Origin And History Of Cow Slaughter And Beef Eating In India
http://www.hitxp.com/articles/histor...spiracy-india/
I posted the following in 2003:
[Please use a fixed-width font to view the tables.]
HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT
"The human intestine has a very hard time handling the
putrefying bacteria, high levels of fat, and lack of fiber that
characterize meat, dairy products and eggs. There are other
animals, though, whose intestines seem designed for the task.
"The human intestine is anatomically very different from that
of natural carnivores, such as dogs and cats. Because of the
design of their intestines, these animals are virtually guaranteed
short transit times.
"Our bowel walls are deeply puckered; theirs are smooth. Ours
are full of pouches; theirs have none. Our colons are long,
complex pathways, like a winding mountain road full of hairpin
turns; theirs are short, straight chutes, like wide open freeways.
The toxins from putrefying flesh are not the problem for them that
they are for us because everything passes through them so much more
quickly. Dogs, cats and other natural carnivores do not get colon
cancer from high-fat, low-fiber, flesh-based diets. But we do.
"Researchers who analyze and test human feces can distinguish
the feces of meat-eaters from those of vegetarians by their smell.
[1] They report that the eliminations of meat-eaters smell far
stronger and more noxious than those of non-meat-eaters. There is
a serious reason. Putrefying animal products are far far more
toxic than rotting plant products, and meat-eaters' colons are
constantly subjected to these toxins."
"You see, the digestion of meat itself produces strong
carcinogenic substances in the colon and meat-eaters must produce
extensive bile acids in their intestines to deal with the meat they
eat, particularly deoxycholic acid. This is extremely significant,
because deoxycholic acid is converted by clostridia bacteria in our
intestines into powerful carcinogens. The fact that meat-eaters
invariably have far more deoxycholic acid in their intestines than
do vegetarians is one of the reasons they have so much higher rates
of colon cancer." [2]
SOURCES:
[1] Hoye, Dr. Martin, M.D., personal communication with author.
[2] Hepner, G., "Altered Bile Acid Metabolism in Vegetarians"
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 20:935, 1972
Hill, M., "The Effect of Some Factors on the Fecal Concentration
of . . ."
JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 104:239, 1971
Reddy, B., and Wynder, E., "Large Bowel Carcinogenesis: Fecal
Constituents of Populations with
Diverse Incidence of Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 50:1437, 1973
Reddy, B., "Metabolic Epidemiology of Large Bowel Cancer"
CANCER, 42:2832, 1978
Reddy B., "Nutrition and its Relationship to Cancer"
ADVANCES IN CANCER RESEARCH, 32:237, 1980
Wynder, E., "Dietary Fat and Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 54:7, 1975
All excerpts are from:
DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA by John Robbins; Stillpoint Publishing; 1987.
Also:
WHAT MIGHT BE THE "NATURAL" DIET FOR HUMAN BEINGS?
By Ted Altar
Now, we could begin by noting that many frugivorous (fruit eating)
primates, apes like gorillas, and other non-meat eating animals,
have long incisors for defensive reasons. Human incisors are
really quite pathetic and would not serve us at all in killing an
animal. Gorillas have much larger and more formidable incisors,
but they are completely vegetarian.
Does this answer what diet is maybe preferable for human beings.
Far from it. Instead of just looking at only one anatomical
detail, we need to consider at the very least our anatomy in
general and as a whole. Hence, the following facts taken together
are germane:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+ PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISONS +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ MEAT EATER |HERBIVORE |MAN +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ has claws |no claws |no claws +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ no skin pores, perspires |perspires through |perspires through +
+ through tongue |skin pores |skin pores +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ sharp front teeth for |no sharp front teeth |no sharp front teeth +
+ tearing, no flat molar |has flat rear molars |has flat rear molars +
+ teeth for grinding | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ intestinal tract 3 times |intestinal tract |intestinal tract 12 +
+ body length so rapidly |10-12 time body |times body length +
+ decaying meat can pass |length | +
+ out quickly | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ strong hydrochloric |stomach acid 20 |stomach acid 20 +
+ acid in stomach to |times less strong |times less strong +
+ digest meat |than meat-eaters |than meat eaters +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
[This excerpt comes from the New York Times_ dated 12/13/90]
Now, does this mean that we are "herbivores"? Of course not. But
it does clearly indicate that we are far less like evolved and true
carnivores than we are like herbivores.
Critics point out that we are best described as "omnivores", but
what does that mean? It turns out that BOTH carnivores and
herbivores can eat meat. Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can
eat meat, humans can eat meat. In fact, even cows can eat meat!
Indeed, cows are regularly fed rendered meat protein, some of which
is from slaughtered cows! It also turns out that BOTH carnivores
and herbivores can eat plants. Cats and dogs digest carbohydrates
and will do so even in the wild (by eating their the stomach
contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which are clearly carnivores
are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous". The Merck
Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:
Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild
variety of foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables
the dog to meet his nutritional requirements from a
remarkable diversity of diets. . . . Some vegetable
proteins are . . . . satisfactory sources of amino acids
for dogs.
There is nothing special about meat protein as mammals do NOT use
protein as given, but break down all protein into its constituent
amino acids. Yes, both dogs, humans, squirrels or even cows can
digest both animal or plant protein. The term "omnivore" is not a
hard and fast scientific category but merely is used to indicate
what an animal usually eats. In our current social environment,
our culture's predominate dietary practices would permit it be said
that we are "omnivores", but that doesn't entail anything about
what we might be constitutionally best evolved to eat.
The physiological stress of eating meat and the greater health
benefits of a vegetarian diet arguably do support the view that
maybe we are best evolved for a vegetarian diet. Certainly, with
respect to the anthropological evidence, we evolved as frugivorous
animals. Of course, like chimps, we can opportunistically eat meat
and insects, but it only constitutes a mere 5% of their calories,
but we have chosen for reasons that are no longer necessary or
essential to consume in the West some 40 - 50% of our calories come
from slaughtered animals or from animals products (4).
Yet, our bodies in the wild were best equipped not to catch prey
but to forage for fruits, roots, and insects. Proponents of the
notion that vitamin C requirements for humans are maybe being
larger than current RDA's have also argued their claims from what
we do know about our evolutionary history as being evolved from
frugivorous apes. Reference to that evolutionary history is not
completely irrelevant to what might be, given the choice, a
preferred diet for reasons of health. Just because we can
opportunistically eat meat doesn't mean that we are therefore
equally capable as evolved carnivores in thriving off a diet
largely of meat. Indeed, cats can be fed diets up to 60% fat by
calories with no apparent problems to their cardiovascular health.
This is certainly not the case with humans. Indeed, early
experiments with dogs being fed fatty diets with lots of
cholesterol were misleading in their implications for humans, and
were a hindrance in the final recognition that fatty diets high in
saturated fat and dietary cholesterol do pose serious health
problems for human beings.
Clearly, the anatomy of the human digestive system is well
engineered to digest plant-based foodstuffs high in fiber and
complex carbohydrates and only moderate in protein. Constipation
and indigestion is less of a problem when people's diets are free
of fiberless, fatty meat. The balance of key metallic elements,
sodium and potassium, is reversed between plant foods and animal
flesh (This greater proportion of sodium may explain why high blood
pressure is rare among vegans). The amounts and chemical kinds of
fats in animals (cholesterol and triglycerides) are very different
than those found in plants. Certainly, no cholesterol is found in
our plant foods. The greater concentration and unnecessary amounts
of protein consumption from meat makes for an excess protein load
that the body must attempt to deal with. Other biological, physical
and chemical properties of flesh foods, like its symptomatic
stimulation of inflammatory substances (prostaglandin 2E) induces
OBSERVABLE SIGNS OF METABOLIC STRESS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
+ AFTER A MEAL OF ANIMAL FLESH: +
+ a) white blood cell count increases +
+ +
+ b) Red blood cells become more `sticky' and `sludge' +
+ in small blood vessel. (1) +
+ +
+ c) levels of anti-inflammatory hormones (cortisol) +
+ and sex hormones (estrogen, prolactin) increase. (2) +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
Employing the engine metaphor, then meat is actually an inferior
"fuel" for the body since it generates many acidic waste products
when metabolized. Hence, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet enables
athletes to be stronger and have more physical endurance.
To summarize the argument he the amount of flesh consumption,
especially with its current fatty quality, does not appear to be
anything like what might be the kind of diet we have evolved to
flourish on as evidenced by the immediate body reactions to meat,
the comparative differences between humans and true carnivores, and
our probable evolutionary history as being predominantly
vegetarians.
Yes, we can eat meat, but not without some costs. We can eat live
insects, but we normally don't. Indeed, we can eat an omnivorous
diet, but we can also be sustained on a vegetarian diet and the
health evidence certainly suggests that a vegetarian diet is more
conducive to better health.
But the inveterate critic will repetitively point out that fact
remains that we can and do eat meat, therefore we are omnivores.
For many people, this would misleadingly suggest that meat-eating
is desirable, or at least not harmful. After all, many people are
persuaded by the logic that if there is something that we have
evolved to do, then that is what we must do, or at least can do
with no harm. I do think that such an implication needs to be
challenged. The first point of challenge being to point out that
we are more accurately described as being evolved from frugivorous
apes. Chimps can eat meat, but we don't classify them as
omnivores. Remember, the term, "omnivores" only serves as a
description of what an animal would normally eat given the normal
opportunities for foods with its autochthonous ecological niche.
Returning to the argument of evolution, again I would stress:
(1) Only up to 5% of calories come from meat in the
chimp's diet, while aculturalized humans in the West are
consuming for non-essential reasons some 50% of their
calories from slaughtered animals. Also, not all great apes
have been observed to capture or hunt prey as have the
chimps.
(2) the bulk of the chimp diet is still predominantly
vegetarian and doesn't resemble in the slightest the kind of
excessive meat consumption that we in North America have
been persuaded by the meat industry to assume (that the meat
industry has been influential is indicated by the fact that
we are eating twice as much meat today as we did in the
1950's).
(3) more direct and reliable evidence is suggested by
observations of primitive human societies in which it has
been observed that gathering constitutes either the total or
the bulk of the diet for most primitive human groups. There
is no reason to think that such a pattern did not also occur
in our pre-historic past.
Any claim that our current meat-eating habit is " a natural
evolutionary trait" is simply too strong. That is, it is TOO
SPECIFIC a trait that is contradicted by our evolutionary history
and by the existence of largely vegetarian societies where hunting
is still viable. After all, the development of such specific
evolutionary traits depends upon a constancy of environmental
conditions and a consequent advantageous adaptation for specific
environmental niches. Humans are marked by a flexibility that has
permitted them a capability to live in a great range habitats.
With respect to diet, it would seem more accurate to say that for
the recent evolutionary history of humans, OPPORTUNISM OR
ADAPTABILITY IS THE HUMAN TRAIT IN QUESTION, ALTHOUGH A
PHYSIOLOGICAL NEED FOR VEGETARIAN FARE REMAINS. After all, there
are human groups that are total vegetarians and others in which
meat figures prominently (never totally and exclusively throughout
the year).
Again, I think that one of the most convincing facts to keep in
mind is that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that the best
diet for human beings in terms of health and longevity is
vegetarian! No other diet for a large, mixed population of people
has been able to achieve the kinds of health risk reductions of,
say, cancer and CHD, as has a vegetarian diet, particularly a vegan
diet.
"We tend to scoff at vegetarians, call them nuts among the
the berries, but the fact is, they're doing bettr than we
we are"
Dr. William Castelli, Director of the government's
Framingham Hearth Study in Massaschusetts (3)
Even when we factor out population differences in smoking (which
accounts for about 3 added years) lacto-ovovegetarians still live
longer (about 3 years) than even low-meat eaters. For instance,
the observed-to-expected coronary heart disease mortality among
total vegetarians is only 14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have
heart attacks but they occur approximately 20 years later in life
then for meat eaters. This is a huge difference, and vegetarians
live their lives feeling more fit and healthy and suffering from
fewer episodes of sickness (e.g., less colds). The reasons for
these gains, in part may have to do the many contaminants and
toxins found in meat, but it is known to be largely due to the fact
that meat is comprised of a too high a proportion of fats,
particularly the wrong kinds of fatty acids, which are now being
seen by health experts as causing significant health problems.
Even medical doctors, who have been slow to recognize the
importance of nutrition for health, some at least are beginning to
concede to the scientific evidence that has been accumulating for
about a hundred years. The "PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE
MEDICINE" recently put out their own 4 Basic Foods chart, much to
the chagrin of that powerful lobby, the meat and diary industry.
The "basic" foods include:
(1) Whole Grains
(2) Vegetables
(3) Legumes
(4) Fruits.
Unlike the old charts that were freely supplied by the meat and
diary industry to all our schools, there is no mention of meat or
dairy products as being essential food groups necessary for human
nutrition and health. Their position is that the less we eat of
this stuff the better. Many of these physicians have themselves
become vegetarian simply on the strength of the nutritional studies
performed on human beings.
All primates have, for the most part, evolved to be fruitarians or
herbivores. Yes, we can eat meat, as do chimpanzees in the wild,
but for chimps this is actually not a common event (except for
insects) and certainly meat does not constitute being a necessary
or significant component in diet. That humans can eat meat doesn't
mean that they must eat meat. That humans may opportunistically
eat red meat doesn't mean that they equally evolved or
physiologically as well adapted to subsist healthily on meat as
compared to a plant food diet.
In any case, the distinction between carnivores and herbivores is
not clear cut and precise. Again, let it be noted that "true"
carnivores like dogs, for instance, can live normal lives on a
vegetarian diet but this does not make them herbivores. In spite
of this fact, we do not call dogs omnivores. Similarly, we are
still biologically vegetarian creatures as given by the evidence of
physiological constitution, evolutionary history and by the facts
suggesting that our health fares best on a vegetarian diet.
Hope this helps. ted
References:
(1) Friedman, M. 1984. "Serum lipids and conjuctival
circulation after fat ingestion." CIRCULATION, 29:874.
(2) Armstrong, B. (1981). "Diet and reproductive hormones: A
study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian postmenopausal
women." JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE", 67:761.
(3) Liebman, B. (1983). "Are vegetarians healthier than the
rest of us?" NUTRITION ACTION, 10:8
(4) C Brusse EVOLUTION, 1977, 31:907
End of forwarded post
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.