The Myths of Vegetarianism

February 9, 2010

by Byrnes, PhD, RNCP

_http://www.westonaprice.org/Myths-of-Vegetarianism.html_

(http://www.westonaprice.org/Myths-of-Vegetarianism.html)

Originally published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, July

2000. Revised January 2002. This paper is posted at:

_http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm_

(http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm) .

" An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is

the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of

fashionable opinion. "

â€”Alfred North Whitehead

Bill and sat before me in my office in a sombre mood: they had just

lost their first baby in the second month of pregnancy. was

particularly upset. " Why did this happen to me? Why did I miscarry my baby? "

The

young couple had come to see me mostly because of 's recurrent

respiratory infections, but also wanted some advice as to how they could avoid

the

heartache of another failed pregnancy.

Upon questioning about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her

infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet

and was also mostly a vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media rhetoric

about the supposed dangers of animal product consumption, as opposed to the

alleged health benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle, had deliberately

removed such things as cream, butter, meats and fish from her diet. Although

she liked liver, she avoided it due to worries over " toxins. "

and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and a

dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats and meat.

Just before leaving my office, looked at me and said ruefully: " I

just don't know what to believe sometimes. Everywhere I look there is all

this low-fat, vegetarian stuff recommended. I followed it, and look what

happened. " I assured her that if she and her husband changed their diets and

allowed sufficient time for her weakened uterus to heal, they would be happy

parents in due time. In November 2000, Bill and happily gave birth to

their first child, a girl.

The Evolution of a Myth

Along with the unjustified and unscientific saturated fat and cholesterol

scares of the past several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism

is a healthier dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert

and government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products

and consume more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with these

exhortations have come assertions and studies supposedly proving that

vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat consumption is associated

with sickness and death. Several authorities, however, have questioned these

data, but their objections have been largely ignored.

As we shall see, many of the vegetarian claims cannot be substantiated and

some are simply false and dangerous. There are benefits to vegetarian

diets for certain health conditions, and some people function better on less

fat and protein, but, as a practitioner who has dealt with several former

vegetarians and vegans (total vegetarians), I know full well the dangerous

effects of a diet devoid of healthful animal products. It is my hope that all

readers will more carefully evaluate their position on vegetarianism after

reading this paper.

Myth #1:

Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural

resources.

Myth #2:

Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

Myth #3:

Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.

Myth #4:

The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant foods.

Myth #5:

Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and

cancer.

Myth #6:

Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease,

atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are

healthier for

people.

Myth #7:

Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than

meat-eaters.

Myth #8:

The " cave man " diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian. Humans evolved as

vegetarians.

Myth #9:

Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th century,

with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.

Myth #10:

Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy products.

Myth #11:

The human body is not designed for meat consumption.

Myth #12:

Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in humans.

Myth #13:

Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.

Myth #14:

Eating meat or animal products is less " spiritual " than eating only plant

foods.

Myth #15:

Eating animal foods is inhumane.

Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's

natural resources.

Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could

be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It

is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because

livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to

world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments

are illogical and simplistic.

The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land

is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and

mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is

currently being put to good use (1).

The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital

contributions that livestock animals make to humanity's well-being. It is also

misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be

diverted to feed humans:

Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare

of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other

products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another

renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In

addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and,

thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be

utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.

There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a

faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to

afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an

inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient

for

humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to

convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of

human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency

only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize.

The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of

substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food.

Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food,

animals not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in

improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies.

(2)

Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in

the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread

poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a

comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world

hunger

problem to poverty, not meat-eating (3). It also did not consider mass

vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.

What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in

favour of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards

vegetarianism?

If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat

in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would

dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa

and Asia wouldn't change at all.

The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus from

farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10

billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would

likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling

their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly. (4)

In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat.

Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would

happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on

plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the

heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of

crude oil to produce (5).

As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the great

damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy

farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if " veganic

agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrochemical

use, soil

erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate. " (6)

Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:

Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the

environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in

ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain

sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water

sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by

altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production in

1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding

grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same

rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the same

year.(7)

There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of

plants or animals produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of

agrochemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, steroids, and

antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal

husbandry with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be

a return to " mixed farming, " described below.

The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about

a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and

grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is

efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens

running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality

eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows

grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk,

making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal

cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices

and

monopolistic distribution systems. (8)

The " mixed farm " is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more

crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has

accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five

harvests a year, while a " mono-cropped " one will only yield one or two (9).

Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up

the ecological horrors of " battery farming " and points to future solutions

by saying:

Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the

business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems

and

beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty,

anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in

B.S.E. [see myth # 13] and salmonella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future

direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms,

resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then

bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more

updated

application of biological science into farming systems. (10)

It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practiced,

damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism or

exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible

or ecologically wise ideas.

Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and

lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy

products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not. Vegans who do not

supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anemia (a fatal

condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage; most, if not

all, vegans have impaired B12 metabolism and every study of vegan groups has

demonstrated low vitamin B12 concentrations in the majority of individuals

(11). Several studies have been done documenting B12 deficiencies in vegan

children, often with dire consequences (12). Additionally, claims are made

in vegan and vegetarian literature that B12 is present in certain algae,

tempeh (a fermented soy product) and Brewer's yeast. All of them are false

as vitamin B12 is only found in animal foods. Brewer's and nutritional

yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside

source.

There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar

to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not

bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair

absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption,

placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at

a greater risk for a deficiency (14).

Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain

fermenting bacteria in the lower intestines. This may be true, but it is in a

form

unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for

proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have

intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (15).

It is true that Hindu vegans living in certain parts of India do not

suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant

foods do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many

small insects, their feces, eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the

plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient

cleaning methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12. This

contention is borne out by the fact that when vegan Indian Hindus later

migrated to England, they came down with megaloblastic anaemia within a few

years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are

completely removed from plant foods (16).

The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal

products, especially organ meats and eggs (17). Though present in lesser

amounts

than meat and eggs, dairy products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should

consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be

tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.

That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal foods is one of the

strongest arguments against veganism being a " natural " way of human eating.

Today, vegans can avoid anemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified

foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these

products were unavailable, they would have died.

Myth #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.

Though not really a vegetarian myth per se, it is widely believed that

one's vitamin D needs can be met simply by exposing one's skin to the sun's

rays for 15-20 minutes a few times a week. Concerns about vitamin D

deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans always exist as this nutrient, in its

full-complex form, is only found in animal fats (18) which vegans do not

consume

and more moderate vegetarians only consume in limited quantities due to

their meatless diets.

It is true that a limited number of plant foods such as alfalfa, sunflower

seeds, and avocado, contain the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol,

or vitamin D2). Although D2 can be used to prevent and treat the vitamin D

deficiency disease, rickets, in humans, it is questionable, though, whether

this form is as effective as animal-derived vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol).

Some studies have shown that D2 is not utilized as well as D3 in animals

(19) and clinicians have reported disappointing results using vitamin D2 to

treat vitamin D-related conditions (20).

Although vitamin D can be created by our bodies by the action of sunlight

on our skin, it is very difficult to obtain an optimal amount of vitamin D

by a brief foray into the sun. There are three ultraviolet bands of

radiation that come from sunlight named A, B, and C. Only the " B " form is

capable

of catalyzing the conversion of cholesterol to vitamin D in our bodies (21)

and UV-B rays are only present at certain times of day, at certain

latitudes, and at certain times of the year (22). Furthermore, depending on

one's

skin colour, obtaining 200-400 IUs of vitamin D from the sun can take as

long as two full hours of continual sunning (23). A dark-skinned vegan,

therefore, will find it impossible to obtain optimal vitamin D intake by sunning

himself for 20 minutes a few times a week, even if sunning occurs during

those limited times of the day and year when UV-B rays are available.

The current RDA for vitamin D is 400 IUs, but Dr. Weston Price's seminal

research into healthy native adult people's diets showed that their daily

intake of vitamin D (from animal foods) was about 10 times that amount, or

4,000 IUs (24). Accordingly, Dr. Price placed a great emphasis on vitamin D

in the diet. Without vitamin D, for example, it is impossible to utilize

minerals like calcium, phosphorous, and magnesium. Recent research has

confirmed Dr. Price's higher recommendations for vitamin D for adults (24).

Since rickets and/or low vitamin D levels has been well-documented in many

vegetarians and vegans (26), since animal fats are either lacking or

deficient in vegetarian diets (as well as those of the general Western public

who routinely try to cut their animal fat intake), since sunlight is only a

source of vitamin D at certain times and at certain latitudes, and since

current dietary recommendations for vitamin D are too low, this emphasizes the

need to have reliable and abundant sources of this nutrient in our daily

diets. Good sources include cod liver oil, lard from pigs that were exposed

to sunlight, shrimp, wild salmon, sardines, butter, full-fat dairy products,

and eggs from properly fed chickens.

Myth #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from

plant foods.

True vitamin A, or retinol and its associated esters, is only found in

animal fats and organs like liver (27). Plants do contain beta-carotene, a

substance that the body can convert into vitamin A if certain conditions are

present (see below). Beta-carotene, however, is not vitamin A. It is typical

for vegans and vegetarians (as well as most popular nutrition writers) to

say that plant foods like carrots and spinach contain vitamin A and that

beta-carotene is just as good as vitamin A. These things are not true even

though beta-carotene is an important nutritional factor for humans.

The conversion from carotene to vitamin A in the intestines can only take

place in the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with

the carotenes to stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and

people with hypothyroidism, gall bladder problems or diabetes (altogether, a

significant portion of the population) either cannot make the conversion, or

do so very poorly. Lastly, the body's conversion from carotene to vitamin A

is not very efficient: it takes roughly 6 units of carotene to make one

unit of vitamin A. What this means is that a sweet potato (containing about

25,000 units of beta-carotene) will only convert into about 4,000 units of

vitamin A (assuming you ate it with fat, are not diabetic, are not an infant,

and do not have a thyroid or gall bladder problem) [28].

Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea.

This provides yet another reason to include animal foods and fats in our

diets. Butter and full-fat dairy foods, especially from pastured cows, are good

vitamin A sources, as is cod liver oil. Vitamin A is all-important in our

diets, for it enables the body to use proteins and minerals, insures proper

vision, enhances the immune system, enables reproduction, and fights

infections (29). As with vitamin D, Dr. Price found that the diets of healthy

primitive peoples supplied substantial amounts of vitamin A, again emphasizing

the great need humans have for this nutrient in maintaining optimal health

now and for future generations.

Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease,

and cancer.

Oftentimes, vegans and vegetarians will try to scare people into avoiding

animal foods and fats by claiming that vegetarian diets offer protection

from certain chronic diseases like the ones listed above. Such claims,

however, are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All

of

the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people

have been eating meat and animal fat for many thousands of years. Further,

as Dr. Price's research showed, there were/are several native peoples around

the world (the Innuit, Maasai, Swiss, etc.) whose traditional diets

were/are very rich in animal products, but who nevertheless did/do not suffer

from the above-mentioned maladies (30). Dr. Mann's independent studies

of the Maasai done many years after Dr. Price, confirmed the fact that the

Maasai, despite being almost exclusive meat eaters, nevertheless, had little

to no incidence of heart disease, or other chronic ailments (31). This

proves that other factors besides animal foods are at work in causing these

diseases.

Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause

of various illnesses, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such

thing as the following discussion will show.

Osteoporosis

Dr. Herta Spencer's research on protein intake and bone loss clearly

showed that protein consumption in the form of real meat has no impact on bone

density. Studies that supposedly proved that excessive protein consumption

equalled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated

protein powders and isolated amino acids (32). Recent studies have also

shown that increased animal protein intake contributes to stronger bone density

in men and women (33). Some recent studies on vegan and vegetarian diets,

however, have shown them to predispose women to osteoporosis (34).

Kidney Disease

Although protein-restricted diets are helpful for people with kidney

disease, there is no proof that eating meat causes it (35). Vegetarians will

also typically claim that animal protein causes overly acidic conditions in

the blood, resulting in calcium leaching from the bones and, hence, a greater

tendency to form kidney stones. This opinion is false, however.

Theoretically, the sulphur and phosphorous in meat can form an acid when placed

in

water, but that does not mean that is what happens in the body. Actually,

meat contains complete proteins and vitamin D (if the skin and fat are eaten),

both of which help maintain pH balance in the bloodstream. Furthermore, if

one eats a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6, and

restricts refined sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones, whether

one

eats meat or not (36). Animal foods like beef, pork, fish, and lamb are good

sources of magnesium and B6 as any food/nutrient table will show.

Heart Disease

The belief that animal protein contributes to heart disease is a popular

one that has no foundation in nutritional science. Outside of questionable

studies, there is little data to support the idea that meat-eating leads to

heart disease. For example, the French have one of the highest per capita

consumption of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease. In Greece, meat

consumption is higher than average but rates of heart disease are low there

as well. Finally, in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in conjunction with

a reduction in sugar and high carbohydrate intake) led to a decrease in

heart disease (37).

Cancer

The belief that meat, in particular red meat, contributes to cancer is,

like heart disease, a popular idea that is not supported by the facts.

Although it is true that some studies have shown a connection between meat

eating

and some types of cancer (38), its important to look at the studies

carefully to determine what kind of meat is being discussed, as well as the

preparation methods used. Since we only have one word for " meat " in English, it

is often difficult to know which " meat " is under discussion in a study

unless the authors of the study specifically say so.

The study which began the meat=cancer theory was done by Dr. Ernst Wynder

in the 1970s. Wynder claimed that there was a direct, causal connection

between animal fat intake and incidence of colon cancer (39). Actually, his

data on " animal fats " were really on vegetable fats (40). In other words, the

meat=cancer theory is based on a phony study.

If one looks closely at the research, however, one quickly sees that it is

processed meats like cold cuts and sausages that are usually implicated in

cancer causation (41) and not meat per se. Furthermore, cooking methods

seem to play a part in whether or not a meat becomes carcinogenic (42). In

other words, it is the added chemicals to the meat and the chosen cooking

method that are at fault and not the meat itself.

In the end, although sometimes a connection between meat and cancer is

found, the actual mechanism of how it happens has eluded scientists (43). This

means that it is likely that other factors besides meat are playing roles

in some cases of cancer. Remember: studies of meat-eating traditional

peoples show that they have very little incidence of cancer. This demonstrates

that other factors are at work when cancer appears in a modern meat-eating

person. It is not scientifically fair to single out one dietary factor in

placing blame, while ignoring other more likely candidates.

It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in

population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is

associated with a lower risk for cancer (but see a later paragraph in this

section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do

not eat meat, they also do not smoke or drink alcohol, coffee or tea, all

of which are likely factors in promoting cancer (44).

The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies.

Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat.

As with the Adventists, Mormons also avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine.

Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22%

lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer

than the US average (45). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of

fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer

(46). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat and animal

fat consumption do not correlate with cancer (47). Obviously, other factors

are at work.

It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than

meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of vegetarian California Seventh Day Adventists

showed that, while they did have lower rates for some cancers (e.g., breast

and lung), they had higher rates for several others (Hodgkin's disease,

malignant melanoma, brain, skin, uterine, prostate, endometrial, cervical and

ovarian), some quite significantly. In that study the authors actually

admitted that:

Meat consumption, however, was not associated with a higher [cancer] risk.

And that,

No significant association between breast cancer and a high consumption of

animal fats or animal products in general was noted. (48)

Further, it is usually claimed that a diet rich in plant foods like whole

grains and legumes will reduce one's risks for cancer, but research going

back to the last century demonstrates that carbohydrate-based diets are the

prime dietary instigators of cancer, not diets based on minimally processed

animal foods (49).

The mainstream health and vegetarian media have done such an effective job

of " beef bashing, " that most people think there is nothing healthful about

meat, especially red meat. In reality, however, animal flesh foods like

beef and lamb are excellent sources of a variety of nutrients as any

food/nutrient table will show. Nutrients like vitamins A, D, several of the

B-complex, essential fatty acids (in small amounts), magnesium, zinc,

phosphorous,

potassium, iron, taurine, and selenium are abundant in beef, lamb, pork,

fish and shellfish, and poultry. Nutritional factors like coenzyme Q10,

carnitine, and alpha-lipoic acid are also present. Some of these nutrients are

only found in animal foods--plants do not supply them.

Myth #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease,

atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are

healthier

for people.

This, too, is not a specific vegetarian myth. Nevertheless, people are

often urged to take up a vegetarian or vegan diet because it is believed that

such diets offer protection against heart disease and cancer since they are

lower or lacking in animal foods and fats.

Although it is commonly believed that saturated fats and dietary

cholesterol " clog arteries " and cause heart disease, such ideas have been shown

to

be false by such scientists as Linus ing, , Mann,

Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Enig, Uffe Ravnskov and other prominent

researchers (50). On the contrary, studies have shown that arterial plaque is

primarily composed of unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones,

and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (51).

Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by

researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in

accelerated atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other ailments

(52). Trans-fatty acids are found in such modern foods as margarine and

vegetable shortening and foods made with them. Enig and her colleagues have also

shown that excessive omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake from

refined vegetable oils is also a major culprit behind cancer and heart disease,

not animal fats.

A recent study of thousands of Swedish women supported Enig's conclusions

and data, and showed no correlation between saturated fat consumption and

increased risk for breast cancer. However, the study did show, as did Enig's

work, a strong link between vegetable oil intake and higher breast cancer

rates (53).

The major population studies that supposedly prove the theory that animal

fats and cholesterol cause heart disease actually do not upon closer

inspection. The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary

cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill health.

Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups over several years

at

five-year intervals. One group consumed little cholesterol and saturated

fat, while the other consumed high amounts. Surprisingly, Dr Castelli,

the study's director, said:

In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol

one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum

cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the

most

saturated fat, [and] ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the

most physically active. (54)

The Framingham data did show that subjects who had higher cholesterol

levels and weighed more ran a slightly higher chance for coronary heart

disease. But weight gain and serum cholesterol levels had an inverse

correlation

with dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other words, there was no

correlation at all (55).

In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial,

sponsored by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared mortality rates

and

eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate less saturated fat and

cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate of heart disease, but had an overall

mortality rate much higher than the other men in the study (56).

Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are not healthier for people.

Studies have shown repeatedly that such diets are associated with depression,

cancer, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide (57). Women with

lower serum cholesterol live shorter lives than women with higher levels

(58). Similar things have been found in men (59).

Children on low-fat and/or vegan diets can suffer from growth problems,

failure to thrive, and learning disabilities (60). Despite this, sources from

Dr Spock to the American Heart Association recommend low-fat

diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those unfortunate

youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents taken in by such genocidal

misinformation.

There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the fat in

question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid, a potent

antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also contains appreciable

amounts

of caprylic acid, also an effective antifungal (61). Butter from

free-range cows is rich in trace minerals, especially selenium, as well as all

of

the fat-soluble vitamins and beneficial fatty acids that protect against

cancer and fungal infections (62).

In fact, the body needs saturated fats in order to properly utilize

essential fatty acids (63). Saturated fats also lower the blood levels of the

artery-damaging lipoprotein (a) (64); are needed for proper calcium

utilization in the bones (65); stimulate the immune system (66); are the

preferred

food for the heart and other vital organs (67); and, along with cholesterol,

add structural stability to the cell and intestinal wall (68). They are

excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not break down

under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's

diet, then, is ill-advised.

With respect to atherosclerosis, it is always claimed that vegetarians

have much lower rates of this condition than meat eaters. The International

Atherosclerosis Project of 1968, however, which examined over 20,000 corpses

from several countries, concluded that vegetarians had just as much

atherosclerosis as meat eaters (69). Other population studies have revealed

similar data. (70) This is because atherosclerosis is largely unrelated to diet;

it is a consequence of aging. There are things which can accelerate the

atherosclerotic process such as excessive free radical damage to the arteries

from antioxidant depletion (caused by such things as smoking, poor diet,

excess polyunsaturated fatty acids in the diet, various nutritional

deficiencies, drugs, etc), but this is to be distinguished from the

fatty-streaking

and hardening of arteries that occurs in all peoples over time.

It also does not appear that vegetarian diets protect against heart

disease. A study on vegans in 1970 showed that female vegans had higher rates

of

death from heart disease than non-vegan females (71). A recent study showed

that Indians, despite being vegetarians, have very high rates of coronary

artery disease (72). High-carbohydrate/low-fat diets (which is what

vegetarian diets are) can also place one at a greater risk for heart disease,

diabetes, and cancer due to their hyperinsulemic effects on the body (73).

Recent studies have also shown that vegetarians have higher homocysteine levels

in their blood (74). Homocysteine is a known cause of heart disease.

Lastly, low-fat/cholesterol diets, generally favoured to either prevent or

treat

heart disease, do neither and may actually increase certain risk factors

for this condition (75).

Studies which conclude that vegetarians are at a lower risk for heart

disease are typically based on the phoney markers of lower saturated fat

intake, lower serum cholesterol levels and HDL/LDL ratios. Since vegetarians

tend

to eat less saturated fat and usually have lower serum cholesterol levels,

it is concluded that they are at less risk for heart disease. Once one

realizes that these measurements are not accurate predictors of proneness to

heart disease, however, the supposed protection of vegetarianism melts away

(76).

It should always be remembered that a number of things factor into a

person getting heart disease or cancer. Instead of focusing on the phony issues

of saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, and meat-eating, people should pay

more attention to other more likely factors.

These would be trans-fatty acids, excessive polyunsaturated fat intake,

excessive sugar intake, excessive carbohydrate intake, smoking, certain

vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and obesity. These things were all

conspicuously absent in the healthy traditional peoples that Dr. Price studied.

Myth #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than

meat-eaters.

A vegetarian guidebook published in Great Britain made the following

claim:

You and your children don't need to eat meat to stay healthy. In fact,

vegetarians claim they are among the healthiest people around, and they can

expect to live nine years longer than meat eaters (this is often because

heart and circulatory diseases are rarer). These days almost half the

population in Britain is trying to avoid meat, according to a survey by the Food

Research Association in January 1990. (77)

In commenting on this claim of extended lifespan, author Craig Fitzroy

astutely points out that:

The ' nine-year advantage ' is an oft-repeated but invariably unsourced

piece of anecdotal evidence for vegetarianism. But anyone who believes that

by snubbing mum's Sunday roast they will be adding a decade to their years

on the planet is almost certainly indulging in a bit of wishful thinking.

(78)

And that is what most of the claims for increased longevity in vegetarians

are: anecdotal. There is no proof that a healthy vegetarian diet when

compared to a healthy omnivorous diet will result in a longer life.

Additionally, people who choose a vegetarian lifestyle typically also choose

not to

smoke, to exercise, in short, to live a healthier lifestyle. These things

also factor into one's longevity.

In the scientific literature, there are surprisingly few studies done on

vegetarian longevity. , PhD, in his massive review study on

heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some

study groups, death rates actually decreased! (79) Such results were not

obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr

and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although

vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than

non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much higher for vegetarians (80).

Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the

risk for heart disease and shortened lives, the authors of those studies

actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study

of vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists, HA Kahn concluded,

Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease

question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that

men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby

shortening their lives. (81)

A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (82). Despite these

startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and

urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.

Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly

showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to

meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Dr.

commented,

In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative

results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically

correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives. (83)

It is usually claimed that meat-eating peoples have a short life span, but

the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal

products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonization by

Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly

(84). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have

existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has

numerous

photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world. Explorers such

as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Innuit (again,

before colonization). [85]

Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a

diet of fatty pork and whole raw milk products. The Hunzas, also known for

their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk

which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (86). In contrast,

the largely vegetarian Hindus of southern India have the shortest

life-spans in the world, partly because of a lack of food, but also because of

a

distinct lack of animal protein in their diets (87). H. Leon Abrams' comments

are instructive here:

Vegetarians often maintain that a diet of meat and animal fat leads to a

pre-mature death. Anthropological data from primitive societies do not

support such contentions. (88)

With regards to endurance and energy levels, Dr Price traveled around the

world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without

exception, he found a strong correlation between diets rich in animal fats,

robust

health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example,

included bowls of fresh, raw cream. In Africa, Dr Price discovered that

groups whose diets were rich in fatty meats and fish, and organ meats like

liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that

meat-eating tribes always dominated tribes whose diets were largely vegetarian.

(89)

It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend " carb loading " for athletes

to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York

and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who " carb loaded "

had significantly less endurance than those who " fat loaded " before athletic

events (90).

Myth #8: The " cave man " diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian.

Humans evolved as vegetarians. Our Paleolithic ancestors were

hunter-gatherers, and three schools of thought have developed as to what their

diet was

like. One group argues for a high-fat and animal-based diet supplemented

with seasonal fruits, berries, nuts, root vegetables and wild grasses. The

second argues that primitive peoples consumed assorted lean meats and large

amounts of plant foods. The third argues that our human ancestors evolved

as vegetarians.

The " lean " Paleolithic diet approach has been argued for quite voraciously

by Dr.'s Loren Cordain and Boyd Eaton in a number of popular and

professional publications (91). Cordain and Eaton are believers in the Lipid

Hypothesis of heart disease--the belief (debunked in myth number six, above)

that

saturated fat and dietary cholesterol contribute to heart disease. Because

of this, and the fact that Paleolithic peoples or their modern equivalents

did/do not suffer from heart disease, Cordain and Eaton espouse the theory

that Paleolithic peoples consumed most of their fat calories from

monounsaturated and polyunsaturated sources and not saturated fats. Believing

that

saturated fats are dangerous to our arteries, Cordain and Eaton stay in step

with current establishment nutritional thought and encourage modern peoples

to eat a diet like our ancestors. This diet, they believe, was rich in

lean meats and a variety of vegetables, but was low in saturated fat. The

evidence they produce to support this theory is, however, very selective and

misleading. (92) Saturated fats do not cause heart disease as was shown

above, and our Paleolithic ancestors ate quite a bit of saturated fat from a

variety of plant and animal sources.

From authoritative sources, we learn that prehistoric humans of the North

American continent ate such animals as mammoth, camel, sloth, bison,

mountain sheep, pronghorn antelope, beaver, elk, mule deer, and llama (93).

" Mammoth, sloth, mountain sheep, bison, and beaver are fatty animals in the

modern sense in that they have a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, as do the

many species of bear and wild pig whose remains have been found at Paleolithic

sites throughout the world. " (94) Analysis of many types of fat in game

animals like antelope, bison, caribou, dog, elk, moose, seal, and mountain

sheep shows that they are rich in saturates and monounsaturates, but

relatively low in polyunstaurates. (95)

Further, while buffalo and game animals may have lean, non-marbled muscle

meats, it is a mistake to assume that only these parts were eaten by

hunter-gatherer groups like the Native Americans who often hunted animals

selectively for their fat and fatty organs as the following section will show.

Anthropologists/explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported that the

Innuit and North American Indian tribes would worry when their catches of

caribou were too lean: they knew sickness would follow if they did not

consume enough fat (96). In other words, these primitive peoples did not like

having to eat lean meat.

Northern Canadian Indians would also deliberately hunt older male caribou

and elk, for these animals carried a 50-pound slab of back fat on them

which the Indians would eat with relish. This " back fat " is highly saturated.

Native Americans would also refrain from hunting bison in the springtime

(when the animals' fat stores were low, due to scarce food supply during the

winter), preferring to hunt, kill and consume them in the fall when they

were fattened up (97).

Explorer Hearne, writing in 1768, described how the Native American

tribes he came in contact with would selectively hunt caribou just for the

fatty parts:

On the twenty-second of July, we met several strangers, whom we joined in

pursuit of the caribou, which were at this time so plentiful that we got

everyday a sufficient number for our support, and indeed too frequently

killed several merely for the tongues, marrow, and fat. (98)

While Cordain and Eaton are certainly correct in saying that our ancestors

ate meat, their contentions about fat intake, as well as the type of fat

consumed, are simply incorrect.

While various vegetarian and vegan authorities like to think that we

evolved as a species on a vegan or vegetarian diet, there exists little from

the

realm of nutritional anthropology to support these ideas.

To begin with, in his journeys, Dr Price never once found a totally

vegetarian culture. It should be remembered that Dr. Price visited and

investigated several population groups who were, for all intents and purposes,

the

20th century equivalents of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Dr. Price was on

the lookout for a vegetarian culture, but he came up empty. Price stated:

As yet I have not found a single group of primitive racial stock which was

building and maintaining excellent bodies by living entirely on plant

foods. (99)

Anthropological data support this: throughout the globe, all societies

show a preference for animal foods and fats and our ancestors only turned to

large scale farming when they had to due to increased population pressures

(100). Abrams and other authorities have shown that prehistoric man's quest

for more animal foods was what spurred his expansion over the Earth, and

that he apparently hunted certain species to extinction. (101)

Price also found that those peoples who, out of necessity, consumed more

grains and legumes, had higher rates of dental decay than those who consumed

more animal products. In his papers on vegetarianism, Abrams presents

archaeological evidence that supports this finding: skulls of ancient peoples

who were largely vegetarian have teeth containing caries and abscesses and

show evidence of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases (102). The

appearance of farming and the increased dependence on plant foods for our

subsistence was clearly harmful to our health.

Finally, it is simply not possible for our prehistoric ancestors to have

been vegetarian because they would not have been able to get enough calories

or nutrients to survive on the plant foods that were available. The reason

for this is that humans did not know how to cook or control fire at that

time and the great majority of plant foods, especially grains and legumes,

must be cooked in order to render them edible to humans (103). Most people do

not know that many of the plant foods we consume today are poisonous in

their raw states (104).

Based on all of this evidence, it is certain that the diets of our

ancestors, the progenitors of humanity, ate a very non-vegetarian diet that was

rich in saturated fatty acids.

Myth #9: Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th

century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.

Statistics do not bear out such fancies. Butter consumption has plummeted

from 18 lb (8.165 kg) per person a year in 1900, to less than 5 lb (2.27

kg) per person a year today (105). Additionally, Westerners, urged on by

government health agencies, have reduced their intake of eggs, cream, lard, and

pork. Chicken consumption has risen in the past few decades, but chicken

is lower in saturated fat than either beef or pork.

Furthermore, a survey of cookbooks published in America in the last

century shows that people of earlier times ate plenty of animal foods and

saturated fats. For example, in the Baptist Ladies Cook Book (Monmouth,

Illinois,

1895), virtually every recipe calls for butter, cream or lard. Recipes for

creamed vegetables are numerous as well. A scan of the Searchlight Recipe

Book (Capper Publications, 1931) also has similar recipes: creamed liver,

creamed cucumbers, hearts braised in buttermilk, etc. British Jews, as shown

by the Jewish Housewives Cookbook (London, 1846), also had diets rich in

cream, butter, eggs, and lamb and beef tallows. One recipe for German waffles,

for example, calls for a dozen egg yolks and an entire pound of butter. A

recipe for Oyster Pie from the Baptist cookbook calls for a quart of cream

and a dozen eggs, and so forth and so on.

It does not appear, then, that people ate leaner diets in the last

century. It is true that beef consumption has risen in the last few decades,

but

what has also risen precipitously, however, is consumption of margarine and

other food products containing trans-fatty acids (106), lifeless, packaged

" foods " , processed vegetable oils (107), carbohydrates (108) and refined

sugar (109). Since one does not see chronic diseases like cancer and heart

disease in beef-eating native peoples like the Maasai and Samburu, it is not

possible for beef to be the culprit behind these modern epidemics. This, of

course, points the finger squarely at the other dietary factors as the most

likely causes.

Myth #10: Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy

products.

It is typical for vegans and vegetarians in the Western world to rely on

various soy products for their protein needs. There is little doubt that the

billion-dollar soy industry has profited immensely from the

anti-cholesterol, anti-meat gospel of current nutritional thought. Whereas, not

so long

ago, soy was an Asian food primarily used as a condiment, now a variety of

processed soy products proliferate in the North American market. While the

traditionally fermented soy foods of miso, tamari, tempeh and natto are

definitely healthful in measured amounts, the hyper-processed soy " foods " that

most vegetarians consume are not.

Non-fermented soybeans and foods made with them are high in phytic acid

(110), an anti-nutrient that binds to minerals in the digestive tract and

carries them out of the body. Vegetarians are known for their tendencies to

mineral deficiencies, especially of zinc (111) and it is the high phytate

content of grain and legume based diets that is to blame (112). Though several

traditional food preparation techniques such as soaking, sprouting, and

fermenting can significantly reduce the phytate content of grains and legumes

(113), such methods are not commonly known about or used by modern peoples,

including vegetarians. This places them (and others who eat a diet rich in

whole grains) at a greater risk for mineral deficiencies.

Processed soy foods are also rich in trypsin inhibitors, which hinder

protein digestion. Textured vegetable protein (TVP), soy " milk " and soy protein

powders, popular vegetarian meat and milk substitutes, are entirely

fragmented foods made by treating soybeans with high heat and various alkaline

washes to extract the beans' fat content or to neutralize their potent enzyme

inhibitors (110). These practices completely denature the beans' protein

content, rendering it very hard to digest. MSG, a neurotoxin, is routinely

added to TVP to make it taste like the various foods it imitates (114).

On a purely nutritional level, soybeans, like all legumes, are deficient

in cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids, as well as

tryptophan, another essential amino acid. Furthermore, soybeans contain no

vitamins A or D, required by the body to assimilate and utilize the beans'

proteins (115). It is probably for this reason that Asian cultures that do

consume soybeans usually combine them with fish or fish broths (abundant in

fat-soluble vitamins) or other fatty foods.

Parents who feed their children soy-based formula should be aware of its

extremely high phytoestrogen content. Some scientists have estimated a child

being fed soy formula is ingesting the hormonal equivalent of five birth

control pills a day (116). Such a high intake could have disastrous results.

Soy formula also contains no cholesterol, vital for brain and nervous

system development.

Though research is still ongoing, some recent studies have indicated that

soy's phytoestrogens could be causative factors in some forms of breast

cancer (117), penile birth defects (118), and infantile leukemia (119).

Regardless, soy's phytoestrogens, or isoflavones, have been definitely shown to

depress thyroid function (120) and to cause infertility in every animal

species studied so far (121). Clearly, modern soy products and isolated

isoflavone supplements are not healthy foods for vegetarians, vegans, or anyone

else, yet these are the very ones that are most consumed.

Myth #11: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.

Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like

herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this

proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (122). This

argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly

indicate

a design for animal product consumption.

First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid,

something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes.

Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to

handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable. Further, Dr.

Walter Voegtlin's in-depth comparison of the human digestive system with that

of the dog, a carnivore, and a sheep, a herbivore, clearly shows that we are

closer in anatomy to the carnivorous dog than the herbivorous sheep. (123)

While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are

not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many

herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed

feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla

and chimpanzee who all have been observed eating small animals and, in some

cases, other primates (124).

Myth #12: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in

humans.

Some authorities on vegetarian diet, such as Dr Ralph Ballantine (125),

claim that the fear and terror (if any, see myth #15) an animal experiences

at death is somehow " transferred " into its flesh and organs and " becomes " a

part of the person who eats it.

In addition to the fact that no scientific studies exist to support such a

theory, these thinkers would do well to remember the fact that a tendency

to irrational anger is a symptom of low vitamin B12 levels which, as we

have seen, are common in vegans and vegetarians. Furthermore, in his travels,

Dr Price always noted the extreme happiness and ingratiating natures of the

peoples he encountered, all of whom were meat-eaters.

Myth #13: Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.

A recent vegetarian newsletter claimed the following:

Most people don't realize that meat products are loaded with poisons and

toxins! Meat, fish and eggs all decompose and putrefy extremely rapidly. As

soon as an animal is killed, self-destruct enzymes are released, causing

the formation of denatured substances called ptyloamines, which cause cancer.

(126)

This article then went on to mention " mad cow disease " (BSE), parasites,

salmonella, hormones, nitrates and pesticides as toxins in animal products.

If meat, fish and eggs do indeed generate cancerous " ptyloamines, " it is

very strange that people have not been dying in droves from cancer for the

past million years. Such sensationalistic and nonsensical claims cannot be

supported by historical facts.

Hormones, nitrates and pesticides are present in commercially raised

animal products (as well as commercially raised fruits, grains and vegetables)

and are definitely things to be concerned about. However, one can avoid

these chemicals by taking care to consume range-fed, organic meats, eggs and

dairy products which do not contain harmful, man-made toxins.

Parasites are easily avoided by taking normal precautions in food

preparations. Pickling or fermenting meats, as is custom in traditional

societies,

always protects against parasites. In his travels, Dr Price always found

healthy, disease-free and parasite-free peoples eating raw meat and dairy

products as part of their diets.

Similarly, Dr Francis Pottenger, in his experiments with cats,

demonstrated that the healthiest, happiest cats were the ones on the

all-raw-food

diet. The cats eating cooked meats and pasteurized milk sickened and died and

had numerous parasites (127). Salmonella can be transmitted by plant

products as well as animal.

It is often claimed by vegetarians that meat is harmful to our bodies

because ammonia is released from the breakdown of its proteins. Although it is

true that ammonia production does result from meat digestion, our bodies

quickly convert this substance into harmless urea. The alleged toxicity of

meat is greatly exaggerated by vegetarians.

" Mad Cow Disease, " or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), is most

likely not caused by cows eating animal parts with their food, a feeding

practice that has been done for over 100 years. British organic farmer Mark

Purdey has argued convincingly that cows that get Mad Cow Disease are the very

ones that have had a particular organophosphate insecticide applied to their

backs or have grazed on soils that lack magnesium but contain high levels

of aluminum (128). Small outbreaks of " mad cow disease " have also occurred

among people who reside near cement and chemical factories and in certain

areas with volcanic soils (129).

Purdey theorizes that the organophosphate pesticides got into the cows'

fat through a spraying program, and then were ingested by the cows again with

the animal part feeding. Seen this way, it is the insecticides, via the

parts feeding (and not the parts themselves or their associated " prions " ),

that has caused this outbreak. As noted before, cows have been eating ground

up animal parts in their feeds for over 100 years. It was never a problem

before the introduction of these particular insecticides.

Recently, Purdey has gained support from Dr. Brown, a British

biochemist who has also argued for a non-infectious cause of BSE. Brown

attributes BSE to environmental toxins, specifically manganese overload (130).

Myth #14: Eating meat or animal products is less " spiritual " than eating

only plant foods.

It is often claimed that those who eat meat or animal products are somehow

less " spiritually evolved " than those who do not. Though this is not a

nutritional or academic issue, those who do include animal products in their

diet are often made to feel inferior in some way. This issue, therefore, is

worth addressing.

Several world religions place no restrictions on animal consumption; and

nor did their founders. The Jews eat lamb at their most holy festival, the

Passover. Muslims also celebrate Ramadan with lamb before entering into

their fast. Jesus Christ, like other Jews, partook of meat at the Last Supper

(according to the canonical Gospels). It is true that some forms of Buddhism

do place strictures on meat consumption, but dairy products are always

allowed. Similar tenets are found in Hinduism. As part of the Samhain

celebration, Celtic pagans would slaughter the weaker animals of the herds and

cure

their meat for the oncoming winter. It is not true, therefore, that eating

animal foods is always connected with " spiritual inferiority " .

Nevertheless, it is often claimed that, since eating meat involves the

taking of a life, it is somehow tantamount to murder. Leaving aside the

religious philosophies that often permeate this issue, what appears to be at

hand

is a misunderstanding of the life force and how it works. Modern peoples

(vegetarian and non-vegetarian) have lost touch with what it takes to survive

in our world--something native peoples never lose sight of. We do not

necessarily hunt or clean our meats: we purchase steaks and chops at the

supermarket. We do not necessarily toil in rice paddies: we buy bags of brown

rice; and so forth, and so on.

When Native Americans killed a game animal for food, they would routinely

offer a prayer of thanks to the animal's spirit for giving its life so that

they could live. In our world, life feeds off life. Destruction is always

balanced with generation. This is a good thing: unchecked, the life force

becomes cancerous. If animal food consumption is viewed in this manner, it is

hardly murder, but sacrifice. Modern peoples would do well to remember

this.

Myth #15: Eating animal foods is inhumane.

Without question, some commercially raised livestock live in deplorable

conditions where sickness and suffering are common. In countries like Korea,

food animals such as dogs are sometimes killed in horrific ways, e.g.,

beaten to death with a club. Our recommendations for animal foods consumption

most definitely do not endorse such practices.

As noted in our discussion of myth #1, commercial farming of livestock

results in an unhealthy food product, whether that product be meat, milk,

butter, cream or eggs. Our ancestors did not consume such substandard

foodstuffs, and neither should we.

It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, preferably

Biodynamic, farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient,

and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. Each

person should make every effort, then, to purchase organically raised livestock

(and plant foods). Not only does this better support our bodies, as

organic foods are more nutrient-dense (131) and are free from hormone and

pesticide residues, but this also supports smaller farms and is therefore

better

for the economy (132).

Nevertheless, many people have philosophical problems with eating animal

flesh, and these sentiments must be respected. Dairy products and eggs,

though, are not the result of an animal's death and are fine alternatives for

these people.

It should also not be forgotten that agriculture, which involves both the

clearance of land to plant crops and the protection and maintenance of

those crops, results in many animal deaths (133). The belief, therefore, that

" becoming vegetarians " will somehow spare animals from dying is one with no

foundation in fact.

The Value of Vegetarianism

As a cleansing diet, vegetarianism is sometimes a good choice. Several

health conditions (e.g., gout) can often be ameliorated by a temporary

reduction in animal products with an increase of plant foods. But such measures

must not be continuous throughout life: there are vital nutrients found only

in animal foods that we must ingest for optimal health. Furthermore, there

is no one diet that will work for every person. Some vegetarians and vegans,

in their zeal to get converts, are blind to this biochemical fact.

" Biochemical individuality " is a subject worth clarifying. Coined by

nutritional biochemist , PhD, the term refers to the fact that

different people require different nutrients based on their unique genetic

make-up. Ethnic and racial background figure in this concept as well. A diet

that works for one may not work as well for someone else. As a practitioner,

I've seen several clients following a vegetarian diet with severe health

problems: obesity, candidiasis, hypothyroidism, cancer, diabetes, leaky gut

syndrome, anemia and chronic fatigue. Because of the widespread rhetoric

that a vegetarian diet is " always healthier " than a diet that includes meat or

animal products, these people saw no reason to change their diet, even

though that was the cause of their problems. What these people actually needed

for optimal health was more animal foods and fats and fewer carbohydrates.

Further, due to peculiarities in genetics and individual biochemistry,

some people simply cannot do a vegetarian diet because of such things as

lectin intolerance and desaturating enzyme deficiencies. Lectins present in

legumes, a prominent feature of vegetarian diets, are not tolerated by many

people. Others have grain sensitivities, especially to gluten, or to grain

proteins in general. Again, since grains are a major feature of vegetarian

diets, such people cannot thrive on them. (134)

Desaturase enzyme deficiencies are usually present in those people of

Innuit, Scandinavian, Northern European, and sea coast ancestry. They lack the

ability to convert alpha-linolenic acid into EPA and DHA, two omega-3 fatty

acids intimately involved in the function of the immune and nervous

systems. The reason for this is because these people's ancestors got an

abundance

of EPA and DHA from the large amounts of cold-water fish they ate. Over

time, because of non-use, they lost the ability to manufacture the necessary

enzymes to create EPA and DHA in their bodies. For these people,

vegetarianism is simply not possible. They MUST get their EPA and DHA from food

and

EPA is only found in animal foods. DHA is present in some algae, but the

amounts are much lower than in fish oils. (135)

It is also apparent that vegan diets are not suitable for all people due

to inadequate cholesterol production in the liver and cholesterol is only

found in animal foods. It is often said that the body makes enough

cholesterol to get by and that there is no reason to consume foods that contain

it

(animal foods). Recent research, however, has shown otherwise. Singer's work

at the University of California, Berkeley, has shown that the cholesterol in

eggs improves memory in older people (136). In other words, these elderly

people's own cholesterol was insufficient to improve their memory, but

added dietary cholesterol from eggs was.

Though it appears that some people do well on little or no meat and remain

healthy as lacto-vegetarians or lacto-ovo-vegetarians, the reason for this

is because these diets are healthier for those people, not because they're

healthier in general. However, a total absence of animal products, whether

meat, fish, insects, eggs, butter or dairy, is to be avoided. Though it

may take years, problems will eventually ensue under such dietary regimes and

they will certainly show in future generations. Dr. Price's seminal

research unequivocally demonstrated this. The reason for this is simple

evolution: humanity evolved eating animal foods and fats as part of its diet,

and

our bodies are suited and accustomed to them. One cannot change evolution in

a few years.

Dr. Abrams said it well when he wrote:

Humans have always been meat-eaters. The fact that no human society is

entirely vegetarian, and those that are almost entirely vegetarian suffer from

debilitated conditions of health, seems unequivocally to prove that a

plant diet must be supplemented with at least a minimum amount of animal

protein to sustain health. Humans are meat-eaters and always have been. Humans

are also vegetable eaters and always have been, but plant foods must be

supplemented by an ample amount of animal protein to maintain optimal

health.(137)

Author's Notes:

The author would like to thank Sally Fallon, MA; Lee Clifford, MS, CCN;

and Dr. H. Leon Abrams, Jr., for their gracious assistance in preparing and

reviewing this paper.

This paper was not sponsored or paid for by the meat or dairy industries.

Sign In

The Myths of Vegetarianism

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity