We are Eating Less Meat. Why?

To Mr. Pierce's comment, no, the USDA is not consistently looking out for us. Even when there are sensible regulations, when it suits those in power they simply reduce enforcement. So unfettered capitalism acts the way children do in the playground when there is no adult supervision.

Except that this isn't unfettered capitalism. And the ones who would provide the "adult supervision, aren't any smarter or more moral than the "children" in their charge.

What this describes is a corporatist state where the government has been subverted by large interest groups. This always seems to happen. More power is given to government to regulate our lives to protect us, and then that power is always subverted (see regulatory capture and public choice theory) and used to promote the interests of the powerful and influential.

These days anybody who likes medium well or less cooked is playing Russian roulette. It would be hard to say if eating meat (i.e., from a creature that had a central nervous system as opposed to plants or fungus) in the First World today is more unhealthy than the best we've experienced so far. I'd love to hear from someone knowledgable in food history. Presumably we had an uptick in safety following the reforms in the Progressive Era a century ago. How much worse off are we today than, say, 1920?

Yeah, I feel somewhat the same way. The historic and most effective improvements to public safety were sewage and sanitized water systems, everything else is window dressing in comparison.

In my mind the real problem with the regulatory environment as it stands is that it suppresses information, sometimes even disallowing disclosure of more information. So, now it's okay to make sell ground beef with ammonia in it, with NO labeling requirements! And since it's approved for use in ground beef, providers can't label their product as not containing ammonia. That's your government in action folks.

Not that it matters one whit to none else, nor am I trying to preach but I just watched Forks Over Knives this at weekend I found the information presented compelling. As luck would have it, prior to watching FOK I read an article in an old book (1977) regarding extreme longevity. They reported on 3 isolated areas on earth where it was common for people tp live well over 100 years with many documented individuals living up to 140 years. The common factor was a whole plant/ no animal protein diet. It also noted that in one area as the citizens became more monied due to outside exposure to additional venues of income and more people had more meat available to them, the life expectancy DECREASED. That and the studies indicated in FOK was nough for me. I plan to live as a vegan for 99% of the year. I will still use cream in my coffee and eat turkey on thanksgiving but that's it.

.I plan to live as a vegan for 99% of the year. I will still use cream in my coffee and eat turkey on thanksgiving but that's it.

I'll do my best to make up for ya Carla...

[

Reading this thread, I am reminded of this...


I recently picked a new primary care doctor. After two visits and exhaustive Lab tests, he said I was doing 'fairly well' for my age. (I'm about to turn 56). A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him, 'Do you think I'll live to be 80?' He asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer, wine or hard liquor?' 'Oh no,...' I replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!' Then he asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs and bacon ?' 'I said, 'Not much...my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!' 'Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, boating, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?' 'No, I don't,' I said. He asked, 'Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lots of sex?' 'No,' I said... He looked at me and said,....'Then, why do you even give a sh**?'

[Robin Garr]

.I plan to live as a vegan for 99% of the year. I will still use cream in my coffee and eat turkey on thanksgiving but that's it.

I'll do my best to make up for ya Carla...

Steve, I have an idea I'm not the only one who thinks photos of your dirty plate aren't all that interesting to the rest of us. Got any problem if I gently make them go away?

.I plan to live as a vegan for 99% of the year. I will still use cream in my coffee and eat turkey on thanksgiving but that's it.

I'll do my best to make up for ya Carla...

Steve, I have an idea I'm not the only one who thinks photos of your dirty plate aren't all that interesting to the rest of us. Got any problem if I gently make them go away?

Yep - kinda grody. But I don't think the photos need be to removed. I'm kinda hungry right now, and I read Carla's post and craved your green beans and carrots, Robin. I saw Steve's pictures and flirted with feelings of over-fullness and self-loathing (not to mention a coronary objection to the amount of gelatinous fat on the third photo) and identified the feelings as a matter of personal choice. It's not an us and them, it's a discussion. I have an on again / off again love affair with meat.

]
Steve, I have an idea I'm not the only one who thinks photos of your dirty plate aren't all that interesting to the rest of us. Got any problem if I gently make them go away?

No, I gots me no problem if you censor them...but it's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black ain't it ?. I mean I'm posting pictures of stuff that's already been eaten and you're posting pictures of stuff that -looks- like it's already been eaten... Just sayin'.

[Robin Garr]

Just sayin'.

Nice Internet Persona. I don't really encourage that.

Yep - kinda grody.

Grody my ass...Them was some of the finest ribs ever to grace a plate...and...and that Polish Boy (ya'll wouldn't know what that is) was to die for. The last picture was from a non-alphabet (NABC/BBC/ATG) micro-craft-brewer in Cleveland off of their "Headwich" menu. MOF it was -called- the "Full Cleveland"; a polish sausage, a bratwurst, some kraut and cheese and a bunch of other stuff, slathered in good ol full fat thousand island dressing...Ya'll don't know what yer missing. Damn good beer too.

Entertaining thread...here's my two cents:

I've been a vegetarian for 18 years now. So I'm definitely eating less meat. For me it was for health reasons. Not that I was unhealthy, but the more research I did, the more I realized that meat isn't a good way to get your nutrients. I was trying to maximize health and athletics, so why use inferior food sources? So I kicked the meat habit.

Since then, I've become more aware of the meat industry's impact on our environment, and also more aware of the ethical issues surrounding modern factory farming. As someone here already mentioned, the meat most of you eat today bears little resemblance to the meat of a hundred years (or longer) ago. Wild game is very lean and low fat. Modern meat is often very high fat (beside being pumped up with hormones and antibiotics).

And it amazes me that some people still deny the connection between what you put in your body and your overall health. Exercise is critical. And your dietary choices are critical also. I agree, genetics play a role. But you have no control over your genes. You do have control over what you put in your mouth. Why fill your body with saturated fat and cholesterol? There are plenty of non-meat delicious foods out there. (far more wide-ranging options than meat options)

Anyway, I predict humans will eventually eat little or no meat. It may be a hundred years away, but I'm looking into my crystal ball. It simply isn't necessary. Most people will be vegetarians, except for a few old-timers. Peace...

To Mr. Pierce's comment, no, the USDA is not consistently looking out for us. Even when there are sensible regulations, when it suits those in power they simply reduce enforcement. So unfettered capitalism acts the way children do in the playground when there is no adult supervision.

Subsidized agribusiness is the exact opposite of "unfettered capitalism".

I'd love to hear from someone knowledgable in food history. Presumably we had an uptick in safety following the reforms in the Progressive Era a century ago. How much worse off are we today than, say, 1920?

I dont know about the food history, but FDA regulations have CAUSED more deaths than they have prevented, by a wide margin, on the drug side. It seems counter-intuitive, but if you do the math, its pretty clear. I doubt its the same for the food side, as its a different issue.

but FDA regulations have CAUSED more deaths than they have prevented, by a wide margin, on the drug side.

Ehhhhhhhh....I kinda-sorta-pretty-much doubt this. Do you have any unbiased studies you could point to ?

but FDA regulations have CAUSED more deaths than they have prevented, by a wide margin, on the drug side.

Ehhhhhhhh....I kinda-sorta-pretty-much doubt this. Do you have any unbiased studies you could point to ?

Do you have a definition of unbiased? I have yet to meet anyone without biases.

I can point to a bunch of papers, whether you consider them unbiased or not is up to you.

http://www.fdareview.org/references.shtml

Not all of those references have to do with drug safety.

However, back to your doubt, it isnt that farfetched. FDA delay on beta-blockers alone is estimated to have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Very few drugs have the potential to kill that many people...it tends to be discovered well before then. Vioxx might be the exception to that rule, but the FDA approved it, so they dont get any credit for stopping it.

The Gieringer paper in that list estimates the FDA prevents 5k-10k casualties (not all deaths) per decade. That seems worthwhile doesnt it? The cost of FDA delay is (and this is a much rougher estimate) between 20k-120k DEATHS per decade. So now, not so worthwhile.

A similar, but far smaller, example is speed bumps. They do their job of slowing cars down in residential neighborhoods and keep speeders from killing kids and other pedestrians. Except they dont. Most pedestrians deaths are on major streets that will never have speed bumps. And each speed bump adds about 15 seconds to an ambulance run, which kills far more people. Seconds matter when responding to a heart attack or stroke or etc. The problem is its statistical. You see the kid killed by the car or the person who dies from taking a bad drug. You dont see the person who died because the drug that might have saved them was delayed or the person who has 10% less chance of recovering from a stroke because their street has 3 speed bumps.

Why does this even have to be an argument? I am doing this diet for me. I really don't give a rat's patoot what other people eat. But me? I've got things I still want to do in my life, places to go , fast cars to drive and, well, other stuff. I simply want more time. A coronary or stroke would certainly put a kink in my plans. As far as basing any diet on USDA suggestions I think that's just plain foolish after it was shown that more than half of the members of the deciding staff owns considrable stock in Kraft, Dannon, or have ties to the beef industry. So if you want to eat it, eat it regardless of what anyone says because that's your business. As for me, I haven't been half of the places I want to go or done all the things on my "to do" list. (And NO! you may not add anything about "people on my 'to do' list either! )

Why does this even have to be an argument? I am doing this diet for me. I really don't give a rat's patoot what other people eat.

I LOLed at this. Great post!