Active Users:520 Time:24/11/2024 09:55:03 PM
Re: what have you researched? - Edit 2

Before modification by lyringlas at 16/03/2010 05:35:02 PM

As an animal science student (and a veterinary student), I feel confident in saying that proper portions of red meat are perfectly healthy, and that the way meat is produced in this country causes no harm to your food. Perhaps organic meat might be "better", but that does not make conventionally produced meat "bad". Certainly, the US could not meet our own demands, much less that of other countries, producing meat in an "organic" method.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against "organic" meat (although I have my own personal problems with the labeling, hence the use of quotations). I just do not see enough facts backing up claims that it is the great savior of people's culinary experience people say it is, nor do I see enough facts backing up claims that conventionally produced meat is the pariah that people make it out to be. So I'd be interested in what you've read.

PS. Just so you know, the label "free-range" is a bucket full of crock.


I understand the "free range" label can be a barrel full of shit, as in the chickens have access to a tiny side yard with a small door that they open for part of the day.

As for how meat is bad for our systems: Sure, a couple of ounces of red meat is not a problem....a 10 ounce steak though? 3 times a week? Our intestines, stomach acid, etc are not designed to break down that much decaying meat like say, a cats intestines would. Although we're omnivores, we have the intestinal structure more akin to herbivores, in that it is 10-15 times the length of our body, as opposed to a true carnivore's which is much less, and equipped with the means to breakdown rapidly decaying animal proteins fast (i.e. canine teeth in the plenty, very very strong stomach acid, etc)

and I understand that "organic" can mean really only a step away from industrial farming, as in it is the industrial farms producing the "organic" materials 1 field over from where they're producing everything the conventional method. Industrial organic, although I despise it, is still much better than industrial farming which gulps down petroleum at alarming rates. (As in, it takes 10-15 calories of petroleum now to produce 1 calorie of edible food)

as an animal scientist, how can you say meat production doesn't harm the cattle? They're not made to eat corn and other grains, especially in the quantities we're pumping into them. Their entire digestive track gets drastically acidic and causes them pain, not to mention their stomachs expanding to painful, dangerous proportions because of the mucousy film that closes off the top (due to eating corn). Grass fed cattle are much more A) sustainable B) healthier for the environment, because they (the cattle) aren't destroying the environment with fecal lagoons, and c) healthier for the animals themselves because their digestive tracks are designed for eating grass, with a PH of 7.

I'm all about sustainability. By this, I mean: asparagus flown in from Chile, garlic from China, beef from Brazil, pigs from Mexico, etc etc are not viable options for a healthy world. Society is gorged on corn, soybeans, and petroleum and it is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Even if you don't agree with all of this, can you not agree that CAFOs are the cause of lots of super viruses, such as the H1N1 that came from the pig factory farms in Mexico (this was not Mexico's fault, as the farms are owned by American companies)? What about the "mad cow" disease? The cows are only getting that because originally we were feeding them their own species, and when we realized that was a problem, we fed the dead cows to chickens and then the chickens to the cows instead (this is only 1 degree distance cannibalism....it still has problems).

Are you saying you disagree, Lorraine?

Return to message