tgoddess wrote:
Jim,

Maybe Santa will bring you one of these this year. (I already have mine on order.)

http://www.zazzle.com/meat_is_murder_tasty_murder_apron-154565039261278363

I love it, & I gotta get me one, of course XXXL to be able to fit over my fat, American, meat inflated belly.

thanks for the link.

teatpuller wrote:
Acute acidosis can occur very quickly and results in all kind of problems including death. I'm sure the goal is to feed as much corn as possible without pushing it too far. And if you never have acidosis problems you probably aren't pushing it far enough to make money.

This isn't a pretty picture but by in large these animals are not in misery. The whole system could be adjusted to make the animals' lives quite a bit more pleasant, but people aren't going to pay 5 cent/lb more for a slightlier happy cow.

It seems like the growing alternative meat market (like the organic free range turkeys that are $2 - $3/lb that still sell out at the store) is proof that some people are willing to pay more, for whatever reason motivates them - happiness/ environment/ food safety/ taste... If people replace meat in some meals with less expensive food like beans, no one needs to go hungry over it either.

lemoneater wrote:

teatpuller wrote:
Acute acidosis can occur very quickly and results in all kind of problems including death. I'm sure the goal is to feed as much corn as possible without pushing it too far. And if you never have acidosis problems you probably aren't pushing it far enough to make money.

This isn't a pretty picture but by in large these animals are not in misery. The whole system could be adjusted to make the animals' lives quite a bit more pleasant, but people aren't going to pay 5 cent/lb more for a slightlier happy cow.

It seems like the growing alternative meat market (like the organic free range turkeys that are $2 - $3/lb that still sell out at the store) is proof that some people are willing to pay more, for whatever reason motivates them - happiness/ environment/ food safety/ taste... If people replace meat in some meals with less expensive food like beans, no one needs to go hungry over it either.

Where do you find organic free range turkey's for $2 to 3/lb? Call me uninformed but to me that sounds like an absolute steal. So great that even the poor, who usually get left out of these debates, could afford this.

jtobin625 wrote:Where do you find organic free range turkey's for $2 to 3/lb? Call me uninformed but to me that sounds like an absolute steal. So great that even the poor, who usually get left out of these debates, could afford this.

Yes, that was my point - it's expensive, but some people still manage to afford it. It's worth it to them to afford it. Not every day, not multiple times a day. To reiterate: if you don't buy meat at the average American level of consumption, you can afford to pay more for it.

Since we're discussing the poor, it's worth noting that raising animals for food significantly reduces the amount of calories available at each step up the food chain. In other words, you can feed less people with meat than if you fed them with plants used to create the meat.

jtobin625 wrote:Where do you find organic free range turkey's for $2 to 3/lb? Call me uninformed but to me that sounds like an absolute steal. So great that even the poor, who usually get left out of these debates, could afford this.

Whole Foods, believe it or not. The week prior to thanksgiving, I saw organic, hormone-free, additive-free (no brine, soaked, injected or otherwise) fresh turkeys for $2.69/lb. I don't recall whether or not they were free-range, however.

Khaopaat and Lemoneater,

To clarify, I wouldn't consider 2.69 lb expensive by any means, especially at WF where I rarely shop. I am more of an Edgewater Produce or Broadway and Lawrence Vietnamese store kind of guy.

Thanks for the update on that.

Jewel, which I don't buy from when it comes to groceries, seems greatly overpriced when it comes to meats.

With all this being said, getting educated people in the midwest about the benefits of a mostly plant based diet is often hard enough. Without diving too deep into this issue, it starts at a young age when it comes to diet but when parents have terrible eating habits, the kids are already at a disadvantage.

But in the end, I am still for everyone choosing the diet they want, whether it is good for them or not.

Another reason to maybe dial back the consumption of commercial beef, unless you suffer from an ammonia deficiency.

David Hammond wrote: Another reason to maybe dial back the consumption of commercial beef, unless you suffer from an ammonia deficiency.

I had the same thought when I read the piece. The worse was everyone acting like putting ammonia into meat stuff( I can't call that thing they make meat) was okay. Blech!

I certainly would encourage all to go for beef ground in-house/on-site only after reading the article.

Ammonia is already in all of the meat you are eating. It is produced naturally whether in the pre ground industrial product or the uber organic home ground made it yourself product.

The finding of ecoli and salmonella had nothing to do with ammonia and everything to do with the source material. And the amount of ammonia used in this process, I'm fairly certain, still falls well below natural levels in other source material and other proteins.

Which is not a defense of the process or product, just a clarification of facts.

And the picture makes me want to tuck in my napkin and sit down to a McD's burger!

jimswside wrote:

teatpuller wrote:
Do you think mushrooms suffer?

Im sure someone will, or has already written a book that thinks they do.

Jim;
To paraphrase a comic from the 60's; "You are what you eat" said a wise old man. "Lord, if that's true, I'm a garbage can."

The main argument on this thread strikes me as somewhat elitist. Clearly, if ' how you eat, so you become ', the anti-meat crowd subsists on a diet of fruitcake, nuts and crackers… But those that posit a moral "high ground" position vis-a-vis carnivores typify with - let's face it - awe-inspiring ignorance the inexplicably persuasive thought patterns that guide many a claimant to culinary moral superiority.

Rats are omnivores. We, like rats, are subject to a phenomenon known as sensory specific satiety , the name given to our tendency to quickly tire of any food that is eaten on its own. Researchers have found that simply by injecting rats' food with a variety of flavors, the rats would eat from two to three times as much of the same food as rats given the same food containing only one flavor. If our evolution teaches us anything about what an omnivore should eat it is only that we should consume a broad range of foodstuffs to prevent our diets becoming deficient in important vitamins, minerals or sources of protein.

All restrictive diets carry a risk of nutritional deficiency and, unless embarked upon for sound medical reasons, are best avoided. And all cults, meanwhile, carry a risk of terminal mind-rot and are best avoided, with or without sound medical opinion.

My two cents... your mileage may vary.

auxen1 wrote:Ammonia is already in all of the meat you are eating. It is produced naturally whether in the pre ground industrial product or the uber organic home ground made it yourself product.

Per the NTY article, "Untreated beef naturally contains ammonia and is typically about 6 on the pH scale, near that of rain water and milk. The Beef Products’ study that won U.S.D.A. approval used an ammonia treatment that raised the pH of the meat to as high as 10, an alkalinity well beyond the range of most foods."

tortminder wrote:All restrictive diets carry a risk of nutritional deficiency and, unless embarked upon for sound medical reasons, are best avoided.

I'm on an ammonia-restricted diet. So far, so good, though I must admit, sometimes I walk by the cleaning products on the shelf in my basement and I get so...thirsty. Don't judge me.

The Beef Products’ study that won U.S.D.A. approval used an ammonia treatment that raised the pH of the meat to as high as 10, an alkalinity well beyond the range of most foods."

but still less than peanut butter and american cheese

in the interest of balanced reporting

auxen1 wrote:

The Beef Products’ study that won U.S.D.A. approval used an ammonia treatment that raised the pH of the meat to as high as 10, an alkalinity well beyond the range of most foods."

but still less than peanut butter and american cheese

in the interest of balanced reporting

Whew, close one. Hardly ever eat peanut butter and never American cheese (why would one?). Article did say "most," not all, foods.

do you eat blue cheese?

auxen1 wrote:do you eat blue cheese?

Not recently. Do you think I should?

not if it's going to get in the way of your reporting

auxen1 wrote:not if it's going to get in the way of your reporting

This discussion has seemed to turn away from what the linked article was about. It doesn't sound to me like ammonia was the big deal at all in that article. If something has too much ammonia, it will smell and taste bad, so you won't eat it. I can't find any evidence that these ammonia quantities are bad for one's health, and I suspect I consume way more ammonia in the various stinky cheeses I eat than I would in a McDonald's cheeseburger.

The problem this article highlights is that this particular ammonia-using beef processer wasn't subjected to the same rigorous government inspections as everyone else, because the regulators assumed the ammonia use would kill all the harmful bacteria, so why waste their time looking for it? Turns out the regulators may have been wrong: there were errors/ breakdowns in the beef processing, so the ammonia quantities in the final product ended up being insufficient to kill the harmful bacteria. Perhaps the government should have been inspecting all along. That, to me, is the crux of this article - not anything about ammonia in beef being bad.

tortminder wrote:

jimswside wrote:

teatpuller wrote:
Do you think mushrooms suffer?

Im sure someone will, or has already written a book that thinks they do.

Jim;
To paraphrase a comic from the 60's; "You are what you eat" said a wise old man. "Lord, if that's true, I'm a garbage can."

The main argument on this thread strikes me as somewhat elitist. Clearly, if ' how you eat, so you become ', the anti-meat crowd subsists on a diet of fruitcake, nuts and crackers… But those that posit a moral "high ground" position vis-a-vis carnivores typify with - let's face it - awe-inspiring ignorance the inexplicably persuasive thought patterns that guide many a claimant to culinary moral superiority.

Rats are omnivores. We, like rats, are subject to a phenomenon known as sensory specific satiety , the name given to our tendency to quickly tire of any food that is eaten on its own. Researchers have found that simply by injecting rats' food with a variety of flavors, the rats would eat from two to three times as much of the same food as rats given the same food containing only one flavor. If our evolution teaches us anything about what an omnivore should eat it is only that we should consume a broad range of foodstuffs to prevent our diets becoming deficient in important vitamins, minerals or sources of protein.

All restrictive diets carry a risk of nutritional deficiency and, unless embarked upon for sound medical reasons, are best avoided. And all cults, meanwhile, carry a risk of terminal mind-rot and are best avoided, with or without sound medical opinion.

My two cents... your mileage may vary.

interesting post, I didnt want to ignore it,

but I have stepped away from this thread, and others like it that debate what others choose to, and choose not to eat based on diet, philosophy, etc, etc..

happy new year.

Kenny,

I think you're right on all accounts.

An underlying thread, though, is that this seems to be a product "recovered" from waste. If not for this highly technologicaly-dependant process (I went to the company's website) the scraps would go for other uses like animal food.

They are able to pull tens of millions of pounds of low fat beef out of fat trimmings? And the demand/need exists for this product?

Perhaps Foer should get a little more respect.

I was interested in commenting when I first saw this thread but I decided to read the book beforehand since the original poster asked for thoughts and responses to "Eating Animals". Despite many powerful and even terse declarations on the subject, or perceived subject, It seems that only two posters thus far have actually read the book.

I would encourage people to dig a little deeper into the actual questions raised in Foer's book rather than assuming it is a vegetarian manifesto. Successfully or not Jonathan Safran Foer addresses many of the issues and rebuttals people have raised including alternative sources to commercial factory produced meat and the ethical dilemmas many people from throughout different facets of the industry face as well as their responses in their own words. While it is no secret that the book has something of an agenda I really do feel that the research and arguments put forth are credible and do warrant consideration. I am not an expert but there is an awful lot of information contained and most of it is provided in the form of Federal or Trade published statistics. I believe the author made a conscious decision to use numbers from sources that would not provide for contention and therefore detract from the overarching conversation.

In addition to this book I am sure many persons have read or seen Food Inc. or King Corn or
The Rolling Stones Article "Boss Hog" or many of tho other recent pieces of information available. This subject matter is timely if not relevant.

For clarification I eat meat regularly (in fact I went to Wisconsin about 3 weeks ago to kill and butcher a hog - the smoker has been running ever since ). I purchase meat from the same stores as everyone else, I have worked in factory fishing, I have hunted, and I have eaten a lot of animals that may be illegal to eat depending on your local penal codes. But, I also love food for the all of the cultural implications and the history associated with it. I am as interested in what a vegan or Frutarian, Frutarian 2 eats as I am in what native Alaskans or my Dutch ancestors eat. I am certain that the reason I have found so much enlightening information on LTH is the passion that this community has for food. In my pre LTH days I was often the most food centric person in a group. Now that I have been lurking regularly I feel like such a neophyte when I read these boards and I am continually revising my notions of what I know about food.

I would hope that this thread could lead people to at least consider the possibility of emending what they know about food. Factory Farming is problematic for a lot of reasons beyond the morality. If such a great percentage of our food is coming from factory farms and sold by multinational conglomerates the lack of diversity makes for a singular and deficient product. If the people who I turn to for information on all things food related do not perceive a problem with our system and the current trends I assume that the issue at hand is either not as important as I perceive or vastly more important than I am comfortable with.

I spend time in eastern Europe and the sea change there for meats available in the markets is striking as people are no longer able to sell their animals from the villages and meat must come from a farm. My grandparents talk about the taste of food when they were younger and how different it is now and I can only guess that the food here must have tasted like it does when I go to other countries or to farmers markets in California. I have to nearly break the law to buy fresh milk in this state, and oh yea, the swine flew or something similar may cause a pandemic in my life time and almost certainly in my child's.

There are some weighty topics here and I believe that a little consternation from folks on this thread would help to foster the discussion. I am simply an interested and mildly informed consumer. I know many of you are in the business or at least a lot more knowing of all things food related than I and and can offer more insight than how yummy meat is and how relativistic someones views on institutionalized torture of living creatures are.

Lastly, my favorite line in the book was a quote by Mark Twain Foer used to describe his personal struggle to give up meat and maintain a vegetarian diet; "Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times." - Mark Twain.

tortminder wrote:
All restrictive diets carry a risk of nutritional deficiency and, unless embarked upon for sound medical reasons, are best avoided.

Quite a broad statement that I think every human on Earth disagrees with.

auxen1 wrote:Kenny,

I think you're right on all accounts.

An underlying thread, though, is that this seems to be a product "recovered" from waste. If not for this highly technologicaly-dependant process (I went to the company's website) the scraps would go for other uses like animal food.

They are able to pull tens of millions of pounds of low fat beef out of fat trimmings? And the demand/need exists for this product?

Perhaps Foer should get a little more respect.

I'm a vegetarian. I feed my dog human-grade meat-- raw diet. I can't imagine giving that rubbish to my dog-- translation, it is not fit for any human being.

Reading Foer has become more & more difficult.

Foer and Bourdain, Cliff Notes version as provided by Grub Street: http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/03/b ... _foer.html

very enjoyable, thanks for posting

David Hammond wrote:Foer and Bourdain, Cliff Notes version as provided by Grub Street: http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/03/b ... _foer.html

Bourdain: “Generations of people slaughtered themselves and fought wars for salt for a reason — because it’s good.”

I'm pretty sure it was because it kept their food from spoiling. But his line sounds better, I guess.

I am almost done with Foer's book and have found it quite enlightening and a very interesting read after reading The Omnivore's Dilemma.

I have pretty much gone the way David said he might be going - eating meat only at restaurants (and when I visit home and my mom cooks one of her signature meat-inclusive dishes). I've been moderately successful in getting my mom to buy pricier but higher-quality meat, raised and slaughtered in humane conditions. She sympathizes with the cause, but we aren't very wealthy and when it becomes a matter of economics, my mom will buy factory farmed meat over no meat at all. I've given up on trying to convince her to cut out factory farmed meat completely, because I understand her perspective. However, I do appreciate that she listened to my arguments and took me seriously enough to make some changes to our family's diet. My dad on the other hand....that's a whole 'nother story.

As a college student who eats primarily in dorms, I don't really have the budget to buy from local farmers like I wish I could. It's something I aspire to. Perhaps in a few years, I'll have the means to shop at the Levitts' forthcoming butcher shop or Green City Market. Since most of my meals come from the school cafeteria, which is run by Sodexho, I avoid meat and dairy products there. I just know they aren't of a standard I would be happy with or feel comfortable consuming.

Since adopting a largely vegetarian lifestyle, which started a few years ago and gradually increased, I haven't felt like I had an deficiencies, and I haven't been sick at all. So while I won't claim that eating vegetarian is healthier for everyone, I do feel that it has had no negative impact on my health and may even have improved it.

I'm not trying to stir the pot of the debate on eating meat, but I came across an interesting piece of information the other day, and this thread looked like as good a place as any to pass it on.

Among the arguments often made for not eating meat is the argument, expressed here by Mark Bittman, for example, that "they use too many resources: land, water, energy and — not the least important — food that could nourish people." The part of that sentence that interests me at the moment is water.

What level of consumption of a resource is too much is perhaps a matter of judgment, but the factoid that caught my attention the other day in something I read for work is this: 60% of the world's fresh water is used in the production of rice.

I cannot provide a link to the article I read because it is not yet published, but I am looking around for verification, and this report, for example, confirms that rice production is one of the largest consumers of fresh water in the world. According to the UN, 70% of the world's fresh water goes to irrigation (of rice and other crops).

Again, what's the right amount of fresh water consumption versus "too much" for any particular use is perhaps ultimately subjective, but at least this information opened my eyes about where the majority of the fresh water in the world goes, and it's not raising animals for food, and it's not for Americans to water their lawns and fill their pools. It goes to producing rice, and perhaps very rightly so.

By the way, I am interested in this topic not because I particularly care about eating versus not eating meat; it's because, as a civil engineer, I am interested in water quality and supply around the world.

It is perhaps also worth keeping in mind that fresh water, like some other resources, is not easily relocated and repurposed to other uses: for example, rice is typically grown on land that is naturally prone to flooding or suitable for artificial flooding but unsuitable for raising animals for food, and animals are typically raised for food on land that is unsuitable for growing crops by flood irrigation.

I think the point of these sites to which you linked is that there is a lot of pressure on the world's water supplies: population growth, increased meat consumption in the developing world, and a reduction in the supply of water for agriculture.

Using water to fill your pool isn't a problem if you are paying for the water (just like wearing a white suit before Memorial Day isn't a problem as long as you paid for the suit). But most water in the United States is subsidized or not charged on a per-use basis. Whether this represents 0.001% of world water supply or 50% is irrelevant; it's bad policy.

It's still worthwhile to maintain a sense of perspective. I think it's a mistake to think that pressures on natural resources such as land and fresh water are easily redistributable around the world and that reducing consumption of a certain natural resource somewhere is going to make it more available elsewhere.

The largest producers of rice in the world (and the largest consumers of fresh water in the world) are China and India. Rapid urbanization in both, but especially in China, is putting enormous pressure on fresh water supplies. This competition--between traditional agricultural practices and urbanization spurred by economic growth--is going on largely within China and within other developing nations, and much less if at all within highly developed nations (see, for example, statistics in the UN report on growth in water demand in developing versus developed nations). Increasing urbanization in China is not putting pressure on water supplies primarily because of increased meat consumption by urban dwellers, but primarily because of the increased need for water in urban areas for basic sanitation. Not that economic growth isn't coupled to increased meat consumption; I agree that it is. But as a matter of perspective, that's not by any stretch the biggest drinker at the water fountain.

We can manage our water use primarily on the local level, somewhat on the regional level, and perhaps to a limited extent on the national level, but very little if at all on the international level. For example, how the water supply in Wyoming is allocated between crop production and livestock production is something that can be debated and, to some extent, altered (again, not all types of land and all sources of water are interchangeable between crops and livestock), but how the water supply in China (or India or Brazil or anywhere else) is allocated between crop production and livestock production is not something that can be altered by altering how the water supply in Wyoming is allocated. I mean, you could stop raising cattle in Wyoming, but you can't grow rice there, and you're not going to get any more rice or fresh water to China by trying.