Meat & Protein: Dispelling the Myths (Part 2)

[Guest guest]

Meat & Protein: Dispelling the Myths (Part 2) JoAnn Guest

Sep 21, 2006 19:22 PDT

 

 

 

http://gnhealth.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1087

 

Meat & Protein:

Dispelling the Myths (Part 2)

Transcript of Gary Null's Radio Show

 

 

Note: The information on this website is presented for educational

purposes only.

It is not a substitute for the advice of a qualified professional.

 

GARY NULL: Hi everyone. I'm Gary Null and I'd like to welcome you to

this special presentation: Meat, Protein, and Dispelling the Myths.

This

is a continuation of our discussion where we're trying to explain

why we

should be very conscious of the choices we make about what goes into

our

system. After all the long-term effects could be heart disease,

Alzheimer's, gastrointestinal cancers, breast cancer, prostate

cancer,

arthritis, fibromyalgia. Now it depends upon who you speak with. If

you

talk with people within the industries producing these products of

course they're going to say there is no connection. And we could say

well the tobacco industry said the same thing, but they were wrong.

Today I'm going to present more evidence as to why vegetarians and

non-vegetarians should be focusing on this very important issue.

 

At the end of the last program I discussed how that in the late '90s

the

public began to react to the perception that the meat industrial

complex

was indeed a plague. That nearly a century ago back in 1907, Dr.

Alois

Alzheimer, who by the way later would be named for Alzheimer's

disease

how that ended up uh - his research showed that there was a lot that

we

should be concerned with. And he was joined by Drs. Creutzfeldt and

Jakob. They had identified a brain wasting disease and how it was

affecting people in Europe. The disease caused the brains of cows to

turn into a sponge-like mass, and their behavior was called mad. But

now

all these years later more than 167,000 British dairy cows had died

from

the bovine form of this very disease popularly known as mad cow

disease

between 1985 and 1995. mad cow disease is a member of a family of

diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies or TSE's

seen

in various animals. Not just cows. You can find them in humans,

sheep,

mink, deer, and cats. TSE's are known by different names depending

upon

which species of animal they're found in: for example, Creutzfeldt-

Jakob

Disease in humans; Scrapie in sheep; Chronic wasting syndrome in

deer

and elk; and bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE in cows.

 

Whatever animal is affected however the diseases have very similar

characteristics. They attack the central nervous system causing

disintegration of the brain. They have a long incubation period

between

the time when infection first occurs and the appearance of symptoms.

They are always fatal, and they are transmitted by eating parts of

animals, especially the brains and spinal cords. And during this

entire

time British health officials adamantly maintained that there was

nothing unsafe about eating British beef. They lied. Even as

evidence

mounted to the contrary the government held stubbornly to this

position.

Then finally in 1996 a panel of government scientists told

parliament

that " the most likely explanation for new cases of the human form of

mad

cow disease was that BSE had moved from cows to people. " The human

variant of mad cow disease had been named Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

or

CJD. The protein causing CJD has no DNA, and has been described as

more

like a crystal than (inaudible) material. In labs 1,000 degrees

Fahrenheit heat does not destroy this protein particle. Some

scientists

say that once infected the incubation period can last anywhere from

one

month to 30 years as the human brain turns into a sponge. The

spongiform

encephalopathic condition physically debilitates those so infected.

At

present there is no reliable anti-moratorium diagnosis, specific

treatment, or vaccine to prevent the disease. The agent thought to

be

responsible for this unusual class of disease is a rogue protein,

and

unlike all other agents known to cause infectious disease contains

no

DNA, no RNA. The bad form of this molecule holds or (?) a sponge

appearance inside the brain in all disease variance. It doesn't

matter.

It will have the same manifestation in a human as a cow as a pig as

a

sheep as a deer. All the same. The infectious agent of mad cow

disease

remains infective even after exposure for an hour to a temperature

of

680 degrees Celsius. Enough to melt lead. And it can withstand

antibiotics, boiling water, bleach, formaldehyde, every form of

solvent,

detergent, enzymes known to destroy all other bacteria and viruses.

But

it doesn't hurt this virus or this protein.

 

By 1996 more than one million infected cows had been consumed in

Britain. So in the next few years more than 2.5 million dairy

British

cows infected with mad cow disease were killed and incinerated at

extremely high temperatures in an attempt to eradicate the disease.

Meanwhile studies were showing that transmission of these proteins,

the

prions, from infected cattle to humans by oral intake was also

probable.

The meat industry was reeling. Statements such as meat is a lush

medium

for pathogenic bacteria and germs; it can harbor parasites, toxic

chemicals, and medical contaminants; and it can bring death by brain

rot

were circulating in the industry itself as well as in the more

popular

media. Six months after Oprah Winfrey had discussed these things.

 

In 1999 the US Food and Drug Administration and Canadian health

authorities recommended that blood centers refuse blood donations

from

people who had spent six months or more cumulative time in England

during the past 17 years because anyone who had spent substantial

time

in England during this period was potentially infected with the

human

form of the disease. And it is transmittable through blood.

Meanwhile

studies were showing the transmission of the protein from infected

cattle to humans by oral intake was very probable. The meat industry

was

reeling as statements such as meat is just a harbor of all forms of

toxins and containments and can cause brain rot were circulating.

 

In 1998 six months after Oprah Winfrey survived a highly publicized

suit

by the cattle industry for discussing mad cow disease on her show

the

FDA formally banned the practice of feeding cow meat and bone meal

back

to cows. But most people didn't know that happened. Most people

imagined

it well a cow is fed grass or hay when grass is out of season or

grains.

Little did anyone know that cows are actually fed ground up dead

cows.

But they're also fed ground up dead chickens and chicken manure and

chicken feathers and grease trappings. Just imagine you can only be

what

you eat. And if a cow becomes all of that that it eats and when you

eat

the cow that's what your cells become. And there's no discrimination

in

the body. The cell cannot just take in the good nutrients and leave

out

all of the contaminants. Every thing that's in the cow comes right

through the hamburger, the hot dog, or fried chicken.

 

Well within two years reports surfaced that the meat industry again

was

ignoring legislation as pigs and chickens were still being fed the

bones, brains, meat scraps, feathers, and feces of their own

species. So

little was really done in a conscious period of time. The British

failed

first, and the Americans failed behind them always bending to the

pressure of the meat industry. Another issue beyond this is what

about

the irradiation of meat. Doesn't that make it safe? Isn't that

better?

Doesn't that kill bacteria and viruses and allows to have a

healthier

cut of meat? The answer is no. When you have an industry which

causes up

to 33 million cases of food related illness each year - that's 33

million - 9,000 deaths and food poisoning from E. coli, O517-H7,

better

known as E. coli, which effects up to 73,480 people annually in the

United States then there is a problem. On February 22, 2000 the

penny

dropped. The US Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to

the

irradiation of beef and other meat products. But would you eat a

fast

food burger that had been nuked, exposed to nuclear radiation in

order

to kill pathogens such as salmonella. The FDA claims the technology

is

safe and effective. My research shows it is neither. There are two

major

types of food irradiation: electron beam which uses a high speed gun

to

bombard foods with electrons; and nuclear, which is favored by the

nuclear power industry because it provides a use for spent nuclear

fuel

and it uses nuclear reactors to manufacture the necessary cobalt 60.

 

Electron beam radiation is not in itself environmentally

hazardously;

but critics say that it is even more hazardous to the food supply

than

the nuclear variant. In addition to eliminating E. coli the

treatment

can significantly reduce levels of other pathogens including

listeria,

salmonella, and campylobacter. The food isn't radioactive and while

it

is a slight loss of nutrients the food is largely unchanged

according to

the Food and Drug Administration. And while a label disclosing the

irradiation treatment is required for meat products purchased in a

store, labeling isn't required for foods used as ingredients in a

product like flour and bread for example or for foods served by

restaurants or school lunch programs.

 

The animal feeding studies first used to evaluate the safety of food

irradiation were inadequate to assure there would be no long-term

ill

effects. That's according to Dr. Marcy Van Gemmert (sp?), a

toxicologist

and Chair of the FDA Committee that investigated 441 irradiation

studies

before the approval of the process for poultry and some other foods

in

1982. She says that she's not for or against food irradiation, but

believes politics not good science was the basis of its acceptance.

 

In 1963 wheat and wheat powder were the first food approved for

irradiation. And in the early '70s meat prepared for NASA astronauts

were routinely sterilized with radiation. But these early

experiments

never affected consumer products. The FDA admits that no more animal

feeding studies have been done since 1982, but claims they aren't

needed

because irradiation has a trivial effect on food. " Conducting animal

feeding studies would be a waste of time and effort, " says Dr. Paul

Pauley, Director of the FDA's Division of Product Policy. " One could

predict what would occur better than one could determine by doing a

study with animals. " Pauley claims that studies evaluated in 1982

suggest that there might be ill effects from irradiation were flawed

and

that the FDA has concluded there are no toxic effects that could be

attributed to radiation. He says, " We tried to look at the totality

of

evidence to see is there any pattern here. When you start getting

dozens

of studies adding up to thousands of animals and the only thing you

can

see is that no one found any toxic effects due to irradiation then

your

assurance of safety becomes stronger. "

 

However opponents of irradiation disagree. " We're about to have a

huge

experiment at your local McDonald's and Burger Kings so why bother

with

animal studies, " says Michael Colby, Executive Director of Food and

Water, a consumer advocacy group based in Vermont. " The trouble is

the

government won't go to the trouble of having controlled and

experimental

groups. We are all subjects of the experiment. " He advises consumers

to

boycott all forms of non organic meat and poultry and says that

unless

consumers purchase organically grown products they won't know if the

meat has been exposed to radiation or not. If you don't know where

your

food comes from, you're playing Russian roulette with your meal. You

aren't going to know if you buy irradiated food in a restaurant or

if

your child eats irradiated food at school lunch. You won't know. No

labeling is required for any processed food that contains irradiated

ingredients even if you're talking about the chicken in chicken

soup.

These loop holes are a result of extensive corporate lobbying to

fool

consumers and jumpstart a very dubious technology.

 

Besides creating toxic byproducts such as formaldehyde and benzene,

irradiation can create some unique radiolytic products. Chemicals

that

have not been identified or tested for toxicity. According to Dr.

John

Goffman at the University of California, Berkeley, " What we do know

with

certainty is that irradiation causes a host of unnatural and

sometimes

unidentifiable chemicals to be formed within the irradiated foods. "

Goffman says, " Our ignorance about these foreign compounds make it

simply a fraud to tell the public that we know irradiated foods

would be

safe to eat. It is dishonorable to trick people into buying

irradiated

foods, " he says. Dr. Pauley of the FDA says chemical changes do take

place when products are irradiated, but the levels of toxins like

benzene are so low it has to be of no concern. He also denies there

is

any reason for concern about irradiation destroying essential

vitamins

and minerals.

 

But the Organic Consumer Association claims that by releasing

molecular

materials called free radicals irradiation may destroy as much as 80

percent of vitamin A, C, E, K, and B complex depending upon the dose

of

irradiation and the length of the storage time. The group charges

that

irradiation also deactivates the natural digestive enzymes found in

raw

food and encourages fats to turn rancid. Another issue has been

raised

in the safety of irradiated facilities. Colby says that workers in

irradiation plants risk exposure to large doses of radiation due to

equipment failures, leaks, and other problems. In 1998 in Decatur,

Georgia there was a radioactivity release into the water storage

pool at

Radiation Sterilizers, Inc. Taxpayers paid up to 30 million dollars

to

clean up in the case. Dr. Pauley responds that it's unfair to equate

that accident with an unsafe record for the industry. " What I have

seen

is that the safety record is good. These are heavily regulated

facilities. If anything goes wrong, measures are taken to remedy

that, "

he says.

 

Still more controversy surfaces when one considers that irradiation

kills beneficial microorganisms as well as the harmful ones, and

that

the use of the technology could lead to the development of radiation

and

antibiotic resistant bacteria. And there's another factor. One of

the

things that finally we are paying attention to when we study the

American diet and disease patterns is that the average American

consuming the average diet has a plethora of gastrointestinal

problems.

In part this is due to eating wrong combinations and excessive

quantities of food, but it's also due to the fact that our diet is

substantially lacking in enzymes. Enzymes are the catalysts of life.

They are the spark plugs of a food. And when you use irradiation,

you

are destroying the enzymes. You have to because it's the destruction

of

the enzymes that's allowing the food to have a longer shelf life.

It's

no different than when you taste an orange and it doesn't taste very

sweet. You eat a tomato and it tastes kind of cardboard-ish. One of

the

reasons that our fruits and vegetables do not taste quite as good as

they once did, and certainly nowhere comparing it to the taste of

what

comes from a fresh picked something out of your garden is that they

are

picked unripe and then gassed with chemicals in storage timing how

long

it will take an unripe fruit to artificially ripen by the time it

gets

to the store. The difference is that you've speeded up a natural

process

unnaturally, and you do not get the full maturity of taste.

 

Try a peach. Have you ever seen the peaches that when you bite into

them

they are kind of mushy? Well that's an example of peaches picked

unripe,

gassed in transit, and then ripened artificially. Nothing like the

sweet

orb of juice that flows from a peach right off a tree. Naturally

ripened

is always better. Allowing a plant to go to its full maturity is

better,

but naturally ripened fruit generally has a relatively short shelf

life.

And one of the things that manufacturers want is longer shelf life.

Destroy the enzymes. Neutralize them. The enzymes that would

normally

cause a fruit of any kind or vegetable or meat to go rancid to

complete

its life cycle are substantially limiting. So the fruit lasts maybe

a

week longer. Well a week longer is a lot more sales time, but we pay

a

price for it. We are being nutritionally robbed at one end.

 

There is more to this. We should look for example at a vegetarian

alternative. Just for a moment let us examine some of the reasons

why

millions of Americans, billions of people throughout the world, have

selected a vegetarian alternative. Since Americans have been forced

fed

the propaganda of the basic four food groups they had been taking a

beating in many ways. While the profits of the meat and dairy

industries

have greatly increased, the average consumer has had to dig deeper

in to

his pocket to pay the rising costs of their products. He is always

paying more for medical bills and health insurance because of sharp

increases in disease and sickness. The Senate Select Committee on

Nutrition and Human Needs has found an increase in the rate of

malnutrition and obesity alongside a decrease in the quality not

quantity of food consumed. At the same time there has been a direct

increase in the rate of heart disease, cancer, hypertension,

arthritis,

and other degenerative diseases. The animal producers have

successfully

brainwashed Americans into believing that without meat and dairy

products they're in danger of malnutrition. But with the public

health

and nutritional well being dramatically declining while meat and

dairy

consumption greatly increases, their scare tactics are wearing

pretty

think.

 

A workable alternative to the basic four would be a five-group

division

that would be utilized not just by the affluent consumer societies

of

the western world, but also by the average citizens of the third

world.

Now this trans-cultural food grouping would comprise three principal

dietary staples: grains, legumes, and vegetables, and while the two

smaller groups would be raw foods and foods containing B12. And this

categorization includes all of the foods needed by people in any

socioeconomic or cultural group in order to maintain a healthy

normal

active life. The five-group division is not a new concept. The

Canadians

have separated fruits and vegetables into two separate categories

and

together with meat and cereal and milk they end up with five. Those

are

the bad three. The Puerto Ricans who stress vegetables and fresh

fruits

also work with five groups. But adapting a vegetarian diet of

grains,

legumes, nuts and seeds, fruits and vegetables - actually it better

be a

six group - would not be easy to sell to agribusiness. This

brainwashing

has blinded us from seeing the health benefits of the vegetarian

alternative.

 

The time has come though when the public begins to comprehend the

enormous waste of health and the dangers involved in eating meat. We

are

starting to see through the thinly veiled public education messages

of

the meat and dairy industries that for years have fabricated our

need

for animal products. As far back as 1977 agriculture expert Lester

Brown

informed us that if American cut their meat consumption by just ten

percent it would save us about 12 million tons of grain. This

savings

alone could negate the entire year's nutritional deficit in India

where

nutritional deficit is among the highest in the world. In By Bread

Alone

Brown reasoned that if some of us consume more others of necessity

must

consume less. The moral issue is raised by the fact that those who

are

consuming less (?) are not so much the overweight affluent, but the

already undernourished poor. Continuing to eat animal products

amidst

starving people in the world is not just thoughtless it's selfish.

 

While the average person in the United States consumes some 2,000

pounds

of grain annually all but 150 pounds of that grain is in the form of

animal food. As senseless as this seems our gluttony demands for

meat

has prompted us to waste 170 million tons of grain a year this way.

We

could eat the grain directly instead of pumping it into livestock

thereby enabling us to feast on a greasy steak or fatty hamburger.

If we

did, we would alleviate the present caloric deficiency of the world

four

times over. Instead of donating to world hunger organizations, try

eliminating beef from your diet, chicken from your diet, veal from

your

diet, and pork from your diet. It is the most effective and concrete

thing to do to help humans end a lot of suffering.

 

Food experts agree that we should eat much more of a vegetarian diet

in

order to create more nutritional parity in the world. They note that

a

simple diet would free up grain exports and therefore increase

global

food resources. By decreasing our demand for meat, we are releasing

millions of tons of food that can be used to nourish our starving

and

malnourished brethren in underdeveloped parts of the world. And

we're

even becoming healthier for it. On the other hand if we refuse to

change

our wasteful food production and selfish food consumption amidst the

starving millions, the devastation will continue and no one - not

even

us - will be spared. Sickness and disease, hunger and famine,

economic

chaos and violent struggles for dwindling food supplies will ensue

and

augment steadily.

 

So the time has come to reallocate our food resources while the

problem

can still be solved. Since Brown's appeal to Americans to consume

less

food a quarter of a century ago, there have been hundreds of studies

supporting the vegetarian outlook. And by the late 1990's - early

2000's

as Americans incorporated the phrase virtual reality into their

vocabulary, many realized that the meat industry complex and

Byzantine

concepts of offering only virtual meat was not a healthy solution.

Various journals picked up on the trend and reported that over 30

million Americans had explored a vegetarian program at some point.

About

one-third of US teenagers think that being a vegetarian is in. Aging

baby boomers who are waking up to their own health concerns are

taking a

proactive approach to their health by eating more meatless meals.

Health

and taste were the top two reasons consumers were eating more meat-

free

meals. The American Institute for Cancer Research reported a 40

percent

of the world's cancer cases could be prevented through the

adaptation of

diets rich in grains, fruits, and vegetables.

 

Recently I was asked in a debate on a Phoenix radio station to

explain

the proof that a vegetarian diet works. Where is the science behind

it?

Well right off the bat I was able to cite and give them over 275

references. Lest you feel that there is not adequate proof review

Loma

Linda University, a Seven Day Adventist Christian Health Science

Institution in Loma Linda, California. They've allocated

considerable

resources towards studying the Adventist vegetarian lifestyle. The

Loma

Linda University has achieved a 300 plus list of nutritional

benefits of

the vegetarian diet published in peer review journals dating clear

back

to 1964. The first research was done by Dr. Hardage on 86 lacto-ovo

vegetarians, 26 pure vegans, and 88 non-vegetarian adults,

adolescents,

and pregnant women. From 1954 to '66, he completed eight published

studies in peer review journals comparing the diets of Adventist

vegetarians to non-vegetarians. What he found was simple. Blood

cholesterol levels were lower in the vegetarian groups than in the

non-vegetarian groups. Their heart conditions were better.

 

Another researcher Dr. Winder in 1959 observed that the incidence of

cancer and coronary artery disease was much lower in Adventist

populations consisting mainly of nonsmokers and nondrinkers since

alcohol and smoking are prohibited in their religion. At the time

the

Seven Day Adventists had a membership of about 300,000 people in the

United States. By 1964 researchers reported in The American Journal

of

Medicine that aschemic heart disease was the most common cause of

death

among adult white Americans and was increasing in frequency. The

author

also reported that there was a growing belief this was partially

related

to " environmental factors peculiar to the so-called highly civilized

societies. " While a group of Seven Day Adventists were chosen for

this

study because they used much less of the animal products. They don't

drink coffee, alcohol or tobacco or are not supposed to. The

researchers

also felt that day-to-day stresses seemed to be less in the

Adventists

group, but had no objective proof of this. The authors found that

the

hospital admissions for coronary artery disease were 40 percent less

among Seven Day Adventists men than among men in the general

population

from all other religions. And they had less blood fats that were

harmful. They had less aschemic heart disease compared to white

males

living in New York.

 

In 1996 Winder and Lemon had collected information from several

studies

reporting in The Journal of the American Medical Association that

results in ongoing health survey of Seven Day Adventists. From 1958

to

1962 there were 850 deaths among 11,000 Seven Day Adventists men.

The

total number of deaths observed was one-half expected in the average

population. Half. The death from respiratory disease was one-fourth

the

average of the rest of America. In the Adventist group there were 28

deaths due to emphysema or lung cancer, but occurred in a minority

of

Adventists with a history of heavy smoking whereas only one death

occurred in the Adventists who had never smoked out of 3,913. So

dramatic were these findings in 1966 that it gave the alternative

medicine and natural health community strong evidence of the

beneficial

effects of a healthy lifestyle and an early warning about the

detrimental effects of cigarette smoking.

 

By 1969 a report in The Archives of Environmental Health found that

there was a greater life expectancy in the population of 34,000

Seven

Day Adventists, which was in large part due to not smoking and not

eating meat and not having dairy. A series of study on dental health

also began around 1958 and confirmed a lower incidence of dental

caries,

tooth decay, in children of Seven Day Adventists children.

Researchers

set out to determine if the difference was purely due to diet. There

was

also a somewhat humorous side of the study of the Adventists diet. A

researcher decided to study whether the stress of abstaining from

the

so-called pleasures of modern society - tobacco, caffeine, and

alcohol -

had a mental health impact on the group of Adventists. Or perhaps

the

thinking was that you must be crazy to give up on normal cultural

socializing behavior. It wasn't true. They didn't mind it, and they

were

healthier. And they had less tooth decay due to the diet.

 

In 1966 Dr. R.O. West repeated the earlier cholesterol studies with

a

group of 466 Seven Day Adventists in Washington, DC. This study

matched

the Adventists vegetarians with non-vegetarians from the same local

population looking at the effects on eating meat and chicken versus

vegetarian and measuring their cholesterol. Well the findings were

that

the vegetarians had much, much healthier lower cholesterol than the

non.

 

Now what I've just cited just in the last two minutes is represented

by

21 peer review mainstream scientific journals from The Medical Arts

and

Sciences Volume 21 and The Journal of Dental Research Volume 46. All

of

these of course and all the citations - hundreds - will be on my

website

garynull.com at the completion of this particular series of studies.

Now

I stopped at 1966. From 1966 until today there are over 1,500

studies in

the mainstream scientific literature that support the importance not

just of eating a healthier diet, but of specifically fruits and

vegetables and protecting us against heart disease and cancers. All

told

there are more than 5,000 studies on all types of dietary changes.

That

includes soy products in the diet.

 

Well here's how it works. Those people who are going on a meatless

diet

are more likely to consume more fruits and vegetables and vegetable

juices and soy products. They are more likely to take their

antioxidants. They're also more likely to exercise with more

regularity.

It's as if when you raise your consciousness about what is healthy

for

you in one part of your life, you're less susceptible to resisting

making positive changes in other areas. Whereas a person who is

smoking

and drinking and drinking coffee and eating meat is less likely to

deal

with stress, is less likely to deal with exercise, is less likely to

have the positive thoughts because they're not in the same mindset.

It

has nothing to do with intellect. Nothing to do with success of

life.

But it has an awful lot to do with the health of the body.

 

Now there has been a lot said about well do we need all this protein

from meat or can we get adequate protein by not having meat. I will

deal

with that on our next program time permitting. But now I want to

take a

look at the reverence for life issue in a little more depth. If

people

were truly concerned about animals, they would never condone the

hell

they are put through while alive to say nothing about their

torturous

slaughter. Animals do not enjoy the sunshine or roam the fields or

smell

the fresh grass after a gentle springtime rain. They are isolated in

dark cells. Herded into tight quarters so they can barely move.

There

they are fed and maintained while they await their slaughter. Their

life

is like that of the unjustly condemned prisoner who lives out his

days

on death row awaiting his ultimate death by decree. Animals are not

raised on farms anymore but in animal factories. They are seldom

cared

for by a small farmer running a family business, but by factory

management constantly seeking ways to increase profit and decrease

overhead.

 

At this time virtually all poultry and better than half of all cows

and

pigs live their days like inmates on a mechanized factory

environment.

Poultry, pigs, and calves live a totally confined life. Never to see

the

light of day until their head is put in the direction of the

slaughterhouse. Hens are frequently crowded into tiny cages, which

they

do not leave for a year or two. Pregnant sows are tightly housed to

control their movement. They can barely squeeze their bodies into

the

minute stalls that are their homes for three months at a time.

Cattle

and pigs sometimes get to enjoy open air feeding lots, but even that

is

strictly timed by machines which feed them, water them, and remove

their

waste. These factory methods of animal farming have greatly

endangered

the small traditional farmers. Today 95 percent of hens, chickens,

and

turkeys and more than 50 percent of all cattle, dairy cows, and pigs

are

raised in this kind of impersonal high tech environment.

 

Agribusiness has little interest in the natural instincts of

animals.

Confinement is so complete that chickens don't even have enough room

to

flap their wings. Mating is so controlled and normal sexual activity

is

so hampered that male animals commonly become impotent and females

cannot even menstruate regularly. If you live shoulder to shoulder

with

other people day after day in a city with walls and no escape and no

natural light and controlled central air systems instead of fresh

air,

what do you think would happen? Predictably animals living under

these

conditions become so highly aggressive and violent that normal

interaction is rare. Subsequent depression lowers the will and the

ability to fight off disease and infection, which can easily become

epidemic. Agribusiness may not be concerned about the natural

instincts

of animals per say, but they are when their repression cuts into

capital

gain. Diseases resulting from the horrendous living conditions

described

just a moment ago are very costly. If animals die, they can't create

profits. But because only so much spoilage is allowed rather than

improve the animals' living conditions though producers prefer to

initiate health programs.

 

Well we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a good

health

program. Their programs are not designed to improve health, but to

control sickness. Over half the cattle and nearly 100 percent of the

hogs and calves and chickens are fed a study diet of antibiotics and

related medicines to keep infection and contagious diseases at a

controlled level. One FDA official advises us that antibiotics are

most

effective in the early growing period in warding off diseases in

animals

that are crowded or improperly housed or malnourished. Antibiotics

in

animal feed actually stimulate quicker weight gain while improving

the

efficiency of livestock feed by 16 percent. Now this might seem to

solve

the economic problems of producing meat in animal factories. But it

bypasses the question of the rights of the animals to decent,

natural

and even happy lives. Moreover no one is sure of what the long-term

effect of many eventually possibly contagious diseases might be in a

very sick animal population that gets into the human population. All

they do is just keeping pouring more antibiotics in.

 

Commercially they are very profitable. The meat industry, the dairy

industry, the poultry industry are hundred billion dollar

industries.

They do what they feel is in the best economic interest. Methods are

devised to inhibit natural extraneous behavior. The chickens are

de-beaked so they will not peck under stress. The pigs have their

tails

cut off because they tend to bite them when they're stressed. Not

only

physical behaviors are controlled, but also so are biochemical

processes. Hormones are given to intervene in reproductive cycles to

produce an exceptionally large number of ova in the female and to

keep

the animal's labor contractions and delivery time on schedule. That

is

on the animals' factory schedule.

 

There is a recent trend in the United States towards creating fewer

and

larger feedlots. This trend is expected to mean big overhead cuts

for

the animal industry, but even greater discomfort and inhumane

treatment

for the animals. Chickens are now given only one-sixth the space

that

laying hens had in 1954. Animals are being pushed closer and closer

together to cut the cost of operations as well as fixed overhead. On

top

of these savings as animal's physical activity is restricted by a

lack

of space it eats less and gains weight faster. But even though

overhead

and feed costs may dip, obese animals can also become burdensome and

undesirable. Chickens frequently gain so much weight that they can't

even stand up without industrial intervention. Obese cattle may have

fatty livers and abscesses that make them more difficult to market

and

certainly less desirable. Who wants to eat a diseased liver? But

then

how would you know that the liver you're eating is diseased?

 

Stress accompanied by low tolerance to infection and disease and

unusual

unsanitary conditions is a typical problem with the factory-farmed

animal. Pigs are known to suffer greatly while they are being

transported to the slaughterhouse. The respiration and heart rate

increase. The blood vessels may constrict from muscular tension

causing

insufficient circulation of blood and oxygen. A circulatory and

respiratory collapse may ensue. Many pigs cannot even stand during

the

trip to the slaughterhouse because of skeletal rigidity while others

are

dead long before they ever reach their destination. More than one

billion dollars is lost because of livestock injuries and stress and

death resulting from the mishandling in transport every year.

 

Not all money saving steps taken by animal producers result in

bigger

profits. Animal rights activist Dr. Michael Fox contends that

happier

less-stressed and more naturally raised animals would spell (?)

greater

productivity while cutting deeply into the costly problems of

infections, sickness, and ultimately death. He insists that

husbandry

conditions should be allowed so that the animal has the opportunity

to

develop, explore, and experience its telose (?) to some degree. Its

chicken-ness or its cow-ness or its pig-ness or whatever. He goes on

to

list typical basic needs that should be fulfilled. Freedom to form

natural physical movement. Association with other animals where

appropriate of their own kind. Facilities for comfort where they can

rest, sleep, and have body care. Provisions for food and water and

to

maintain full health. Ability to perform daily routines and natural

activities. The opportunity for activities for exploration and play

especially for younger animals. Satisfaction of minimal spatial and

territorial requirements including a visual field and personal

space.

Most cattlemen however say nonsense. Why do all that? All we're

raising

them for is to kill them so you can eat them. Well it makes sense.

 

What we might consider for a moment is shouldn't we know more about

what

we're eating. Leo Tolstoy a vegetarian once said well there was a

woman

and he presented her with a live chicken. She was told to decapitate

and

prepare it for cooking since she had requested chicken for dinner.

She

turned down the opportunity. If more people were aware of what is

involved in producing meat, they would probably be much less

enthusiastic about dining on ham and hot dogs. Children are taught

early

to recognize all their barnyard friends and their different sounds

and

peculiar habits. Yet they may think nothing about eating a juicy

hamburger or chicken leg until they make the actual association

between

the food and its source. That juicy hamburger is the friendly brown

cow

with the big gentle eyes and the chicken leg is the same one that

was

being used by a real chicken that might have been running in the

yard

that very day. Unfortunately most people don't see the raw cuts of

beef

hanging on hooks while the blood drips dry or the screams of the

pigs as

they're hauled off to the slaughterhouse. Living in apartments in

the

city and shopping for prime cuts of meat neatly packaged and nicely

colored you've lost the touch with the actual processes of food

gathering and food processing. We're too removed from the origins of

our

food. Too insulated from the sights and sounds and smells of the

animal

factories and slaughterhouses that we silently support by eating

meat in

fine restaurants or at the family table.

 

Doctor Fox explains that what the eye doesn't seem the consumer

doesn't

grieve. The Styrofoam carton of impeccable eggs, neatly trimmed meat

in

the plastic wrappers or a delicate slice of veal cordon bleu served

on a

silver platter doesn't tell us the whole story. What would tell the

story is a trip to an animal factory or a slaughterhouse. Arthur

Richard

Rhoades gives us some idea of what such an experience might be like

as

he describes his impressions at the ID Packing Company and meat

producer

for the Armour Meat Company. He says, " Down goes the tailgate and

out

come the pig enthusiastically after their drive. Pigs are the most

intelligent of all farm animals by actual laboratory tests. They

talk a

lot to each other. So you can listen. They do talk. Low grunts.

Quick

squeals. Kind of a hum sometimes. Angry shrieks. High screams. A

fear.

It was a frightening experience seeing their fear. Seeing so many of

them go by it had to remind me of things no one wants to be reminded

of

anymore. All mobs. All death marches. All mass murders and

extinctions.

The slaughter of the buffalo. The slaughter of the Indian. The

Inferno.

The Judgment Day. That we are the most expensive of races able in

our

affluence to hire others of our kind to do their terrible work of

killing another race.

 

Even though meat eating is allowed in the revised Judeo Christian

tradition, the inhumane treatment of animals is strictly forbidden.

Isaac Singer, author of Yentl and The Family Moskat, became a

vegetarian

when faced with the moral dilemma created by eating meat. He relates

accounts of the brutal and heartless treatment of animals in Blood

and

The Slaughter and other works. He raises the issues of animals

having as

much right to a life as a man has. All creatures being God's

creatures

he challenges the very basis of our social order in a New York Times

article entitled, " When Keeping Kosher Isn't Kosher Enough. " He asks

how

can we speak of right and justice if we take an innocent creature

and

shed its blood? Singer was interested in being a vegetarian even as

a

child, but his parents discouraged it. Now for the past 20 years he

has

championed the cause of vegetarianism and even adopted it as his

religion. He's experienced understandable reservations with adhering

to

any religion that could justify the abominable practice of

slaughtering

animals.

 

Nowhere is reverence for life expressed more profoundly than in the

philosophy of the vegans. Not only do vegans refrain from meat

eating

but also shun dairy products and eggs. After all they reason animals

suffer unbelievably in the production of these foods. Mark

Braunstein

writes in Radical Vegetarianism Diet Ethics and Dialectics about the

hapless hen forced in to endless labor throughout its life and

confined

to tight quarters without hardly ever contacting the real world. The

hen

he says must forever count her chickens before they hatch. Cows too

he

notes are treated sinfully. They are grossly overworked and have

only

the most meager quarters. They are even forced to surrender their

young

calves to the meat producers who are trying to fill the demand for

tender veal. Braunstein ponders over just how many vegetarians there

are, how vegetarian a person can claim to be if he insists on eating

eggs or dairy. After all he reasons, what about the veal floating

invisibly inside every glass of milk. There can be no quart of milk

where there is no cutlet of veal. The vegetarian might protest that

eggs

and cheese have nutrients and protein essential to proper health,

but

Braunstein sees a little difference between the vegetarian and the

meat

eater in this argument. Both insist that animals must be allowed to

suffer so that people can have good nutrition. Braunstein counters

it

this is the vegetarian dialectic of diet and ethic. That not

coincidentally but absolutely essentially those foods, which are the

products of the least deprivation of life from others, will

contribute

to the longest life in ourselves.

 

The vegans' reverence for life runs deep and wide. They will not use

any

products that have been made possible by any degree of animal

suffering.

The list of banned items goes far beyond food: fur, leather, silk,

pearls, oil-based soaps, cosmetics. A survey done in England

indicates

that some 83 percent of all vegans have chosen their lifestyle

primarily

for ethical reasons. They hold closely a reverence of life coupled

with

the disdain for the atrocities wrought on animals in the name of

convenience and commercialism. The second reason for their preferred

lifestyle is their own health. The third is to conserve our

dwindling

food supplies.

 

The sort of mistreatment of animals that gives vegans so much cause

for

concern is exemplified by the dairy cow. A vegan society booklet

tells

how dairy cows are scheduled by producers for annual pregnancies.

They

are only allowed to suckle the young calf for a maximum of three

days.

Although in most cases the calf is taken for slaughter just after

birth

to be processed as meat or to utilize its stomach lining as rennet

for

cheese. It's a little wonder that vegans are left scratching their

heads

when a vegetarian refuses to eat veal and instead has a cheese

casserole. Both require the suffering of animals. Atrocities that

few

would care to hear about at the dinner table.

 

A certain number of calves are reserved to be used for white veal, a

fine delicacy in many circles. But the animal must have its physical

activity virtually stopped cold if it's to be tender and white. The

calf

is squeezed into a small crate where it stays for over a quarter of

a

year. Its diet is mostly liquid frequently leaving the animal to eat

at

the siding of the crate in order to satisfy its natural craving for

substance and roughage. By the time this confused animal is ready

for

slaughter it can barely stand up without support. It is so lacking

in

normal muscle tissue and skeletal support and stamina and vigor.

 

Meanwhile even the poor old dairy cow is chopped up into convenient

size

meat packages after her milk dries up. Her flesh is too old for

prime

cuts. Though it is only suitable for export. We must wonder why this

violence and abuse is allowed to continue. The Texas Cattle Feeders

Association leader gives up a pretty good reason why. He says, " We

the

cattle industry are willing to produce any kind of animal the

consumer

wants. " In other words this situation persists because we the

consumer

support it with our dollars and our eating habits. If we think that

the

consumer is not really capable of setting the pace for what's so

vast an

industry thinks, well think again.

 

Think of what would happen if we the consumers became vegetarian.

They

would of course cease functioning - the meat industry. Land now

being

used and abused to grow animal feed could then be used to grow well

for

real human feed. Vegetables and grains for people. The wanton

destruction of life would be diminished and energy spent on killing

and

violence might begin to be used to foster peace and goodwill. How

could

we even hope for peace among men until we have taken steps towards

establishing harmony with the animal life?

 

An organizer for a World Vegetarian Congress in India is convinced

that

vegetarianism must precede international peace. He says the demand

for

vegetarian food will increase our production for the right kind of

plant

foods. We shall cease to breed pigs and other animals for food

thereby

ceasing to be responsible for the horror in the slaughterhouses

where

millions of creatures cry in agony and in vain because of man's

selfishness. If such concentration camps for slaughtering continue,

can

peace ever come to earth? Can we escape the responsibility for

misery

when we are practicing killing every day of our lives by consciously

or

unconsciously supporting this trade of slaughter? Peace cannot come

where peace is not given.

 

Pete Singer coauthor of Animal Factories is likewise concerned about

the

animal carnage that we are too readily to defend as a tradeoff for

human

survival. He says the root of the problem is our blithely taking

power

over the lives and deaths of other creatures whose suffering is in

no

way necessary for our survival. If we so easily take the lives of

animals who are only a few evolutionary steps removed from us, what

is

to prevent us from doing the same to humans who are physically very

different from us, of a different color or speaking in an

unintelligible

language or primitive in their customs?

 

The exploitation of animals is nothing new to civilizations. Its

roots

can be tracked back to over 10,000 years. But it has become a

particularly perilous problem in the 20th century in the presence of

mechanized technology and antibiotics and hormones and horrendously

artificial living conditions. Animal care is no longer a simple

matter

of man caring for animals. Feeding, watering, cleaning and doctoring

it.

Now machines tend to the basic animal care. Hormones are used to

make

them grow. Antibiotics help keep them from dying prematurely. Raised

in

horribly close quarters and unnatural environments. Obese and

unhealthy

from lack of exercise and excessive drug use. Depressed from lack of

warmth, affection and normal social interaction.

 

Modern day animals are exploited more completely than animals have

ever

been before. They are physically abused, mentally tortured, and

spiritually castrated. But we can stop all that. After all it was

Mahatma Gandhi who said the greatest of a nation and its moral

progress

can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I'm Gary Null.

This

brings us to the end of this particular program: Meat, Protein and

Dispelling The Myths. More on our next program. (End of Meat,

Protein

and Dispelling the Myths Part Two)

 

 

© 1996-2006 Gary Null & Associates, Inc. (GNA). .

Some of the articles and materials that appear herein are reproduced

with the permission of the copyright owner(s). No reproduction or

duplication allowed without the written permission of GNA. The

statements contained herein have not been evaluated by the Food and

Drug

Administration.

 

Nothing contained herein is intended to diagnose, treat, cure or

prevent

any disease. The materials contained on this website are for

educational

purposes only, and GNA does not endorse or express any opinion as to

the

validity of the information or advice contained on this website.

Consult

with your knowledgeable health care provider to determine which and

what

amounts of vitamins, minerals, food supplements, dietary plans, or

exercise programs would be beneficial for your particular health

needs.

If you are using any medications, you must consult with your

physician

and pharmacist to determine if any vitamin, mineral, nutrient,

chemical,

phyto-chemical, herb, botanical, juice, drug, or food may be

counter-indicated.

 

Disclaimer

 

The information on this website is presented for educational

purposes

only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis,

treatment

and advice of a qualified licensed professional. Throughout this

website, statements are made pertaining to the properties and/or

functions of nutritional products. These statements have not been

evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and these materials

and

products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any

disease.

 

 

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets