk of type 2 Diabetes.

Capturing the True Value of Rice

Apr 22, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Appreciation for rice continues to grow as the U.S. population diversifies. Now, a series of rice utilization workshops -- cosponsored by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and USA Rice Federation ...

World's first test-tube baby to be a mom

Jul 11, 2006

Britain's Louise Brown, who was the world's first test-tube baby and paved the way for millions of infertile couples to have children, is pregnant.

PETA offers $1 million for fake meat

Apr 22, 2008

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal rights group based in Virginia, is offering a $1 million prize for meat produced in a laboratory.

Recommended for you

US northeast braces for flooding after record snow

13 hours ago

Weather forecasters and emergency officials warned Sunday that melting snow would lead to heavy flooding in parts of the US northeast, with hundreds of thousands of people told to brace for fast-rising waters.

3Qs: Game theory and global climate talks

Nov 21, 2014

Last week, China and the United States announced an ambitious climate agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions in both countries, a pledge that marks the first time that China has agreed to stop its growing emissions. ...

From hurricanes to drought, LatAm's volatile climate

Nov 21, 2014

Sixteen years ago, Teodoro Acuna Zavala lost nearly everything when Hurricane Mitch ravaged his fields, pouring 10 days of torrential rains on Central America and killing more than 9,000 people.

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Physki101
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2010
“I like angry people. If people aren’t angry, I’m not doing my job.”

WTF is this guy doing in the field of science? I hope the FBI is keeping a file on him.
Shootist
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2010
"Pat Brown hates animals. On your plate, that is."

The environmental cost of this ninny is too high as well. Waste of scarce oxygen.

"Forget Right and Left, republican and democrat; there are two types of people in the world, those who wish to control the actions of others and those who have no such desire." Robert A. Heinlein
knikiy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
The world is getting smaller by the minute, but perhaps there is still room for folks with a bit more foresight than the average rootin' tootin' burger muncher.
LariAnn
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2010
There are only two types of people - those who live in sustainability with other lifeforms on this planet and those who wish to exploit them to the detriment of all. Only those who choose irresponsibly need be controlled.
Jigga
3 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2010
But eating one 4-ounce hamburger is equivalent to leaving your bathroom faucet running 24 hours a day for a week. We can’t go on like this
It's not so simple as that. For example, for production of rice it's required 2552 m³ of water/ ton rice, whereas for production of one ton of poultry 3809 m³ of water its required. Therefore the consumption of poultry may sound like ineffective waste of water for someone - but the content of proteins in rice is ten times lower, then in chicken meat! This explains, why people from deserts in Chad or Mongolia are living from pasturage, instead of agriculture. I even suspect, farming is more ecological then the agriculture as a whole, providing it doesn't use agricultural products (which indeed usually does).

http://en.wikiped...oduction
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2010
It is when early homoxxx started eating meat when the brain started advancing. Why start devolving?
Nemo
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2010
Having a planet than runs on a sustainable basis sounds like a good goal. Vegetarians and vegans who eat well tend to have a much better health profile than meat eaters, so a win-win, if people can be convinced of it.
lengould100
not rated yet Jul 12, 2010
Forom where does he propose to provide the child's dietary requirement of omega fatty acids required for brain development?
zevkirsh
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
he's taking a year off to figure this out?
it's simple , slowly poison animals that are being raised to be eaten. by the time theyre full grown. mad cow did a nice job of this.
Arkaleus
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2010
It's odd to hear how obsessed with controlling the behavior of others these so-called environmentalists are. We should eat less meat; it's true, but not because my neighbor forces me. It's a decision we must make as rational beings. When we reach the stage of development where we understand that life is the evolution of intelligence, eating other mammals becomes abhorrent as eating the members of one's own family.

Individual Liberty is not incompatible with conservation. In fact, conservation IS the expression of Liberty.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2010
It's odd to hear how obsessed with controlling the behavior of others these so-called environmentalists are.

Why is that odd? Such individuals believe they are better than us knuckle draggers and must force us like children to mind our place.
I love animals, they taste good.
Ark: are you an animal bigot? Eating animals other than mammals is acceptable?
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2010
No- this guy, as so many others before him, and so many after are sure to as well, is missing the point entirely.

True, we could all(at least, for the most part, in the developed world) do with a little less(especially)red meat. That's a given.

The problem is not the meat itself, it's the method of producing it. The system is highly inefficient and wasteful- therefore the "24hr faucet" analaogy. Agricultural practices need to be combined wherever possible- crops, forestry, animal husbandry all occurring on the same parcel of land simultaneously. That way, fertilizer, erosion control, and fodder can all be obtained simultaneously, more or less at the same time that crops/fruits/nuts are growing.

Doesn't work everywhere, with every combination of beast and flower, and it is more labor intensive- but it is sustainable, and at far less cost accross the board than what Brown is proposing.

"AgroForestry". Mr. Savory with some info:
http://www.savoryinstitute.com
Birthmark
2.4 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2010
Well hopefully creating synthetic food becomes more readily soon. I watched a show on how it's a huge amount cheaper to make the food, it will be more healthy, and all grown in a lab :D
murray
1.8 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2010
Methods for meat production should be better engineered. Grass-fed cattle, for example, generate far less methane, as grains are unnatural to their digestion. Rather than arguing for no meat, I argue for no grains, legumes, rice, potatoes or other high-starch foods and no vegetable oils.
maxcypher
3.5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2010
Crazy, crazy. I started reducing my meat consumption some months ago. Now I eat only the best quality meat maybe twice per month. My food bill plummeted, my waist is shrinking (wasn't all that big, anyways), and I seem to have more energy. That's just my subjective experience. It's also satisfying to know that I'm impacting the environment to a lesser degree just by doing something that makes me feel better, slims my waist and fattens my wallet. You guys can argue all you want.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2010
If you remove meat from the diets of most first world nations you will devastate the food supply for third world nations.

You get most of your daily vital elements from a slab of meat the size of a deck of cards. In order to derive the same nourishment and caloric intake from plants you'd need a more varied diet, more imports and exports as not all required foodstuffs grow everywhere, citrus for example, and you'd require a far large volume intake than you currently receive.

If you want to kill off about a billion people have the whole world go vegan.

Cutting back on our intake is a good thing. Removing meat entirely is madness.
organicivy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2010
lengould100 - Omega Fatty Acids are available in many forms for vegans - Depending on how young a child is, flaxseed is very versatile. For older children a wide variety of nuts can take care of this need.
organicivy
4.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic - As soon as you stop meat and dairy production, all the grains used to feed those animals is freed up. That means vast amounts of land is freed up. Rather than using that land to feed animals it is used to feed people or even to restore environments. I am a vegan and my volume of food intake isn't dramatically larger than the average meat-eater. This is a misconception. I buy from a local organic shop where my food is grown organically and locally and it is seasonal. Citrus - you don't necessarily need citrus. It has just been clever marketing to associate citrus with Vitamin C even though there are better sources. Just as it has been clever marketing to associate calcium with dairy and iron with meat. There are a lot of plant foods that are not in the spotlight via clever marketing that pack an amazing nutritional punch.
Skeptic_Heretic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic - As soon as you stop meat and dairy production, all the grains used to feed those animals is freed up. That means vast amounts of land is freed up. Rather than using that land to feed animals it is used to feed people or even to restore environments. I am a vegan and my volume of food intake isn't dramatically larger than the average meat-eater. This is a misconception. I buy from a local organic shop where my food is grown organically and locally and it is seasonal. Citrus - you don't necessarily need citrus. It has just been clever marketing to associate citrus with Vitamin C even though there are better sources. Just as it has been clever marketing to associate calcium with dairy and iron with meat. There are a lot of plant foods that are not in the spotlight via clever marketing that pack an amazing nutritional punch.

I think you've been sucked in by the organic food industry. And I wouldn't want to eat chicken feed.
organicivy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2010
Skeptic_heretic - which part of my argument is incorrect? I'm always open to being educated.

And to point back to one of your statements - you do not get most of your vital nutrients from meat either.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2010
Skeptic_heretic - which part of my argument is incorrect? I'm always open to being educated.
Well we can start with the basis of health which is diet. In most locales it is virtually impossible to get the majority of your daily requirements from local produce.
you do not get most of your vital nutrients from meat either.
You do get most, but you do not get all. In a meatless diet you cannot get enough B12 or carsonine to be in a state of good health without artificial supplimentation.

http://www.nms.on...ents.htm

Now I'm not going to go and detract from someone's personal choice. If you choose to have a vegetarian, carnivorous or hybrid diet, that's fine, but don't say we can feed the world by eliminating meat. It's incorrect and mathematically wrong.

Your second point that all the feeds will be available for human consumption is also in error.
How do you think we fertilize all the food stuffs outside of petrochemical fertilizer?
organicivy
3.3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2010
I put the argument to you as well that you cannot have the amount of meat and dairy that’s available today without artificial supplementation. While you may not take supplements directly yourself, the likelihood is that most people are eating meat and dairy from cows that have been supplemented. I’m happy to see evidence to say otherwise if I am wrong. Most people are also vaccinated and take medications – this includes meat eaters. So to say that meat eaters are free of artificial supplements and that the need for supplements negates a vegan diet is not a valid argument.

As for Vitamin 12, yes it is more difficult to source solely from plants in today’s supermarkets–It is produced by micro-organisms that are found in the soil and on the surface of plants. However, it's destroyed by pesticides and the stringent hygienic practices of modern agriculture. Therefore it’s not the vegan diet that’s the problem, it’s the agricultural practice.
organicivy
3.3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2010
Carnosine is made up of the amino acids beta-alanine and histidine. Both of these amino acids are plentifully available in a vegan diet.

>>Your second point that all the feeds will be available for human consumption is also in error.

In your last point I see that you’re moving from veganism to sustainability - I believe these are two separate but linked propositions. Let me address both.

If you want to grow things on a massive scale – you need artificial fertilisers. I don’t think this is ideal but this is the reality we live with today. All things equal if you assume that agricultural practices will continue as they are, and include petro-chemical fertilizers, land use is far more efficiently put towards growing plants that are available for people rather than for animals. I’m not saying you could feed the world, but you could feed more people. My issue with modern practices is the exploitation of animals.
organicivy
3.3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2010
I choose veganism in a modern context as there is no way you can sustainably keep animals in mass numbers and let them live a natural and cruelty-free lifestyle.

Your second point is about sustainability. Unless we return to a subsistence lifestyle where everyone grows their own foods – there we can use more natural alternatives. You’re referring to animal poop when you talk about fertilizers that are non-petro. In this way, I think humans can live with animals in a synergistic manner and not exploit them. If honeybees pollinate my fruitrees of their own volition, I have no problem with that. If someone keeps chickens that are free to roam about as they want. They feed them and give them shelter and they produce fertilizer for the garden – I can’t see where the harm is there. In that scenario I’d be happy to lead a vegetarian lifestyle rather than vegan.

But aside from a subsistence lifestyle, I can’t see any alternative but veganism.
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2010
So effectively you're making your choice in a bubble. You can afford to do it so screw everyone else. This is why your stance is ethically wrong.

Removing the meat industries will only serve to starve those who cannot escape subsistence farming.

It is a crime of luxury and wealth. If you didn't have the wealth you wouldn't have the luxury.

You state that we exploit animals, well that's awfully nice of you to think about them that way but we're meat eaters. If we don't eat them other animals will eat them. They are prey, and through evolution they have come to fill a role. They eat the plant life so that it may reproduce and further evolve and we eat them so that they may reproduce and further evolve. Locking the world in some sort of pseudo steady state where animals and people hold hands and galavant down the road is utterly ridiculous. Again, your choice is always your choice, but don't even attempt to force it on others when it is ethically dubious at best.
organicivy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2010
>>You can afford to do it so screw everyone else.

Hahaha! I've been buying vegan from organic sources since I was a uni student paying rent and earning student wages. Sorry, but another invalid point.

A vegan diet is much cheaper than a diet that is filled with animal products. It is also less taxing on the health system. What are the main causes of heart attacks and cholesterol again? Definitely not food from plants. Also, go read The China Study.

>>but we're meat eaters

Erm, I'm not and neither are many others who are healthy. I have seen absolutely no evidence that convinces me that we're meant to eat meat. People can eat meat. Just like they can eat sugar, smoke, or inject crack. Doesn't mean those things are good for you.

I don't even know how to answer that final paragraph. It makes no sense at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2010
Hahaha! I've been buying vegan from organic sources since I was a uni student paying rent and earning student wages. Sorry, but another invalid point.
Were you doing it as a subsistence farmer in the sub-saharan scrub lands? No. So perhaps you should understand what the wealth of a university student is compared to just about anyone in the third world nation.
A vegan diet is much cheaper than a diet that is filled with animal products. It is also less taxing on the health system.
Evidence please? A moderated diet including meat is healthier than a diet of pure plant matter. The issue isn't what we eat, it is how much we eat.

Erm, I'm not and neither are many others who are healthy.
Biologically you are a meat eater regardless of your preference or diet.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that convinces me that we're meant to eat meat.
Pull your head out of the sand. You're thinking of only yourself and ignoring the bigger picture.
organicivy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2010
Were you a subsistence farmer in the sub-Saharan either? Relevance? You weren't one either.

You want evidence? Go read the scientifically peer reviewed China study as I stated above. Covers off many of the points I've raised in relation to a culture that's not as wealthy as our western one. The study is of Chinese subsistence farmers and what happens to them when they become wealthier and start eating meat.

The United Nations also has published a report called "Assessing The Environmental Impacts of Production and Consumption".

This table compares human physiology to herbivores, carnivores and omnivores:

http://www.tierve...Taxonomy

Eating animal products and cancer - http://www.vegsou...diet.htm

http://www.cancer...meat.php
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2010
That's pretty weak evidence, overall.

The wiki article makes no factual distinction as to the types of animals whose taxonomy is charted, and pointedly ignores the fact that not having a falsifiable theory regarding "opportunistic" carnivores in no way controverts the fact of their existence.
Also overlooked is the possibility that having a pronounced snout might be a bit of an adaptive liability for a biped.
Taxonomy-based classification of human diet is a flawed approach. Also, how does this account for a chimpanzee, or crow- for instance?

As far as the correlation of cancer with meat eating- there are a host of other factors at work as well. Obviously classification of the human diet as omnivorous would imply some balance in the amounts of various foods consumed, and therefore a more or less ideal ratio.

A MIXED diet with smaller amounts of fatty red meat(and fatty fish) yields a cancer rate decidedly lower on the scale, as combining foods offsets deficiencies contd
organicivy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2010
On what basis are you calling my evidence weak? Have you read the China study and the UN reports I refer to? If so, I am interested to hear your analysis of them.

Could you please provide a better approach or evidence as to why we are physiologically adapted to eating animal products?

In relation to cancer and other affluence diseases associated with eating animal products - this is addressed in the scientifically peer-reviewed China study which I have mentioned above.

>>
A MIXED diet with smaller amounts of fatty red meat(and fatty fish) yields a cancer rate decidedly lower on the scale

Could you please provide evidence for this?
Caliban
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2010
found in both. And while the graphs shown in your second article were compelling, I notice that, at the high end, the "meat consumed" graph was showing virtually the entire caloric intake equivalent for an adult Western human per day as from meat- no distinction in kind, how prepared, how raised, in what population(s) -nothing. Just a "raw' stat. Even at that- how do these studies explain the case of the Inuit, or Laplanders? Very high meat/fat consumption, and traditionally very low incidence of both cancer and heart/circulatory disease?

I won't debate that a higher proportion of food intake should be vegetable/fruit, but meat consumption is just as natural a part of human diet as an artichoke is. And for a very large part of the world, it is the only way to reliably obtain enough protein to even have a prayer of staying healthy.

organicivy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2010
I really don't find it useful to point out extreme examples to support an argument, especially as most of us don't lead lifestyles like the Inuit. We can all point to smokers who have lived till 90, but does that justify the healthiness of smoking? Not really. This is why I also avoid pointing out extreme examples of veganism e.g. Karl Lewis who's an elite athlete on a vegan diet. That just doesn't apply to most of the population. They are outliers.
Nevertheless I will address your point about populations with high meat and animal product consumption. The Inuit have one of the highest levels of osteoporosis in the human population. Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.
organicivy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2010
http://www.ajcn.o...27/9/916
1. Iburg KM, Bronnum-Hansen H, Bjerregaard P. Health expectancy in Greenland. Scand J Public Health 2001;29(1):5-12. Choinere R. Mortality among the Baffin Inuit in the mid-80s. Arctive Med Res 1992;51 (2):87-93.
I don't really know anything about Laplanders. I haven't gotten around to researching every pocket of individual cultures.
But another group is the Maasai. They eat a diet high in wild hunted meats and have the worst life expectancy in the modern world. Life expectancy is 45 years for women and 42 years for men. African researchers report that, historically, Maasai rarely lived beyond age 60. Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai show that they have a 50% chance of dying before the age of 59.
organicivy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2010
I've been debating dietary and environmental considerations of vegan diets in and out for the past couple days. If people want to keep throwing examples and arguments at me, go ahead, but I'm still yet to find some solid, scientific, peer-reviewed studies that show that people need meat to survive. We don't. It is detrimental. I will respond when someone presents me with solid evidence, but until then, that's it from me on that particular point.
I won't hide the fact that dietary considerations don't rate very highly with me as a reason to become vegan. Good health is just a nice byproduct. The same with the environment. It is nice to know that a byproduct of a vegan lifestyle is a better environment and the ability to feed more people.
organicivy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2010
The most compelling reason to not kill humans is not because they're useful or we need each other as a means for some end. It is the morally right thing to do. The same with animals. They are sentient beings with a will to live that have just as much of a right to experience life as we do.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2010
But another group is the Maasai. They eat a diet high in wild hunted meats and have the worst life expectancy in the modern world. Life expectancy is 45 years for women and 42 years for men. African researchers report that, historically, Maasai rarely lived beyond age 60. Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai show that they have a 50% chance of dying before the age of 59.
Yeah, many of them die of AIDS, or hunting lions. The leading cause of death amongst the Masai is parasitic infection, because of their lifestyle, not their eating habits.

I think the most disturbing thing here is that your argument is so weak that you felt the need to create a sockpuppet account called entropystate to uprank your commentary and downrank mine.

If you want to have a conversation, lets have one without the ridiculous obfuscation. The vegan lifestyle does not enable the feeding of more people. Your statements are factually inaccurate.
marjon
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2010
people need meat to survive.

Survive or thrive?
"The first human clinical randomized controlled trial involved 29 people with glucose intolerance and ischemic heart disease, and it found that those on a Paleolithic diet had a greater improvement in glucose tolerance compared to those on a Mediterranean diet"
http://en.wikiped...hic_diet
I suggest reviewing the Metabolic Typing Plan. All humans did not evolve in the same places and adapted to eating different foods. No one diet is best for all.
Vegans, of course, usually have other motives besides their health or the health of others.
organicivy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2010
>>>or hunting lions

Hahaha!! The irony cracks me up here.
organicivy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2010
Oh and just to clarify my above comment, the irony of using this fact as an argument is what amuses me, not the fact.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2010
>>>or hunting lions

Hahaha!! The irony cracks me up here.

What is the irony?
Lion tastes good. So does shark. It is satisfying at times to be reminded one's position in the food chain.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2010
>>>or hunting lions

Hahaha!! The irony cracks me up here.

When caught slinging snake oil, the salesman will always attempt to demonize his opponent.
Djincs
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2010
Meat is esential for humans, it is right that the different populations of people has adapted to different diet but not eating meat is so wrong, you can compare the length of the digestive tract of the humans and other animals, and you can see that it is more similar to carnivorce(especially the length of the small intestine)!
And what will happen if we stop to eat meat, all the species that we have been created will dissapear(or they will live the same stupid life in the zoo).
To have life that sux is better than have no life at all, if you love the animals you should eat them!And their life isnt that bad!

marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2010
Meat is esential for humans, it is right that the different populations of people has adapted to different diet but not eating meat is so wrong, you can compare the length of the digestive tract of the humans and other animals, and you can see that it is more similar to carnivorce(especially the length of the small intestine)!
And what will happen if we stop to eat meat, all the species that we have been created will dissapear(or they will live the same stupid life in the zoo).
To have life that sux is better than have no life at all, if you love the animals you should eat them!And their life isnt that bad!


Meat tastes so good after spending some time over a fire humans were meant to eat meat.
Ravenrant
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
“.... eating one 4-ounce hamburger is equivalent to leaving your bathroom faucet running 24 hours a day for a week. We can’t go on like this.”

Sure we can, and we will too, right up until it's too late, it's human nature. We don't have sense enough to know that there are already too many people on this planet to support indefinitely and we are going to stop eating meat? LOL We will stop when it's too expensive and not before, which will be when it's too late. It will always be too late while we worship the one true god, the dollar.
Ravenrant
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Skeptic Heretic: "The vegan lifestyle does not enable the feeding of more people. Your statements are factually inaccurate."

Really? So Korea and China would be able to feed their people if they fed all their rice to animals and ate them instead? The quoted statement has to be about the dumbest I've read here.
Djincs
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2010
A little more proofs that meat is important, what were we eathing when we were hunter-gatherers?
What aborigines, bushmens and the tribes in South America are eathing, and this period of hunting and gathering is really big part of our evolution....
You just cant claim we were not ment to eat meat, to compare it with drugs and so on, and to say how heltier it is not to eat it, people who dont eat meat dont dring, dont smoke and take kare for their helt more than the average people , thats exlain the statistic, and carnivorce dont have more helt problem compared to plant eaters, neither omnivorous, when you dont follow the nature, then the problems come.
Everyone is free to choose but dont tell us that you are right! it is silly!
thelastprotagonist
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
I love a great steak as much as the next carnivore yet the conditions of some factory farms leaves me nauseous !
I beleive the only viral plague that could ever escape our attention would be the kind that comes masked as a steak dinner or flame broiled hamburger ,With a 30 to 50 yr incubatory period ,Imagine ?
This is where we must opt for much better feed and living conditions for animals on factory farms to stamp out all pestilence which is the fault of substandard livestock practices and make it a very serious charge against any farmer who endorses cannibalism laced refeed !
I do not know about anybody else but i want my beef or pork to have been treated real good before hitting my plate !
It has been proven that happy livestock raised on microfarms not concrentrated cow camps make excellent meat and i am willing to pay the difference bar none !
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 19, 2010
Really? So Korea and China would be able to feed their people if they fed all their rice to animals and ate them instead? The quoted statement has to be about the dumbest I've read here.

If the US stopped eating meat China and S. Korea would be rather short on rice. Please do try to follow along.
barakn
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2010
you can compare the length of the digestive tract of the humans and other animals, and you can see that it is more similar to carnivorce(especially the length of the small intestine)!

Yes, you can compare intestinal length, but it doesn't mean it's a valid comparison. Humans go to the extreme when pretreating their food: heating it; cutting, chopping, shredding, grinding, milling it; juicing it; predigesting it using certain tasty molds, yeast, and bacteria, or with enzymes; soaking in acids, bases, salts, oils, or alcohol; freezing and thawing, which disrupts cell walls and membranes. This tends to make the food easier to digest. Humans might not have shorter intestines because they are carnivores but because they are cooks.
Djincs
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
OK, good point actually but not enough, homo sapiens have evolved 400-100k years ago in Africa, lets think of the crops they have-potatoes-no, wheat-no, been-no, soy-no, corn-no, they have eaten some fruits some seeds maybe, but to rely only to plants...I dont think so!why we humans have lost our fur and we can sweat so extensively?
Do you know about the oldest hunting tehnique?
Humans were chasing big antilopes in Africa in the hotest hours of the day, we could afford lose our fur because when it come the night we have animal fur to rely on , we can afford to lose so much wather because we were able to take it with us, and at this chase humans had hunted down the animal when it just collapse from overhiting, some bushmens are doing this even today, trough our most important stage of our evolution we were hunters thats it!
all the healt problems now comes from this lazy life we have, not burning enough energy.
Djincs
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2010

Humans go to the extreme when pretreating their food: heating it; cutting, chopping, shredding, grinding, milling it;

Actually this can explane why our teeth arent similar to these of the carnivource, we didnt kill the animlas and shreading the meat with our teeth we had the tools for that(your people come up with this really often"What abouth our teeth")Some people just beleave in what they want to beleave, this is some kind of sindrome I think, be objective!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.