Meat & Protein: Dispelling the Myths (Part 1) JoAnn Guest

[Guest guest]

Meat & Protein: Dispelling the Myths (Part 1) JoAnn Guest

Sep 21, 2006 19:09 PDT

 

 

http://gnhealth.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1086

 

Meat & Protein:

Dispelling the Myths (Part 1)

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: I'd like to welcome you to this program. Today part one

of an

original in depth investigative report: Meat, Protein, and

Unraveling

the Myths. Most people claim that we live in a violent world, but

they

are not violent. Do you believe that there is a violence connected

to

things that we are not directly imparting to another person or an

animal? Let me give you an example. Does that make you violent if

what

you're doing or consuming was in itself violence against another?

Imagine for a moment being hung up and unable to move because your

body

has been paralyzed by an electric shock. Then while you're still

conscious your throat is cut. This is how 15 million pigs die each

year

along with the other cattle that are over 214 million. Now you may

not

be concerned about pigs because of the stereotypes that we carry

around

with us, but pigs are intelligent. They're sensitive and highly

social

animals. They are functionally equivalent to human infants in both

intelligence and capacity to suffer.

 

Before pigs have their throats slit, it's called sticking. They are

stunned electrically by placing tongs on either side of the neck

behind

their ears, but in most cases the stunning is inadequate because

they're

not held in place for long enough or they're incorrectly placed. The

voltages used are insufficient so many pigs remain fully conscious

during the bleeding out or even before throat slitting. Thus the

animal

dies an agonized and terrified death. Tries to escape. Is frequently

beaten, kicked, punched, hammered until it finally falls into

submission. Still conscious and still aware that it's being killed.

Now

the question is add into that equation - that's just one - one pig -

how

about 214 million cattle and calves, 615 million hogs, 377 million

lambs

and sheep, 128 million goats, nine million horses, 19 million metric

tons of birds. That's how many animals are killed in the world in a

single recent year.

 

In the United States alone 140 million cows, calves, sheep, lambs,

and

pigs and three and a half billion chickens and turkeys are

slaughtered

every year. In the 70-year lifetime, the average American eats 11

cows,

one calf, three lambs, 23 hogs, 45 turkeys, and 1,097 chickens, and

861

pounds of fish. Some would say that the wanton slaughter of animals

in

such large numbers gives us an idea just about how violent our world

is

and specifically people who consume that are. That is what we have

become. We have very little regard for life unless it's our own.

Many

people that eat meat probably profess to like animals, but believe

that

if it were really possible to prove that they could have a healthy

body

without having meat there surely would be more incentive to do so.

They

kind of look at vegetarians and say well. I'm not sure that that is

scientifically based. As a result, they don't make the change.

 

Can they really like animals though knowing the suffering and pain

inflicted on them by their chosen dietary habits? Or do we care?

When we

sit at a restaurant and have a veal Parmesan we don't look at the

little

calf that's been taken from its mother. Put 24 hours a day in a tiny

little iron and concrete cage with no room to turn around and

intentionally creating anemia to create a white flesh. So the person

who

gets it at their dinner table says I like the way that looks. I like

the

way it tastes. But walk down one of the veal rows as I have and put

out

your hand and all they do is come over wanting to lick your hand,

suckle

your finger. They have been taken away before they were even weaned.

They still have a desire to be with their mothers, and that's what

we're

eating.

 

Now here's a question. Is there an ethic? Is there a moral

responsibility to ask more questions and become more involved to see

if

we have been for too long consuming these animals with the idea that

it's the best or only primary source of complete protein? This

program

is going to delve in great depth into the entire industry into all

the

different aspects of why we're eating. Can we be healthy without

eating

meat or animal proteins at all? How can we redefine a true reverence

for

life, all life? When we examine the food sources how big a problem

is

world hunger because of our consumption of our meat? There is a

connection. The protein myths will be explored in some depth.

 

In July of 2002 Olivia Rodriguez fidgeted as the monitors at the

head of

her bed beeped and tubes fed into her arms. She had eaten a

meatball,

but the meatball was made with ground beef contaminated with E.

coli,

O157H7, and it was torturing little Olivia's insides. Many others

suffered from eating meat that might have come from the same place.

One

hallucinated that flies were coming through the walls. Another

little

boy collapsed onto a bathroom floor a blood filled toilet nearby. He

screamed in pain all the way to Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical

Center

in Denver. Doctors told his parents that Alex nearly died because

his

platelet count was so dangerously low. " It was almost surreal. It

was so

awful. You can't even fathom that a little four year old could die

because he ate a hamburger, " said his father. A recall of 354,000

pounds

of contaminated meat from Con Agra Plant in Greeley came too late.

Like

most recalls across the country much of the meat had already been

eaten.

 

Gail Eisnitz was recently the author of a book entitled

" Slaughterhouse, " which promoted the following remarks in a review

by

Lawrence Carter Long for The Animal Protection Institute. " 'A book

must

be the axe for the frozen sea within us.' That was from Franz Kafka

decades ago. A line that could serve just as well as the book jacket

and

endorsement for Gail's Slaughterhouse book. Her expose of the meat

industry shocks us into realizing the horror that exists largely

unseen

around us, and helps us realize that the impact of the meat industry

is

felt everywhere from elementary classrooms to government offices to

feed

lots to courtrooms. The E. coli deaths recently in the news

substantiate

the evidence of her documents. Can anyone least of all meat eaters

still

believe that the United States has an adequate meat inspection

system? "

Through anecdotes and interviews with USDA inspectors,

slaughterhouse

workers, undercover investigators, and other industry insiders we

have

seen there are disturbing indifferences displayed by the meat

industry

not only toward animal suffering, but also toward the exploitation

of

its human workers and toward a product that puts its customers at

risk

through exposing it to life threatening bacteria. Emotional where it

needs to be Slaughterhouse is a thoroughly researched and powerfully

damning indictment. "

 

One that I would certainly suggest people read, and then go way

back. Go

to the library and pull out Upton Sinclair's book written in 1906

called

" The Jungle. " You want to turn your stomach. You want to see what

inspired some improved laws to govern the meat industry, but

woefully

inadequate for what we have today. On January 17, 1961 in his

farewell

speech to the nation, President Eisenhower warned of the destructive

potential of the eminent military industrial complex. As the '60s

unfolded his prophecy materialized as a gigantic arms dealing and

war

making corporation, which killed thousands of American's youth and

millions of citizens in Southeast Asia. It has taken decades for

Americans to begin to acknowledge the direct havoc on our nation and

the

sizable portion of the planet's been adversely affected.

 

Ten years after Eisenhower proved precedent another warning slipped

on

to the public radar. A small voice from vegetarians and ecologists

pointed to the new meat industrial complex as a formidable national

threat. Accused it of feeding human greed by killing living beings

and

destroying their environment. However unlike its predecessor this

complex did not wait for wars or other diplomatic failures. Driven

by

grain surpluses, government subsidies, deceptive promotional

practices

and consumer apathy it carried out its deadly mission every minute

of

every day of every year. Butchering nine billion cows, pigs,

turkeys,

chickens, and other innocent animals for human consumption.

 

It ignored the gathering scientific evidence that linked heart

failure,

cancer, stroke, and other chronic diseases to the consumption of

these

animals. It had no inkling of the absurd scenario where millions of

other animals were abused and sacrificed in a vain search for a

magic

pill that would relieve its customers of largely self-inflicted

diseases. As the decades passed since the '70s we have begun to

recognize that the meat industrial complex poisons the lands and

waters

with pesticides, fertilizers, and other toxic substances. It

depletes

irreplaceable topsoil, ground water, and other critical food

production

resources. It wipes out forests and decimates wildlife in its

habitats.

 

Let's take a look at the genesis of the meat industrial complex and

its

protein theories. The meat industrial complex remains what the

phrase

suggests: a power, a leviathan that seems impervious to public

concerns

and constraints. So perhaps we should retrace the evolution of this

late

20th century plague to get our bearings on the lethal social menace.

The

popularity of meat and other animal proteins in the United States

diet

can be traced back to the early 1940's when the concept of complete

and

incomplete proteins was popularized. You may even remember being

taught

this concept in health or science class where you were shown charts

of

meat and dairy products and eggs and told these were the good

complete

proteins. Usually the connotation being that complete is equal to

what

you should have. Then you were shown other foods like vegetables,

grains, legumes, and fruits, which you were probably told were the

incomplete or bad sources of protein. Now according to the original

theory, complete proteins had all the essential eight amino acids in

the

right proportions while incomplete proteins lacked certain amino

acids

and did not have them in the right proportions.

 

This theory was music to the ears of the meat and dairy industry who

did

the original research from behind the scenes supporting all this

myth to

begin with. It was not long before their products alone began to be

advertised in dietetic journals and on television as the right kind

of

protein. An advertisement for the Armour Beef Company in a 1949

issue of

The Journal Of The American Dietetic Association states that fine

beef

is " a rich source of complete protein and various minerals essential

to

a normal blood picture and fuel supplying calories, and its satiety

value and thorough digestibility make it an important addition to

virtually every balanced diet. " Well that journal soon became chock

full

of various ads supporting the meat industry. The American Meat

Institute

of Chicago for example ran full-page ads resembling scientific

reports

of the kind usually found in medical journals. This was gearing up

to

get more meat into the stomach of more Americans. These ads tried to

lend scientific credence to the idea that meat was the only great

food.

Another ad called " meat and the dietary fallacies in the public mind

run

by The American Meat Institute label the scientific findings on the

connections between high dietary uric acid intake and degenerative

diseases erroneous. " They assured the public that meat did not

aggravate

such disorders as gout, rheumatism, and hypertension; and

furthermore

they stated that high protein diets were not harmful. A 1948 ad

still

advertised meat as " Man's Preferred Complete Protein Food. " It

stated

that, " meat provides protein of biological completeness requiring no

protein supplementation from other sources. It instead enhances the

nutrient value of the daily diet by supplementing incomplete protein

foods to full biological activity. "

 

Poultry on the other hand was pushed as being " rich in protein and

relatively low in calories. " The message became clear. Eat meat or

if

you want to lose weight eat poultry. This kind of advertising was

soon

being done by other industries whose foods were protein rich. The

Dairy

Council for instance held milk as a high protein food especially

necessary for children and teens. A 1964 ad paid for by The National

Dairy Council pictured carefree teenagers romping on the beach and

read,

" Teenage Nutrition Protein They Could Care Less. " But not to worry.

The

Dairy Council added that as a prime source of readily available high

quality protein milk is particularly well endowed to help meet the

unique nutritional needs of teenagers. The American Dietetic

Association

went so far as to endorse ice cream as a good source of protein.

They

recommended it particularly for different appetites: the

convalescent

and the elderly. Ice cream only contains 3.85 grams of protein per

100

grams, but it does contain 12 grams of saturated fat, which as we

know

can clog arteries.

 

The practice of biased and deceptive advertising by special interest

groups still prevails today and even more so. A few years ago the

pork

industry ran a pro pork campaign. They promoted pork as the lean

meat

ideal for dieters. They also said that it is a great source of

protein

despite the fact that pork is high in saturated fat, high in

cholesterol, and calories. These ads were seen on television and in

magazines like The Journal of The American Dietetic Association.

This

organization has helped to perpetuate the notion that meat and other

animal products are the superior source of complete protein. What is

startling about this so-called complete versus incomplete protein

theory

is that it remained intact and unchallenged for so many years. The

proof

is that it is wholly a lie. Completely and totally unfounded. No

science

to back it up. Animal products are only not our own source of

protein

and aside from the egg they are not even high quality sources of

protein. I'll get to that when I talk about the egg project.

 

I was the one who, of course as a scientist at The Institute of

Applied

Biology, did the original first work in the United States to show

that

all non-animal foods are also complete proteins and contain all

eight

essential amino acids. That work done originally in 1978 had

difficulty

getting published even though it was reviewed and supervised by Dr.

Berman and Dr. Hilliard Fitzkee and others. It took 12 years before

we

could get anyone to publish it because just the concept that an

entire

nation - all of its scientists, all of its doctors, all of its

nurses,

all of its dieticians, hundreds of thousands of people had all been

wrong in the advice given. And then as a consequence tens of

millions of

Americans had been sickened and killed by misinformation. It could

have

been one of the reasons why it took 12 years after being proven

repeatedly that there is no such thing as complete or incomplete

comparing animal to non-animal. It was all a lie. Even to this day

the

average dietician, the average physician, the average nurse will

still

tell you that your best sources of protein are your animal sources

of

protein. They are wrong. It will take up to 30 years if most

scientific

history is repeating itself here before the notion of what is good

or

bad about a particular area of science has changed. The facts are

not on

their side. They still hold however to the old concept. Modern

nutritionists, at least those who have broken from the pact, have

abandoned the theory of complete and incomplete proteins, and now

are

evaluating proteins in terms of quality.

 

Quality is determined using a formula that evaluates the utilization

of

a protein. Meaning let's say of ten grams protein eaten. How much

does a

body actually utilize? How much does your cell take in? What amount

of

that is not utilized? That's what important. It's called net protein

utilization or NPU. It tells you how much you actually need in a day

of

the real good net protein. We also need to take the amino acid

content

and digestibility of the food into account when assessing it. The

highest quality proteins contain the most complete set of essential

amino acids, and due to their ideal protein patterns they are

utilized

with maximum efficiency by the body. The digestibility of the

protein

containing food is also very important because we cannot thoroughly

digest something if we are lacking in enzymes or hydrochloric acid.

If

we don't thoroughly digest it, then we can't utilize its protein.

 

So think of all the people who are convalescing who are ill and who

have

improper digestive symptoms, which is a lot of Americans. So when

they

do eat a hamburger or a hotdog or chicken because of how it's

prepared.

It's deep-frying. It's difficulty in digesting the amount of fat in

it.

Those people only get a percentage of the protein in any case, but

none

of that is considered by the industries giving us the food. They

just

want us to crave it, and to eat it without any fear of consequence.

That's a mistake.

 

While The American Dietetic Association still supports the old

theories

on protein originated by the meat, poultry, and dairy industries,

biochemists and nutritionists from the US Department of Agriculture

and

the Food and Drug Administration support the more current view of

protein. According to the Food and Human Nutrition Information

Center, a

division of the US Department of Agriculture, total protein refers

to

the amino acid composition of a food rather than its completeness.

For

example animal sources have a higher quality of protein than most

individual vegetarian or grain sources. However, the total protein

figure for an animal product such as beef is not synonymous with its

quality more accurately its net protein utilization. Simply put what

matters when you're eating a protein is if it has all the amino

acids in

the right balance to sustain life, and whether these amino acids are

going to be absorbed by you.

 

So with the exception of only a few foods almost all vegetable foods

including fruits, grains, legumes, nuts and seeds contain the

essential

amino acids. Some of them contain very large amounts of these amino

acids, and many have very high net protein utilizations. Meaning

they

contain these essential amino acids in the right proportion that

your

body needs. There's no question that we need protein. Men need

somewhere

between 50 and 70 grams a day, and women between 30 and 50 grams a

day

depending upon what they're doing and if they're pregnant they're

going

to need more. Lactating more. High-level training more. Recovering

from

fever or cancer more. But for the average person that's about right.

About nine-tenths of a gram per (inaudible) body weight a day.

However

contrary to what you may have been led to believe, when you decide

to

obtain that protein it's important you ask yourself where am I

getting

the protein. It's a matter of personal choice and responsibility,

and

when I say that I mean this.

 

Today if I decide to have my protein I could have a hamburger or a

pork

chop or ham sandwich or fried chicken, but to do that I would also

have

to accept responsibility for the fact that in the eyes, in the heart

and

the mind of an innocent animal, an animal with intelligence, an

animal

that if you're around it as I have been you'll see that they are as

friendly and smart as your dog and cat and frequently far more

smarter.

That animal is going to suffer. That animal is going to die. Do I

need

to connect my life force with that animal's dead force? Not in my

case.

 

Recently there was a report of a cow that was in line to be

slaughtered.

If you've ever been - and I recently filmed and you'll see it on a

documentary I'm doing on vegetarianism in the near future. You'll

see a

whole lot of cattle about 1,000 waiting to go into to be killed. The

killing process is not pretty. They are supposed to depending upon

if

everything goes right be able to kill them so the animal doesn't

suffer.

I've never seen an animal killed without it suffering. Never once. I

defy anyone - anyone - to show me an animal that doesn't suffer.

 

More often than not the animal starts moving around. They see in

front

of them. They see the other animals being killed, and they try to

get

out of the confined little chute. They'll try to jump over it, and

that's when the guy takes out this ball peen hammer and just starts

whacking it in the head and knocks out its eyeball. Knocks out its

teeth. It's bleeding. It's screaming. Then two or three guys come

and

just hold its head down and just keep smashing it in the head until

its

finally knocked unconscious, and then they'll drag it and put a hook

under it and hoist it up and start cutting off its skin. Then

suddenly

it becomes conscious again. Now it's seeing its skin cut off. It's

seeing its organs taking out. This can last a minute to a minute and

a

half while it's aware that it's being dissected.

 

So ask yourself okay. Have your hamburger. Kosher or not. But are

you

willing to be out there and killing the animal? If you're not

willing to

kill the animal and take the spiritual responsibility for taking

that

life, then what right do you have under any concept to do so? Well

that's for each of us to determine our own way. I'm just trying to

make

you aware. Holding a mirror up as painful as it may be. Think before

you

eat that next piece of flesh because that's what's going to happen.

There must be the suffering, the violence. There must be the highly

indiscriminate importation of pain before that animal becomes your

meal.

In different cultures they have preferences for different animals.

 

In France for some reason they seem to love horsemeat. So horses are

killed. The very same horses that Americans love and we have seven

million horse owners. Over there it's just another form of protein.

Other cultures it is monkeys. They bring a monkey to a table. They

open

the table up after you've selected the monkey. Then they come and

put a

corkscrew in its head. Its body is below the table. Its head is in a

little hole above the table so it can't get out. So it's watching

you as

the waiter comes over and puts a corkscrew in. Takes off the top of

its

head. Now the brain itself doesn't have the pain. Cutting its scalp

will

cause it pain and it's frightened. It's highly intelligent. Then

they

start eating its brains and dipping it into sauce. The Chinese love

to

do that. Those in Bangkok they certainly do it. Then in China,

Korea,

and in Thailand they'll eat puppies. The things that you love come

out

of box at Christmas time. Well to them that's lunch. Some other

countries they eat other things. But all around the world people who

have this idea that there is no moral responsibility for this. But

then

again they're not the ones suffering.

 

So let's take a look at beyond that suffering and beyond the

responsibility for that all with the idea that we're getting our

protein

by an industry that has lied, manipulated. That has used its

advertising

power to keep the mainstream media from wanting to even see is it

true

or not. There are other things that we should be concerned with.

Let's

start with antibiotics. Those meat lovers who discount the arguments

over the protein qualities in meat there's a more sinister problem.

Meat

is also one of the most chemically treated foods in the US diet.

Currently some 20 to 30 thousand different drugs are administered to

animals. Of these it is known that 4,000 may be transferred to the

human

population be it the dairy, the egg, the meat, or the cheese.

 

Most of these drugs because they are initially administered to

animals

and not humans do not require FDA approval. Even those drugs that

are

FDA approved are not safe. Antibiotics are perhaps the most widely

used

and abused of these drugs, and since they were first introduced into

animal feed in 1949 the use of antibiotics has grown from 490,000

pounds

in 1954 to 1.2 million pounds in 1960. Today it's nine million

pounds.

The cost of these additives exceeds 300 million dollars annually.

These

antibiotics are primarily administered to stave off disease that

would

otherwise be rampant in the closed, highly unsanitary conditions in

which meat animals are forced to live.

 

They are fed to veal because these calves are purposely made anemic

by

iron deprivation in order to yield the white pale meat preferred by

many

chefs. In this anemic condition the calves are prey to many sorts of

infections. Now these highly level of antibiotics have numerous side

effects on the people who eat these animals. First of all a bacteria

becomes resistant to antibiotics very quickly. It's now recognized

that

these resistant strains of bacteria can be passed from animal to

man,

and that they may not be treatable by other antibiotics. Second the

antibiotics themselves remain in the animal flesh after it has been

slaughtered, and then passed on to the consumer. Over time these

drug

resistant residues can build up and make your own body resistant to

antibiotics when you really need them. So when you need an

antibiotic

it's not working. Third people who are allergic to antibiotics fed

to

the animal may suffer from very serious adverse reactions when

eating

meats full of the drug residues. Just complete that one thought I

just

realized I didn't complete.

 

So anyhow on this one feedlot one of the cows was so frightened by

what

it saw of the cow in front of it being slaughtered that it managed

rather miraculously so to jump over a five foot retaining wall and

hit

the ground well below it. Got up and tried to find a door. Ran out a

door. Ran out through a lot. Ran across the street. Jumped over a

fence

and ran out and hid in a thicket. They searched around. Couldn't

find

the cow. The cow wouldn't move. The cow was hiding. Now think of it.

Hiding from what it knew would be its own death. When this got out

on

the news, and when they found the cow and of course were going to

kill

it again that's when Peter Max, a unique and very special artist and

humanist called and said I'll buy the cow. Well that cow was

probably

worth about $700, but they charged him I believe $30,000. Exploited

the

situation, but Peter paid it. Now that cow is living on a farm

upstate.

One cow saved by one person who really showed his heart. But in the

time

of a blink of an eye there are another 5,000 cows that don't have

that

opportunity to be saved.

 

There are other drugs that are widely used on these animals

including

hormones to regulate breeding, to tranquilize, and to promote weight

gain. Now these synthetic hormones can and do cause cancer in the

animals given the drugs, which in most cases does not affect the

marketability of the meat. So the fact that a cow can have cancer

doesn't mean they're going to condemn the cow. They figure just cut

out

the cancer as if cancer were merely a localized condition, which it

is

not. It's systemic. We do not yet know the degree to which cancer is

viral in its origins, but recent studies have found viruses to be

responsible for some cancers. So apart from the unappetizing aspect

of

eating cancerous meat this meat may actually be the vehicle for

cancer

viruses to enter our body.

 

Additionally the residues of estrogen one of the hormones commonly

fed

to these animals may also increase women's chances of contracting

uterine and breast cancer. Also children exposed to estrogen may

enter

puberty prematurely. Androgen, a growth-promoting hormone, may cause

liver cancer. Diethylstibestrol (?) hormone, which was banned for

human

use in 1960's, remained in use in animals until 1979. Other drugs

which

are used are Ralgrow, an estrogen like compound; Synovax a naturally

occurring hormone which affects weight gain and Lutalyse, a

prostaglandin often given to an entire herd so that they will

ovulate at

the same time. Now this drug can affect the menstrual cycle of

women. It

can also cause pregnant women to miscarry. Cattle are also commonly

and

frequently sprayed with pesticides such as Vapona, which is in the

same

family as nerve gas. This is the same chemical used on the no pest

strips, and it's considered so toxic that The World Health

Organization

set the daily allowable limit at .004 milligrams per kilogram. You

could

exceed this limit by merely staying indoors with one of these strips

for

nine hours.

 

Unfortunately meat is not the only product, which is filled with

chemicals. The chemicals fed to milk cows or are sprayed on them are

passed into their milk. Chickens are given the same assortment of

drugs

that beef cattle are given, which in turn shows up in eggs. Chickens

are

given additional drugs to promote shell hardness and uniformity of

yolks

in their eggs. So actually the complete protein found in meat, eggs,

poultry, fish and milk can be associated with saturated fat,

elevated

cholesterol, nitrates, hormones, pesticides, herbicide residues,

antibiotics, preservatives, and countless additives.

 

Therefore animal proteins can be worse for you by far than vegetable

protein even though the meat industry would have you think

otherwise.

Unfortunately the US population is towing the meat industry line. On

average the individuals in the United States eat about 200 pounds of

red

meat and 50 pounds of chicken and turkey and 10 pounds of assorted

fish

and 300 eggs and 250 pounds of various dairy products per year per

person. Now consider that that takes into account every single

American

citizen. I eat none of the above. Babies don't eat any of that. Many

senior citizens and vegetarians don't eat that, which means that the

people really eating these are eating a lot more.

 

In December of 2002, a hopeful development occurred in Denmark where

the

results of a ban on antibiotic use in animal feed since 1995 was

released by Professor Heinrich Wagner of The Danish Veterinary

Institute. It was found that using antibiotics as growth hormones

did

not boost farm productivity as much as good animal husbandry, which

has

the added benefit of reducing antibiotic resistance. In a previous

landmark study in the early '90s, the professor and his colleagues

discovered that bacteria in the animal gut were developing strong

resistance to antibiotics. These resistant bacteria were then

finding

their way into the human population causing infections in hospitals

that

did not respond to antibiotics and becoming difficult to treat. That

research led to a voluntary ban on the use of antibiotic feed in

Denmark. Now during the phase out between 1995 and 2000 the

agriculture

use of antibiotics fell from 210 tons to 96 tons per year. The

researchers found that this was followed by a large drop in the

incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals. One strain of

resistant bacteria dropped from 80 percent of poultry and 20 percent

in

pigs to just three percent in both species.

 

Because of these dramatic results, Europe is now considering

following

Denmark's lead. A meeting of the European Union Agriculture

Ministries

for later this year will decide whether or not to ban the use of

antibiotics in animal feed all together. Meanwhile in the United

States

antibiotics are a big business when it comes to raising animals.

Over

one-half of the nation's annual antibiotic production goes to

livestock

and poultry. Antibiotics for livestock and poultry account for 800

million dollars in annual sales in the major nations of the worlds,

and

the figure is expected to rise steadily as is the number of medical

feed

additives now figured to be around 50. The massive wealth being

accumulated as a result of this brisk and flourishing enterprise has

benefited only a few major companies though. Nearly three-quarters

of

the feed additive sales in the United States is generated by only

three

companies: Eli Lilly, American CytoMed, and Pfizer.

 

Let's take a look at the meat inspection. Most people believe that

everything they eat has been inspected and therefore must be safe.

These

are the pillars of the meat industrial complex. They have the clout

to

prevent proper inspection of their slaughterhouses. For example The

US

Department of Agriculture was opposed to the passage of the Humane

Slaughter Act, but was nevertheless made responsible for its

enforcement. However while the intentional violation of the Meat

Federal

Inspection Act carry stiff fines and imprisonment violations of the

Human Slaughter Act carry no penalties at all. When inspectors

observe

violations of the Humane Slaughter Act they're required to stop the

slaughter process until violations are corrected. The threat of

these

stoppages is supposed to assure an industry compliance with the law

since downtime can result in fewer profits for the day. But the

inspectors are prevented from properly observing the plants. How so?

Well the General Accounting Project's Tom Devine says, " Inspectors

who

have attempted to stop the production line of a slaughter have been

reprimanded, resigned, reassigned, physically attacked by plant

employees, and then disciplined for being in fights. Had their

performance appraisals lowered. Been placed under criminal

investigation. Fired or being subjected to other forms of

retaliation

that were necessary to neutralize them. "

 

Another fact is - I'll quote from this. " Inspectors are required to

enforce humane regulations on paper only. Very seldom do they ever

go

into that area and actually enforce humane handling in slaughter. "

They

can't. They're not allowed to because the inspectors' stations are

at

the beginning and end of the line, and they aren't allowed to leave

their stations. " I'd go to the office, " says one man. " I'd go to

OSHA,

Occupational And Safety Health Administration. I'd say look. You got

live hogs here. Number one. People are getting cut. Number two. It's

cruel. Meaning living hogs. Those are hogs that weren't anesthetized

so

they're being butchered alive. No one would take action. I was also

the

safety representative for the union, and I got lots of complaints

about

it. " Another person says, " They make sure everything is by the book

when

anybody official visits. Whenever OSHA comes to check on things the

stick pit where animals are bled out runs like a jewel. As soon as

they're gone it's back to business as usual. " Another person, " I

asked

Mike why the union hadn't brought the humane violations to the

USDA's

attention. Neither he nor the other local union officials were aware

that USDA had any enforcement authority regarding the humane

treatment

of livestock or that there was a Humane Slaughter Act. No one knew. "

This was the union representing the people who were doing the

slaughtering.

 

What are these inspectors? These were all meat inspectors I just

mentioned. Federal inspectors. Well why didn't they get their report

out

to the public? Here's what an inspector says. There's no way these

animals can bleed out in a few minutes. It takes up to that time

just to

get them up the ramp. By the time they hit the scalding tank they're

still fully conscious and squealing, and then they're dumped into

boiling hot water. Now you've got them cut, bleeding, and bruised

bad.

They're thrown into a tank of scalding hot water and they try to get

out

of it. It could take 15 minutes of them trying to get out of it all

the

while their body and their skin is peeling off from being boiled. "

Another says, " Bad sticks when the person who is supposed to be

hitting

the right vein in the animal's neck sends the blood flowing from the

animal's body misses the vein, which is easy. Usually you don't have

enough time to bleed out. What do they do? They just take this

bleeding

animal fully conscious and they drown them by holding them under

water

in a scalding tank. "

 

Think of that for a moment. Think of that the next time you have

your

regular kosher piece of meat. That animal could have been

intentionally

drowned in scalding boiling water fully conscious. Do you have a

responsibility for the meat that you eat? Then go and drown a

screaming

terrified cow or pig, and while you're holding it under water and

you're

looking in its eyes and you're watching it gasp for breath and air.

It's

400 degrees. You watch its skin bubbling up. It may take two or

three

minutes. Ask yourself is your belief so strong that you could kill

without any thought of any consequence. Some people no problem at

all.

Other people they'd have to think about that. Still other people are

repulsed by the concept. If you're repulsed by the concept of the

vast

majority of animals - the vast majority - suffering this way before

you

have them on your plate, then you should be equally repulsed by your

own

lack of conviction of pushing it away. Unless you're willing to kill

it

and take the moral responsibility for killing it, what right do you

have

to eat it?

 

" Animal abuse is so common that workers who've been in the industry

for

years get into a state of apathy about it. After a while it doesn't

seem

unusual anymore. In the wintertime they are always hogs stuck to the

sides of the floor freezing on the floors of the truck. They go in

there

with wires and knives and just cut the skin off and pry the hogs

loose

with crowbars. The skins pull right off. These hogs were alive when

they

did this. Animal abuse is so commonplace nobody even thinks about it

anymore. " That's from an inspector.

 

Another inspector, " One time the knocking gun was broke all day.

They

were taking a knife and cutting the back of the cow's neck open

while

he's still standing up. They would just fall down and be shaking,

and

they then just start stabbing the cow in the butt to try to make him

move. They'd break their tails. They'd beat them badly. I've drugged

cows until they're bones start breaking while they're still alive. "

And

another one, " Bringing them around the corner they'd get stuck in

the

doorway. Just pull them until their hide ripped off until the blood

just

dripped on the steel and concrete. Breaking their legs pulling them

in.

The cow was crying with its tongue stuck out. They'd pull him until

his

neck just popped off. "

 

" Dragging cattle with a chain and forklift is standard practice at

the

plant, " explained a long-term inspector at a large beef operation in

Nebraska. He says, " And that's even after the forklift operator

rolled

over and crushed the head of one cow while dragging another. They go

through the skinning process alive. They'd actually be living.

Conscious

and being skinned alive. I saw that myself a bunch of times. I found

them alive clear over to the rump stand. And that's happened in

every

plant. I've worked in four large ones and a bunch of small ones.

They're

all the same. Everybody gets so used to it that it doesn't mean

anything. Workers drag cripples with a garden tractor and a chain

crunching their bones. "

 

I'm Gary Null. Part one of my in depth investigative report on meat

and

protein. For those of you who have not eaten meat, but you eat

chicken

consider the following. Science studies of market ready chickens

found

that campylobacter, which is a very serious bacterium, on up to 82

percent of chickens. In a survey of 50 brand name broilers in

Georgia,

government researchers found 90 percent contaminated with

campylobacter.

Even Food Safety Review, the USDA's own publication,

reported " heavily

contaminated flocks may result in a contamination rate of 100

percent

for finished products. " Again, even with chlorine and other so-

called

improvements in place for sanitation, the campylobacter was found on

up

to 100 percent of the chickens coming out of the chill tank. A US

inspection report highlights this impotency (?). " Anyone reading

this

may wonder why the inspectors didn't do something to stop the

problems.

The leadership at The Department of Agriculture wouldn't let us. We

used

to stop production for hours if necessary to get the facility

cleaned

up. But by the time I left anyone who tried to do that would have to

find another job. "

 

Let's take a look at the meat industrial complex today. If we

recognize

the complicity of the meat industrial complex and the creation of

these

threats to the lives of the meat consumers we have to take a look

then

at Tom Devine. At GAP, he told the following: " The very same

officials

who are charged with promoting the sale of agricultural products are

also supposed to protect the consumers from filth and unscrupulous

practices. " As a result of the USDA's duplicitous mandate and its

primary focus on marketing, the department's ranks have long been

filled

with industry leaders meaning the meat and chicken industry leaders

how

have demonstrated their abilities at increasing industry profits. In

fact as far back as 1983 author Kathleen Hughes wrote " Return To The

Jungle, " an expose of the collusion and the partnership between the

Reagan Administration and the meat industry.

 

By that time Ronald Reagan had already appointed three agribusiness

leaders to head up the USDA. The Secretary of Agriculture was John

Block, a corporate hog producer from Illinois. The Assistant

Secretary

later to be Secretary of Agriculture was Richard Line, President of

The

American Meat Institute. The Assistant Secretary for Marketing and

Inspection Services was William McMillan, a former meatpacking

executive

and Vice President of The National Cattlemen's Association. In May

of

1989 Joanne Smith was appointed Secretary Treasurer of Agriculture

for

Marketing and Inspection Services. She was a cattle rancher and

previous

President of the National Cattlemen's Association and previous Chair

of

The Beef Board, a public relations organ for the beef industry. Now

she

was the enforcer, and the trend continued into the '90s.

 

Don Tyson, Senior Chairman of the Board of Tyson Foods of Arkansas,

the

world's largest poultry processor and one of the nation's leading

seafood and pork producers maintains close ties to the White House.

In

addition to being a long time Clinton friend, Tyson was also the

second

largest contributor to a $220,000 fund that Clinton used to pursue

his

Arkansas political agenda. A Mr. Frielander (sp?), a USDA insider

said

that 14 former USDA executives he personally knew had recently moved

directly into industry jobs. Not just vets he explained. Training

officers. Area supervisors. Regional directors. Agency

administrators.

Washington staff officers. Not only does the meat industry control

the

government bureaucracy at the top, but also now we have the

hazardous

analyst critical control point, which turns over regulation to the

plants themselves. Plant workers now with no whistle blower

protection

at all are replacing federal workers on the line. Could the meat

industry finally be trusted with corporate self-inspection? Not on

your

life, and yet that's exactly what has happened.

 

We have seen whistle blower files documenting the type of products

some

of the nation's largest meat and poultry plants have tried to slip

into

human food channels in 1995 and '96. Red meat animals and poultry

that

were dead on arrival at the plants were hidden from inspectors and

hung

up to be butchered. Several heads of from cancer eye cattle were

switched to smaller carcasses before inspection so less meat would

be

condemned. Up to 25 percent of slaughtered chicken on the inspection

line was covered with feces and bile and ingesta. In one enforcement

action at a single facility, inspectors retained six tons of ground

pork

with rust, which was bound for a school lunch program in Indiana.

Fourteen thousand pounds of chicken speckled with metal flakes. Five

thousand pounds of rancid chicken necks and 721 pounds of green

chicken

that made employees gag from the smell.

 

Despite the fact the federal agency employees had documented the

sell of

nearly two million pounds of tainted food, USDA was allowing the

sale

(?) buterol treated calves to be sold to the American public.

Instead of

altering this and alerting consumers to the widespread use of these

chemicals, the investigating agencies trying to protect the veal

industry from what its members stated could be potential ruin

initiated

a major news blackout. When meat inspectors work for the government

they

yielded appraisals such as the company employees told us that rats

were

all over the coolers at night running on top of meat and gnawing on

it.

We saw fecal contamination get through one to one foot smears as

well as

flukes, which are liver parasites. Grubs, worm-like fly larvae that

burrow into the cow's skin and work their way through the animal's

body.

Abscesses, which are encapsulated infections filled with pus. Hide

hair

and ingesta, which is partially digested food found in the stomach

or

the esophagus. Cows are slaughtered that have been dead on arrival.

So

some long that they're ice cold. So it's hard to believe that such

blatant corruption is possible when the industry regulates itself.

And

that's the part of the story people are not aware of.

 

The meat industry is so pervasive in its sinister effects that even

its

workers are vulnerable. With nearly 36 injuries or illnesses for

every

100 workers, meatpacking is the single most dangerous industry in

the

United States. In fact a worker's chance of suffering an injury or

illness in a meat plant are 600 percent greater than if that the

same

person worked in a coal mine.

 

If it seems harsh and irrational and unfair to call the meat

industrial

complex a plague, by the late 1990's the public was reacting to just

such a perception. Nearly a century ago in 1907 a doctor Alzheimer

had

published a treatise about the disease that would one day carry his

name. He had two young colleagues who worked with him, a Dr.

Creutzfeldt

and Dr. Jakob. They too had identified a similar brain wasting

disease

that now had Europe in a panic. The disease caused the brains of

cows to

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

now

over 90 years later, it was repeating itself.

 

I'm Gary Null. In the next installment of our special program we'll

go

in depth into looking at the true cause of mad cow disease and

looking

at the statements that we had nothing to worry about in America. No

mad

cow disease here or so they said. Could we have it here? How would

we

know? When an industry regulates itself and is one of the single

most

corrupt in our nation, what can we do about it? First thing we have

to

do is dispel the myths, and we'll do that on our next program. Thank

you

very much for listening. (End of Part One of Meat, Protein and

Dispelling the Myths)

 

 

© 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.

 

http://gnhealth.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1086

 

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets