Red meat is a mans poison

I recently saw an ad on television with Sam Neill of Jurassic Park fame telling the audience that red meat is essential to good health and even promotes brain development. Unfortunately the claims were extremely exaggerated and misleading and failed to mention any of the numerous adverse health effects of eating meat. So I thought I would set the books straight based on science, not profit.

Human genetic makeup, shaped through millions of years of evolution, has determined our nutritional and activity needs. We have not evolved as meat eaters; we are omnivores who get a small amount of our calories from wild meat including insects and rodents. As such we do not have the body or digestive system of a big meat eater. Without tools, we would not even be able to hunt big game. Our teeth are naturally shaped for grinding—they are not sharp teeth designed for tearing and ripping. Our digestive organs and teeth most closely resemble those of our closest evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas and orangutans. Our intestines are proportionally two to three times longer than those of cats or dogs (meat eaters by nature) and about half the length of the intestines of grazing animals such as cows and horses.

Until recently, meat made up a small part of our diet and, even then, was consumed only intermittently. In early times we ate our meat straight from the wild. We devoured rats and other rodents (we sure did, a bunny is a rodent), large insects (ever tried a Witchetty grub?), birds, small game and the occasional feast of big game. The meat meal was so precious that we made sure to eat the entire animal, including the organs and whatever we could suck from the bones. For thousands of years, humans prized the organ meats of animals more highly than a cut of steak from the muscle.

The meat was 4% to 6% fat, rich in minerals and Omega 3 oils and low in arachidonic acid (AA). The wild animals that humans consumed were forced to hunt for food and at times had to cover great distances to ensure their survival. In contrast, modern breeding practices have focused on selecting for animal breeds that accumulate large quantities of fat and on keeping animals relatively inactive to encourage weight gain ¹. This trend is based partly on consumer demand and reinforced by agricultural grading processes ²

The meat we eat today is very different; it is high in saturated fat, high in arachidonic acid (which causes inflammation) and low in nutrients. Today’s meat is approximately 25% to 30% fat by weight, of which 50% to 60% is saturated and low in beneficial Omega 3 oils—despite advertising claims that meat is a good source of Omega 3 oils. Even low-fat farmed meat is higher in fat than game meat.

The problems caused by eating meat are further compounded by the fact that animals bred to become “edible” meat have been manipulated with hormones, antibiotics and diet to make them grow big (and fat). They are increasingly being grain-fed due to the consumptive demand by our supermarkets. Cattle were not designed to eat grain; they were designed to eat grasses with a very small amount of grain. Grass-fed beef is one-third to three times leaner than grain-fed beef. Grass-fed beef also provides two to four times more essential Omega 3 fatty acids than feedlot beef. Researchers have found grass-fed beef contains two newly discovered “good” fats: conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and trans-vaccenic acid (TVA) (our bodies turn TVA into CLA) ³. Grass-fed beef also provides more beta-carotene, vitamin E and folic acid as well as some important antioxidants.

To the hungry eye, grain-fed meat may look better on the shelf but it is worse for you and for your family. Let’s not forget that it is also far worse for the welfare of the cattle and the environment. My experience of feedlot cattle is that the entire process is very inhumane. Particular culprits here are the big supermarket chains like Coles and Woolworths that demand grain-fed animals. Then growth hormones are added to some beef, but not others. To find out which ones, you can begin by asking your butcher (who may or may not know).

Meat and disease

Red meat consumption is associated with a wide range of chronic inflammatory illnesses including cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and shortened life expectancy. There are countless published studies that confirm increased rates of certain cancers with high red meat consumption ^4,5,6,7. More than three or four servings of meat per week is linked with an increase in cancers, particularly colorectal cancer and breast cancer. In a major US study, people with the highest intake of red meat experienced a statistically significant elevated risk of aesophageal, colorectal, liver and lung cancers ⁸. For processed meat consumption, people with the highest average intake of these meats (22.6 g per 1,000 kcal) were calculated to be at a 16 and 20 percent increased risk of lung and colorectal cancer, respectively. Possible reasons for this include dietary fat from the meat, compounds like N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formed during high temperature cooking. By contrast, eating poultry and fish in place of red meat did not increase the risk of colon cancer, but rather decreased the risk significantly ⁴.

In a recent study it was concluded that consumption of red meat was associated with higher risk of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer in pre-menopausal women ⁹. In post-menopausal women, another study found red meat to increase the risk of breast cancer among women by up to 50%, specifically those who were overweight ¹⁰. One study of older women found consumption of red meat to increase the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ¹¹. Several studies have also found a direct correlation between red meat consumption and prostate cancer ⁵ Yet another study found meat intake positively associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer—although the researchers suggest it may be a result of the toxins produced during cooking ¹².

Red meat is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and stroke ^13,14,15. Those who consumed red meat daily had a 60% greater chance of dying from a cardiovascular disease than those consuming red meat less than once a week ⁵. Changing just 5% of total energy intake in calories of adults from saturated fat to unsaturated fat would reduce their risk of heart disease by 42%. Yet the ads on television tell you that meat is essential. Don’t let truth get in the way of a good ad.

Many large epidemiological studies have found that vegetarians are less likely than meat eaters to have high blood pressure. In a study of 28,000 vegetarians and 48,000 non-vegetarians over a period of 10 years, the vegetarians were 24% less likely to die of ischemic heart disease, including heart attacks, compared to the non-vegetarians. Researchers also found that fish eaters had no more heart disease than vegetarians. In a study comparing monks (Trappists are strict vegetarians while Benedictines are not), researchers found lower blood pressure in the monks of the vegetarian Trappist monasteries.

In contrast to meat, nuts reduce the risk of fatal and nonfatal heart disease. Subjects who ate nuts five or more times per week, compared with those who ate nuts less than once a week, reduced their risk by approximately 31% to 37% in male vegetarians compared with those who ate meat three or more times a week ¹⁶.

Other studies have found a strong link between red meat and type 2 diabetes ^17,18. This is thought to be partly due to the health effects of iron overload from red meat, which increases the risk of CHD and other cardiovascular health problems ¹⁹. Obesity, an increasing public health problem worldwide, has been shown to occur repeatedly in those who regularly consume red meat as part of a usual diet ¹⁴. Red meat intake increases the risk of Alzheimer’s disease ¹⁵. Women in the US show a positive association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and red meat intake ⁶. Numerous studies have also associated red meat consumption with osteoporosis and bone fractures ²⁰. This is thought to be associated with an increase in the acid diet of meat eaters. Susceptibility of disease or risk of infection also seems to be lower amongst those avoiding red meat ¹⁴.

The benefits of reducing or eliminating red meat from the diet clearly outweigh keeping it in one’s diet.

Environment

Farming of red meat is one of the most environmentally destructive agricultural practices of modern times. Worldwide agricultural activity, especially livestock production, accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse gas emissions, thus contributing to climate change and resulting adverse health consequences, including the threat to food yields in many regions. By decreasing one’s intake of red meat, the demand for livestock will decrease, lowering the devastating effects of livestock production. Likewise, livestock numbers will not be as high if their meat is not demanded by the human population, and thus the methane produced by livestock which contributes to global warming will also decrease ²¹. Modern meat production is an example of the inefficient use of natural resources. Modern methods of raising cattle use excessive amounts of grain, water and fossil fuels, and create both air and water pollution ²².

To be truly environmentally and globally conscious, one must think about at least cutting down meat consumption. Consider that, according to the organisation Compassion in World Farming, it takes 16 kilos of grain to produce one kilo of meat for consumer consumption (not to mention all the water and other resources used). Meanwhile, the United Nations reports that 160 million children under five are malnourished. Does it make sense that we are feeding grain to cows instead of to children?

The politics of meat

Despite abundant evidence of the toxic effects of meat, the Australian government (and other governments of meat exporting countries) states that daily consumption of red meat is consistent with a healthy diet. The only possible reasons for this are the economic benefits and pressure from very powerful and large lobbying groups. Overall, it is accepted in the scientific journals that those limiting or avoiding red meat in the diet will live a healthy life with decreased risk of many chronic diseases. After a major US study was recently released and recommended reducing dietary consumption of meat, the American Meat Institute (AMI) took an opposing stance, calling the recommendations on meat consumption “extreme” and “unfounded.” According to the institute, “The advice to limit red and processed meats reflected their anti-meat bias.” The real bias, however, is not with the scientists who have nothing to gain or lose from changes in meat consumption.

Final word

As a general rule animal proteins (meat, dairy and eggs) should not make up any more than 10% of your daily calories. Levels of animal protein above 10% increase the risk of most forms of chronic illness. By contrast plant proteins (nuts and beans) don’t show any negative health effects. Protein from white meat, fish, nuts, beans and legumes offers plenty of choices on the source of protein for a red meat-free diet, with none of the negative consequences.

Red meat is not the best source of protein nor is it essential for our survival. The meat we eat today no longer resembles the meat that was a part of our evolutionary diet. Game meat may have provided an evolutionary advantage to survive in tough times when we struggled to reach 50 years of age but the meat we eat now is what kills us and causes a lot of pain and suffering before we even get to 50. The more red meat you eat the more you get sick. The choice is yours.

References

1. McCollum 1997

2. Lichtenstein 1999

3. Priya et al. 2004

4. Thun 2005;

5. Kushi et al. 2005;

6. Varraso 2007;

7. Skjelbred et al. 2007

8. Cross et al. 2008

9. Miller 2007

10. Taylor et al. 2007

11. Chiu et al. 1996

12. Nothilings et al. 2005

13. Keys 1986;

14. Williamson et al. 2005

15. Phillips 2005

16. Frazer 1999

17. Klotter 2007

18. Prattley 1998

19. Qi et al. 2007

20. Noakes 2007

21. Siegford et al. 2008

22. Grosvenor and Smolin 2002).

The health benefits of Organic Food

The greatest benefits of organic agriculture are to the consumers as organic produce means less pesticides and fewer contaminants in our food. Even at low levels these contaminants can play havoc with the body and despite all the assurances from government and industry they still have little idea as to the real consequences of a pesticide addicted agricultural industry.

The overuse of cadmium contaminated superphosphate has led to an increasing exposure of the public to this heavy metal. Cadmium blocks the uptake of essential minerals by the body. Chemically, cadmium is very similar to zinc, so it behaves in a similar way, including blocking zinc an essential trace mineral in the body. In fact, one cadmium molecule antagonises about 100 zinc molecules, so a very small amount of this metal can cause big problems. It also out-competes selenium and magnesium in the body. This problem is further exacerbated by the nutrient depleted soils in which non organic crops are grown, with many foods already being deficient in essential trace elements. The highest cadmium concentrations are consistently reported in infant foods. It’s also significantly higher in Chinese peanuts, (a good reason to buy Australian peanuts).

Although farmers can no longer use the persistent organochlorine chemicals such as DDT and Dieldrin, they have at their disposal a large battery of highly toxic chemicals. Little or no training is required to use these chemicals, which are then applied to food crops without proper appreciation of their toxicity. Carrots for example, may have thirty one, separate, active ingredients (pesticides) applied to them: sixty five may be applied to broccoli, eighty five to wheat and one hundred and one to apples. These are only the active pesticide ingredients without even considering the other chemicals in the mixture, or the different brand names for the active ingredients and how much is applied or how frequently. While the residues in our foods are generally low, they are there. Most of the research in developed countries, including Australia, shows detectable levels of pesticides in between 30-40 percent of the crops monitored. We should be aware that these are only the chemicals they are looking for. When it comes to the byproducts the testing authorities are not sure of what they should be looking for, or how to monitor them.

Despite the claims by government and the chemical industry that this isn't a problem, the research is showing that the consumption of conventional food increases levels of a number of pesticides in the body by between six and ten times, in comparison to those people consuming organic produce. In one study children who were eating conventional produce showed levels of DMTP (Dimethylthiophosphate, a metabolite of organophosphate pesticides) nine times higher than those who ate organic produce. But what is most disturbing is that the levels were often twice as high in children as compared to adults.

In March of last year (2005), the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) reiterated again that children are more vulnerable to gene-damaging chemicals than are adults. Kids are not simply smaller versions of adults. Unfortunately, this is how they're seen when it comes to developing regulations and safety standards. For the first time, the US EPA has tried to put a figure on how much more susceptible children are. They reported children two years old and younger might be 10 times more vulnerable than adults to certain chemicals and that children between the ages of two and 16 might be three times more vulnerable to certain chemicals. This means we need to make a huge shift in the way we regulate these chemicals and may also mean that in some cases, the chemicals kids are exposed to at home may be up to 10 times too high in concentration. There is added concern when we know that kids usually have the highest exposure to chemicals as well.

Other research is now also showing that the adverse effects of these chemicals are much greater than those put forward by the authorities, including increased frequency of cancer and chronic diseases. Particularly as we learn about the eostrogenic effects of many of these chemicals and with the latest research the epigenetic effects. The epigenetic effects are changes that are passed on through generations but don’t alter the genetic material. We did not even know about these till very recent so we now need to retest all those so-called safe chemicals. Related to this the recent findings of popular organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos lowering the testosterone levels in males along with fertility levels.

Unfortunately, not all the old persistent pesticides have been removed, Mercury, another heavy metal, despite its well known toxicity is used as a fungicide. Just one mercury molecule antagonises 1000 molecules of zinc and out-competes selenium and iron in the. It blocks many important enzymes and is able to pass through the blood brain barrier and cause damage to the central nervous system and the brain particularly in newborns. It is also a chemical that caused birth defects.

On the other side of the equation organic food tends to have higher levels of nutrients such as minerals and antioxidants. In a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) study organic ketchup had three times as much lycopene as some commercial brands. The USDA group tested 13 commercial ketchups six popular national brands, three organic, two store brands and two from fast-food chains. They found that the organic brands were the most abundant in lycopene.

The message is eat organic. It has lower levels of pesticides and other contaminants and higher levels of nutrients to balance out all the other exposures we have in the twenty first century.

Bees protect the planet

Albert Einstein once predicted that if bees died out, "man would have no more than four years to live."

We have known for a long time, but now even more compelling evidence that pesticides are the cause of the global bee decline. To some this may not seem important but to anyone who understands ecology and the web of life will know that this may be devastating to the human population if it continues on unchecked.

Compelling new evidence from the US government's top bee expert that modern pesticides may be a major cause of collapsing bee populations led to calls yesterday for the chemicals to be banned.A study published in the current issue of the German science journal Naturwissenschaften, reveals how bees given minute doses of the widely used pesticide imidacloprid became more vulnerable to infections from a deadly parasite, nosema.

Bees are vital to human survival. More than 70 of the 100 crops that provide 90 per cent of the world's food are pollinated by bees.

This may also help explain other major decline in world animal populations such as the Tasmanian devil. The Tasmanian devil has become susceptible to a cancer that is devastating the whole of the population and putting the population at the point of extinction.