"Dave J." wrote in message ...
In MsgIDeUKBj.74184$w94.59582@pd7urf2no on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:39:06
GMT, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Dutch' wrote:
"( _ /)" wrote
Eat less meat
How about just eat less, consume less, PERIOD? Why pick on meat? You
wouldn't have an ummm hidden agenda, would you?
Meat is (I believe) an inefficient use of resources in the production of
food. It also has a vast (and compared to decaying plant matter
unavoidable) amount of methane as a byproduct.
I speak BTW as a lifelong carnivore. The nearest I come to vegetarianism
is a vague effort to keep my meat consumption down to what I consider to
be the optimum minimal level that (again as I consider it) gives the
maximum yield in terms of bodily benefits.
'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'
'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.
* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.
* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html
However from the facts I've read, you can't argue with the veggies for
saying that there's a hugely greater nutritional value from a given amount
of land if it's used for the right arable crops, intended for direct
consumption, than if it's used to support animals for us to eat.
'Depending on the type of meat, it takes 6-17 times more land to
feed the average American meat eater than to feed a vegetarian.30
...
30 L. Reijinders and Sam Soret, PhDs 2003,
...'
http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html
What I want to see in the future is meat that's grown in tanks, with no
brain attached, and the nutrients directly supplied rather than being
inefficiently converted from foodstock. I imagine that route would knock
spots off the 'efficiency' argument against meat, it would also shut down
the 'cruel to bring about life just because you wanna eat it' argument.
Dave J.
--
Freeware Open Source Internet Television / Video RSS player. Fetches Video
RSS feeds or retrieves from regular searches on Youtube or Google video.
Dozens of feeds as defaults. Science, Politics, Music, Geekery...
Miro - Downloadable from http://www.GetMiro.org - Worth a try!