Foods Not Suitable for Vegetarian Consumption (Part 1)

Have to agree big time there! It is difficult and costlyto find hormone free beef, but chicken is prettyeasy to find.(altho pretty costly as well) Whole Foods has a terrific selection, if you can find one nearby! (Our nearest is 1 1/2 hour away....)

Prepackaged foods are bad. Period. REALLY bad.

Two years ago, I lost 100lbs. I stopped eating fast food completely, no soda, no junk food. Add in some exercise, and bam! Now, the though of eating fast food literally revolts me. READ LABELS! Prepackaged foods have sugar, sodium, and fat as the top ingredients. I am of the mind set that if you can't pronounce the word, you shouldn't ingest the ingredient.

Splarf!!!!!! LOLOLOL Ohohooh.....ouch

I suspect you are really going to have to look to find any meat product from any animal that is hormone-free. Since the hormones you want them to be free of are naturally produced by the animals themselves. Just another marketing tactic, that is apparently quite an effective scare tactic to use on some people. You know like the use of the term Organic in fruit and vegetable production.

Hormones naturally produced by livestock and those amplified by the agro-industrial complex are two distinct things. I would rather be exposed to the former than the latter. I don't see it as a marketing tactic. I see it as educating and protecting myself and my family.

I can also choose to purchase and consume spinach, lettuce, etc. that is not laden with agrichemicals. Wouldn't you?

Sometimes they are the exact same hormones, just augmenting the natural production rates of the animals. Organic foods can still be laden with agrichemicals, they still use fertilizers, just specific poorly controlled fertilizers. Plus the soil is typically the source for the heavy metals in foods, and the e coli comes from manures. All of which is allowed in organic foods. In addition use of high organic content fertilizers, means they act as chelating agents for the low mobility heavy metals in soils allowing the plants to bioaccumulate higher concentrations. Also, Prions can be transferred in the manure of anumals, and are extremely long enduring compounds. So maybe you trade a chance of exposure to a non-accumulating pesticide that degrades rapidly to a chance of chronic exposure to mercury/lead and acute E Coli (or other Bacteria or prion) infection.

Hmm, well you have show that they use progesterone, the same hormone you take as part of your birth control pill regiment and BGH (which the ambiguity of the acronym does not make it scary and hide that it is Bovine Growth Horomone).

So it is a natural The fact of the matter is still that in recent years the biggest public concerns and deaths have been tied to fecal contamination of plant based foods. E Coli is naturally occurring in fecal material, as are many other more dangerous bacteria in human fecal material. This is a very direct and transparent exposure pathway, unlike the possible links to something that may lead to a 1 in 1 million chance of some cancer developing maybe in 70 years (that is the chronic exposure carcinogenic risk time frame for exposures). Even something classified as carcinogenic could have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance through chronic exposure for 70 years of causing a cancer. plus something as ubiquitous as prostrate and breast cancer, those always seem to be linked to every natural hormone in the human body. The most telling quote is the last part stating there are a lot of unknowns around rBGH. We know definitively how people die of E. Coli infection from spinach and such. We also definitively know how plants bio-accumulate heavy metals and how organics in manure chelate those heavy metals, we actually use that process in phyto remediation of contaminated sites. However, they seem to be unwilling to state definitively that exposure will pose a risk just that it could pose a risk. You also need to realize processes 100 years ago, no one cared or knew if someone died of a bacterial infection or anything else for that matter. Most of the understanding behind causes like bacteria and some chronic poisonings are only 50 to 150 years old. There are known risks that seem to get over looked until someone dies, and then we move on a few months later and forget it, such as E. Coli poisoning of children by eating fecal contaminated vegetables. Then there are those risk where they say may pose a risk of causing such and such through chronic exposure.... In the long run we could not support the world population through organic measures alone, this is why the agrochemical industry exist. since agrochemicals are expensive, you must realize they are more effective in increase yields then the cost they incur, especially since farmers only see pennies on the dollar for food products, and the remaining cost is accrued in the numerous brokers, shipping, packaging, cleaning, and distribution/storage. From that farmers penny he must plant and grow the crops, pay the pest control and fertilizer consultants, pay for fertilizers and pesticides, pay the irrigation costs and operations costs, etc.. If you want the world to eat cheap ( or free) you must augment natural processes and find someone willing to work for cheap (free) on farms, or decide to let people starve so you can have your ideological belief system.

Or you can revert to zero till, strip cultivation, crop rotation and stocked fallow - and reduce the chemical inputs to unity replacement - and increase profit and output over your chemically addicted neighbors. (And serve raspberries as dessert after the spinach)

Nice use of jargon. Had I not receive one of my degrees in Soils Science, it would have looked impressive. FYI, the production will not be greater than your " chemically addicted" neighbors, since those neighbors are also trying for chemical inputs equivalent to replacement needed for crops, and crop rotation is a standard practice particularly rotations of crops like alfalfa (Some crops must be rotated just as a practice to control disease and pests). BTW you forgot all the jargon words for water conservation which is a big deal in the huge agricultural areas like California and Texas.

Or you can revert to zero till, strip cultivation, crop rotation and stocked fallow - and reduce the chemical inputs to unity replacement -

The first part what you just stated, thats called sustainable agriculture. and there is a place for it.

but this;

- and reduce the chemical inputs to unity replacement - and increase profit and output over your chemically addicted neighbors.

I do not believe you are knowledgeable and I am taking this just as your opinion, you are using increase profit and output just as the words, with nothing to back it up.

look at the history on how production rose since the 1800's or even the 1900's due to chemical use.

Problem with that is when the government subsidies are remove. A majority of these farmers will be off the farm and working in the city before years end. And the land turned into development for your new homes.

given the choice today between buying groceries from farmers who use chemicals, and the farmers that don't. I would go with the ones that do........unless of course you have a weight problem.

p911

"I do not believe you are knowledgeable and I am taking this just as your opinion, you are using increase profit and output just as the words, with nothing to back it up"

A bit harsh - but you're free to believe what you want.

Yes subsidized farming is on a 'false base' in US, UK etc. - but that is agri-politics and you get the food you vote for. No subsidized farming of this ilk in Australia.

Perhaps a neutral way to "bring you up to speed" is to watch this Australian program. Food quality is lauded as the highest in the world, as is farming efficiency.

Start here perhaps; Russian Revolution - Landline - ABC

There is also great wealth of other knowledge in this program. It spans some 20 years of rural reporting. Even tracking the progress of several farms rejuvenating land, (and profit) run down by 'conventional practices'. It may cause you to rethink "that's called sustainable agriculture. and there is a place for it"

My weight? 76.5 kg - hardly a problem, unless of course I'm 3 ft tall

I apologize for it was a bit harsh, I was reflecting off of the results in our country on sustainable Agriculture and being so ignorant on farming practices outside of the US, than you for the link, thou I am not total ignorant I did hear about the quality from down under.

and your correct;

The government was pouring in money to these farmers that tried it, had huge articles on their successes, but when the subsidies were dropped. the farms were actioned and reverted to the more conventional agriculture.

Thanks for the link.

Yes subsidized farming is on a 'false base' in US, UK etc. - but that is agri-politics and you get the food you vote for

so true, subsidies is a complex issue.

p911

Actually the most highly intensive agricultural crops, cold crops fruits, etc. are typically not subsidized in any way. Lettuce, Artichokes, Broccoli, etc. the government of the US does not subsidize. They do subsizie grains that are deemed necessary to maintain a stable production rate for self sufficiency against the global changes in markets, thus allowing grain product, milk and other limited product (except tobacco which was a bad loophole subsidy) that are deemed necessary for the health of the public. However, the grain production doesn't approach anywhere close to what the input orf water or chemicals are for cold crops, especially crops that have to be visually aesthetically pleasing in the market to sell, e.g. water melons, canteloupe, cherries, oranges, etc.

Also you should note that the term agronomic rates was based on, initially, the concept of applications at rates that are effectively utilized by the crop to maximize production returns with minimal input cost. (It has since evolved through efforts of enviroactivists and their lack of understanding of the terminology to a broader meaning that includes environmental impacts.) Agricultural intersts since WW II have been studying the cost benefits of applications rates to return the highest profits per unit with the least input costs. You can not increase unit profits rates by cutting agrichemical investments, as these are typically nearly optimized. the only way this economics changes is to drastically increase the cost of the agrichemicals relative to marketable prices of the products. Oh and as far as Australia goes, I provide large scale water conveyance design work and some of the components manaufacturers for these are from Australia. Australia does subsidize farming by subsidizing water costs, though apparently extremely discretely, which is a huge cost in farming. The UK, Spain, Belgium and most of Western Europe practices extremely protectionist practices to keep agriculture at home productive, thing like sugar beets are subsidized, not just necessities. The main thing to consider is who do you ahve to compete with and who gains from protecting the industry. No non-technical european industry can compete with Asian or new world businesses, they must be susidized in some manner (labor is just too expensive and doesn't produce at the rate or total man hours, which is importnant in non-technical fields of labor such as harvesting). The US isn't protecting its business and labor forces but rather its public welfare (in general, tobacco is a example of protectionism) so high money crops are not so protected, rather necessity crops are. Countries without much exportation or competition don't have to concern themselves about world markets and potential flooding of the markets driving production locally out for the next few years, and reducing long term productive capacity for times of crisis.

Regarding farming efficiency, that is easy, measure the total land under production and the total net revenues after taxes. What is the averaged net revenues per acre? Much of what seems to occur on the large scale infrastructural works for agriculture in Australia now are the same types of things you saw occurring in the 1950s through 1970s in California or Texas. Land reclamations, water conveyances, etc.. Eventually, these processes will stop though when the splintered networks of environmental activists start popping up to preserve every special interest, and you have groups all over with very contrary preservationist perspectives and agendas. The cost of doing business will increase.

There are subsidize if there is a crop failure (cherries foze), or moneys for putting up deer fencing and other pest, I would call that subsidies.

Actually the deer fencing and such aren't as much to subsidize farming as to protect the deer as muich as possible because the farmers have a blanket take permit for pests. They pay the farmers to protect the deer from the farmers having to kill them for being pests. The government subsidized pest control measures that are atypical more for the benefit of the pests and the perceived benefit to the local environment. These are subsidies of environmental activists agendas, not the farming businesses.

Crop failures are insured and farmer have to pay into their insurance programs for those to be covered, much like flood insurance.though there are government low interst loans and some grants, ad many state do try to persuade USDA and the federal government to offset some of the profits lost to the farmers adter insurance reimbursement coverage, which actually doesn't happen all that much.

There are programs that subsidize not growing crops, and some of the wealthiest growers take advantage of those and fallow ground, but that is not really a subsidy of the business of farming as much as a subsidy of not farming for some perceive public interest.

In truth the US provides most subsidies to farmer to implement non-farming related programs, except some deemed crops necessary like corn, wheat and milk. where the government fixes a price point and subsidizes those industries heavily to keep them viable and keep the food products prices down.

getting into the set aside programs (basically pay farmers not to grow crops) corporate farms take advantage of this. (owners with business suits that probably never step on a fresh plowed field.) is way too complex for me to get involved in right now.

And the deer permits are issued by the DNR and there is a limit, usually based on the warden's issuing the permits, intelligence. i.e. a WAG.

The fencing is paid by the tax payers.

p911

"Australia does subsidize farming by subsidizing water costs, though apparently extremely discretely"

LOL - so "discreetly", thousands of farmers would love to know. Do explain

It was truly not my intent to offend anyone here.

Just making a generalized point about how people label themselves as something they are clearly, to others, or unknowingly (rather than clueless) not.

I do take great exception to the WAY in which a great many of 'these' people often proselytise their very religious beliefs on the subject.

I have no issue with someone being, or eating whatever or however they want, so long as I don't have to follow 'their' rules and am, unsuccessfully, made to feel guilty.

Isn't the act of growing a non-native food source species in a soil having an impact on the soil biosphere and thus the animal life that exist in that soil? Also doesn't it avdersely impact the habitat for native animal species that once survived in the areas where that soil is being used to grow food stuff?

So according to the definition provided, Vegans can only really survive on foods they have gathered from naturally occurring and not artificially fostered or planted by man. That has to be a very time demanding diet, how does your doctor find the time to work?

I have been a quasi-vegetarian (I still eat some cheese and milk, but no meat or fish) for twenty years and I have never been told by my doctor that I need to change my diet to get more protein etc... In fact I have been told by my doctor and others that I appear to be about half my age both in appearance and fitness level. I am convinced that this is in large part due to diet. My genetics is certainly not a positive factor as both my parents have had heart attacks and other health issues. So, for those who think that vegetarians are 'pansies' I would say think what you want but I am certain that it has improved my health and life substantially.

were your parents meat eaters?

I think genetics does play a large part, as in how the proteins are processed.

Though I am only an amateur at best, and if not correct I'm sure I will be corrected. As mentioned in an earlier post about meat being acidic. as I understand it Cholesterol is actually a type of bandage, and any injury to the arteries cholesterol will patch a patch on this, which in turn leads to clodded arteries.

Its interesting how this effects, and I myself am a meat eater.I had a scope done to check out my arteries about 4 years agp because of some health issues, and the doctor did say artieries were like a 20yo. I was 45 at the time. I was healthy, exercised, very active, but I always had high cherstyol naturally over 280's from health exams even 15 years prior, but never treated, and diet was good. I started taking lipitor and it did drop to 88.

And to be a vegetarian to any degree can be good for people depends on thier metabolism.

p911

I can expand a bit on another of the issues

fats are not created equal,

Here's an overview of your guts ability to digest, be irritated by fats, going from the best

Oily fish actually promotes digestive health

turkey or other fowl, with the white meat being better

pork once again the leaner cuts being better

beef being the hardest for your gut to process

for a much more detailed explanation

Eating Right For A Bad Gut

My gut sensitive to salt

I eat a good salty ground beef hamburger & 6 hours later pay the price

the evil cheese like substance isn't my friend either

other ground meats depend how much fat & what other evil chemicals are used for flavoring/processing.

have the butcher grind up pork, chicken or turkey, no problem, pre packaged require more moderation for me.

balance seems to be the key in my life, I eat too much raw or slightly cooked veggies & I'm repeatin' like a howitzer

vegetable oils aren't all created equal...

when the label says hydrogenated, it means the manufacturer had figured out how to combine oil & water, cause who wouldn't want to sell water another reason this is done:

greatly increased shelf life.

but it does give rise to trans fats, which in a way bypass the digestion process, being water soluble

I'll leave that last bit hanging to see if it gets any traction.....

This reminds me of a show i was watching about gorillas. They were discussing why the males had such large extended bellies and why gorillas fart so much. Apparently Gorillas are nearly vegetarians, they eat some bugs and such. However, all that vegetative matter generates a lot of gas in the digestive tract and this extends their bellies after eating. Also they will crap and then check their crap for, i guess the way to put it is, digestive quality. Because gorillas digestive tracts are so extremely poor at extracting sufficient nutrients from their nearly completely plant based diet, they tend to consume their excrement to extract additional nutrition. they will do this repeatedly until the excrement is fully broken down and more of the extractable nutrients are removed. Basically, it is something like a human eating corn, digesting and excreting waste, then checking to see if the corn has degraded, if not then eating the waste until the corn is acceptably degraded bi digestion. I wonder how that is on the digestive tract? It is definitely a gassy process.

Neither of my parents are vegetarian. And I was not nearly as healthy until I became one.

Good for you to be able to adjust yourself. Being healthy can be a gift that many people don't always recognize

For those who were not aware, Part Two of this series is up and running.

Just got around to reading this blog. Lots of laughs and enjoyed the bantering. However it seemed to miss one important fact or if it was discussed I glossed over the section and failed to read it.

If I remember my nutrition classes, the true vegan will miss vitamin B12 because the enzymes required to aid the body in the adsorption of this essential vitamin is only found in meat bacteria. Pernicious anemia can result from this deficiency. Iron deficient anemia can be prevented in a vegan diet laced in lentils and beans. But the B12 enzymes are only found in meat. The lack of vitamin B12 can seriously affect the nervous system and DNA building. The deficiency can lead to memory loss and fatigue. So if you are going to practice true vegan-ism, then you must supplement your diet with B12 as you find in health stores and pharmacies. It is as I recall the only drawback to being a vegan. You must know what to eat and how much to eat but I have no doubt a vegan can lead a healthy life style and avoid other issues that omnivores can encounter.

By the way, what is white meat in a rabbit? I was raised in a Northern Ontario mining town(s) with a large family. We boys(5) were assigned snare lines for rabbits, so yeah, we ate a lot of rabbit mostly in stew. The only white I recall was the white fur of snowshoe rabbits in winter. Mostly the meat was red. And yes it was in the 50s and early 60s that we trapped the rabbits for food. PETA would have loved the not so humane strangling of the rabbit (occasionally we would find a live catch and had to club the rabbit but a lot just froze in the trap). I do not regret those days and the rabbits never went to waste; however, I did not teach my now grown kids how to trap.

Via Wikipedia:

Vitamin B12 is found in foods that come from animals, including fish and shellfish, meat (especially liver), poultry, eggs, milk, and milk products. One half chicken breast provides some 0.3 µg (micrograms) per serving or 6.0% of one's daily value (DV); 3 ounces of beef, 2.4 µg, or 40% of one's DV; one slice of liver 47.9 µg or 780% of DV; and 3 ounces of molluscs 84.1 µg, or 1,400% of DV.

Eggs are often mentioned as a good B12 source, but they also contain a factor (avidin) that blocks absorption. Certain insects such as termites contain B12 produced by their gut bacteria, in a way analogous to ruminant animals. An NIH Fact Sheet lists a variety of food sources of vitamin B12.

While lacto-ovo vegetarians usually get enough B12 through consuming dairy products, vegans will lack B12 unless they consume multivitamin supplements or B12-fortified foods. Examples of fortified foods include fortified breakfast cereals, fortified soy products, fortified energy bars, and fortified nutritional yeast. According to the UK Vegan Society, the present consensus is that any B12 present in plant foods is likely to be unavailable to humans because B12 analogues can compete with B12 and inhibit metabolism.

I have also heard that B12 stays in the body for a long time, so if you used to eat meat, you have an adequate amount of B12 for years to come. So vegans will miss out on B12 unless they consume foods fortified with B12 or take a multivitamin.

Thanks JAXY

I agree with everything you stated except with the accumulation of B12 in the body for years. Vitamin B12 is water soluble and as such will be excreted every day. You may find this article of interest.

Like I said, it was "hearsay" and I didn't really do much research to find links that supported my statement. I will read your article when I get a chance.