Vegetarianism

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: barts In fact, I am. I have no interest in the life style choices anyone on this debate forum might make. Everything I post is an honestly held view of the evidence that I've reviewed. Based on the comments so far, it's clear I have studied this subject far more than most. If you are interested in the subject, which I doubt, let me suggest the John Hopkins University Open Courseware Food Production, Public Health, and the Environment. Perhaps after you've actually studied the subject, even peripherally, you'll be able to offer comments that have some merit. To characterize me as "not ... honest" is absurd. As for impartiality, I'm not impartial about anything. That is why we have debates.

So you say. But the fact still remains that you've claimed that meat eaters live in "a state of chronic sickness and ill health". This is going far beyond what the evidence actually says.

Quote by: barts As for the life style choice of consuming animal-based foods, apart from the enjoyment of consuming them, they have not enough enough nutritional value to recommend them.

Right, so an argument that we shouldn’t eat meat only works if you take out the enjoyment factor. Trouble is, that’s a pretty big factor.

Quote by: barts Again, rather than address the issue you choose to disparage the messenger. Perhaps the reason is that there is no valid nutritional case for the consumption of animal-based foods. Indeed, that's the reason why all nutritionists encourage an increase in the consumption of plant-based foods and only industry encourages the consumption of animal-based foods. But, of course, disparaging the messenger is the refuge of those with nothing relevant to offer about an issue.

No one is trying to make a case that meat is healthier than vegetables; just as no one tries to make the case that beer is healthier than water. Doesn’t mean we’ll be chronically unhealthy if we drink beer once in a while. The reason you are being challenged is not because people disagree with the information you’re working from; it’s because they disagree with the conclusions you’re drawing and judgements you’re making.

Quote by: barts As well, those who consume larger amounts of animal-based foods are always in a state of sub-optimal health. That's what the evidence shows.

Quote by: barts It's not possible to make a valid medical or nutritional case for the consumption of a predominately animal-based food diet.

Right, but no one eats a predominately animal-based diet, so the argument is irrelevant.

Quote by: barts The less animal-based foods you eat, the better off you'll be nutritionally. There is no getting around the fact.

While that may be so, this increase in nutritional wellbeing does not, as you claim, necessarily mean noticeable or significant health benefits.

Quote by: barts Of course, I did not argue that consuming an animal-based diet was nihilist. I did point out that to make the argument that justifying that particular lifestyle choice by referencing that fact that other behaviors are also dangerous and death is inevitable is a nihilistic argument. The argument is nihilistic not the lifestyle choice.

It would be a nihilistic argument if he were saying that his life has no value. No one here is saying that life has no value; they’re simply saying that there are other factors which also have value, e.g. enjoyment.

Quote by: barts Anything in small enough quantities poses minimal risks. Even a small enough quantity of arsenic poses little harm. I doubt that one cigarette a week would result in a detectable decline in health. But from this does it follow that taking arsenic and smoking a cigarette a week are healthy lifestyle choices? Of course not.

If it’s not doing any damage to your health, it’s not an unhealthy lifestyle choice. The problem with your argument is that you’re taking nutritionally beneficial to mean healthy. However, while something may have a small nutritional benefit over something else, that doesn’t necessarily translate into any practical or noticeable health benefits. To say that meat is less nutritious than vegetables is supported by your evidence. To say that eating meat is necessarily unhealthy is not.

Quote by: barts One poster, yukonmuffin, wonders if I can refute your claims. I'd be happy to oblige, but first perhaps you could provide sources for your claims. For example, you claim that antibiotics used on cows are not used on humans. This is false. Let me provide a quote, Quote: Tetracycline, penicillin, erythromycin, and other antimicrobials that are important in human use are used extensively in the absence of disease for nontherapeutic purposes in today's livestock production. Cattle, swine, and poultry are routinely given antimicrobials throughout their lives. Many of the antimicrobials given to livestock are important in human medicine. Hogging It!: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock (2001) So before I respond to your other claims, please provide references to support you statements.

I don’t deny there’s some overlap in the drugs used. The point is that the range of antibiotics used is sufficiently different to pose minimal risk to human medicine. Experts estimate that a very small proportion of resistant bacteria come from farm animals[1]. Given that the risk of being infected by a dangerously resistant pathogen is very small in the first place, I don’t think you can make a convincing case that eating meat is unhealthy in terms of bacteria.

On top of this, resistant bacteria are found even in animals which have not been treated with antibiotics[2], so even the resistant bacteria found in herds which use antibiotics can’t be put down entirely to the use of said antibiotics.

1. Casewell, Bywater, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2000, 46, 644-645

2. Gebreyes, Wondwossen, Thakur, Siddhartha, Morrow, Morgan, Journal of Food Protection. 2006, 69, 743-748

[barts]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy [Eating meat is not] doing any damage to your health, it’s not an unhealthy lifestyle choice. The problem with your argument is that you’re taking nutritionally beneficial to mean healthy. However, while something may have a small nutritional benefit over something else, that doesn’t necessarily translate into any practical or noticeable health benefits. To say that meat is less nutritious than vegetables is supported by your evidence. To say that eating meat is necessarily unhealthy is not. .... I don’t deny there’s some overlap in the drugs used. The point is that the range of antibiotics used is sufficiently different to pose minimal risk to human medicine. Experts estimate that a very small proportion of resistant bacteria come from farm animals[1]. Given that the risk of being infected by a dangerously resistant pathogen is very small in the first place, I don’t think you can make a convincing case that eating meat is unhealthy in terms of bacteria. On top of this, resistant bacteria are found even in animals which have not been treated with antibiotics[2], so even the resistant bacteria found in herds which use antibiotics can’t be put down entirely to the use of said antibiotics. 1. Casewell, Bywater, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2000, 46, 644-645 2. Gebreyes, Wondwossen, Thakur, Siddhartha, Morrow, Morgan, Journal of Food Protection. 2006, 69, 743-748

Most of your post agreed with the points I've being making about the differences between animal-based and plant-based foods. As well, a major quibble seemed to be about my attitude. Hardly something worth a rebuttal. The only two arguably substantive points are in the quote above.

Let's deal with the first one which argues that eating animal-based foods is not an unhealthy lifestyle choice with a hypothetical experiment. Let me begin by stating the obvious, people can eat animal-based foods in modest or small proportions and be "healthy". However, healthy is not a state of being, it is a continuum. Two people can be deemed healthy, but one can be healthier and less at risk for various diseases than the other. This too is obvious. Like all animals, human beings have resilience and can withstand some insult and still thrive.

Now to the experiment. Take one plate and put a 250 gram piece of properly cooked steak on it. The steak will contain about 475 calories. Take another plate and on it put 475 calories worth of plant-based foods (legumes, fruit, vegetables, grains, etc.) with the equivalent nutritional value as the steak. Now ask any qualified nutritionist, dietitian, medical researcher, oncologist, cardiologist, etc. which plate of food, from a nutritional and health standpoint, is preferred. None will pick the steak. The reasons are many, but one is that the plant-based foods do not contain the cholesterol and unhealthy fats in the meat. Nor does the meat contain any of the necessary dietary fiber. The list goes on.

My conclusion from the research is that for health (and a wide range of other) reasons a vegan diet is optimum, but that people can consume small amounts of high quality animal-based foods (not from modern industrialized farmed sources) with a low chance of detrimental health outcomes. Indeed, most people will be able to resist the detrimental effects. However, the more animal-based foods a person consumes, particularly if they are from industrialized agriculture sources, the greater the risks to health.

On the issue of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production, no health agencies agree with what you seem to be implying in your statement that the health concerns are inconsequential. An Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof, Pathogens in Our Pork, is an easily understandably overview of the issue. For something more scientific, consider Antibiotics in Animal Feed and Spread of Resistant Campylobacter from Poultry to Humans. Another article from the popular press is The Overuse of Antibiotics in Lifestock Feed Is Killing Us. And, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Antibiotic Use in Agriculture is Helping Drive Antibiotic Resistance in Humans, Experts Say.

The preponderance of current evidence is clear and increasing, the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture is a public health threat,and has likely contributed to human deaths from antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Only agri-business interests promote the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. Public health agencies do not.

For something more alarming try Factory Farmed Meat Can Trigger a Global Pandemic That Wipes Out 60% of Those Infected.

It's for you to assess the evidence and to decide how you might use the information in your lifestyle choices. As I say, eat meat if you want, just don't do it because you think it's healthy lifestyle choice, it's not. The same advise can be made about alcohol and candy.

In passing, it's may be interesting to note that the antagonistic tone of posts that disagree with the evidence about animal-based foods that I've been presenting--and even me presenting it--is reminiscent of the early days when tobacco came under attack and in the early days, again, at the beginning of the "fitness revolution". People who gave up cigarettes in those days or went jogging were considered somewhat "odd' and "flakes" and their evidence was discounted and ridiculed. Interesting, isn't it, how people respond when their cultures and lifestyles are shown to be wanting or detrimental.

[barts]

For those who might be interested, American Meat: A Threat to Your Health and to the Environment is a book review that appeared in the Yale Journal of Health, Policy, and Ethics.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: barts On the issue of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production, no health agencies agree with what you seem to be implying in your statement that the health concerns are inconsequential. An Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof, Pathogens in Our Pork, is an easily understandably overview of the issue. For something more scientific, consider Antibiotics in Animal Feed and Spread of Resistant Campylobacter from Poultry to Humans. Another article from the popular press is The Overuse of Antibiotics in Lifestock Feed Is Killing Us. And, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Antibiotic Use in Agriculture is Helping Drive Antibiotic Resistance in Humans, Experts Say. The preponderance of current evidence is clear and increasing, the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture is a public health threat,and has likely contributed to human deaths from antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Only agri-business interests promote the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. Public health agencies do not. For something more alarming try Factory Farmed Meat Can Trigger a Global Pandemic That Wipes Out 60% of Those Infected.

All that is said in any of them is that use of antibiotics on animals can result in resistant bacteria which can be transmitted to humans. No one is denying that. The issue is whether the health risk is at all significant in terms of my choice of diet. Your links don’t address this, whereas the studies I quoted do. Given how unlikely a person is to be infected by any kind of dangerously resistant bacteria, how small a proportion of dangerous resistant bacteria are believed to come from farm animals, and the fact that they have been found even in animals unexposed to antibiotics, I don’t think you can conclude that eating meat is an unhealthy lifestyle choice in terms of bacterial infection.

Quote by: Barts It's for you to assess the evidence and to decide how you might use the information in your lifestyle choices. As I say, eat meat if you want, just don't do it because you think it's healthy lifestyle choice, it's not. The same advise can be made about alcohol and candy.

Right, but it’s not a foregone conclusion that a diet containing candy or alcohol will be an unhealthy diet; nor that those following the diet will live in a state of “chronic sickness and ill health”.

Quote by: barts Let's deal with the first one which argues that eating animal-based foods is not an unhealthy lifestyle choice with a hypothetical experiment. Let me begin by stating the obvious, people can eat animal-based foods in modest or small proportions and be "healthy". However, healthy is not a state of being, it is a continuum. Two people can be deemed healthy, but one can be healthier and less at risk for various diseases than the other. This too is obvious. Like all animals, human beings have resilience and can withstand some insult and still thrive. Now to the experiment. Take one plate and put a 250 gram piece of properly cooked steak on it. The steak will contain about 475 calories. Take another plate and on it put 475 calories worth of plant-based foods (legumes, fruit, vegetables, grains, etc.) with the equivalent nutritional value as the steak. Now ask any qualified nutritionist, dietitian, medical researcher, oncologist, cardiologist, etc. which plate of food, from a nutritional and health standpoint, is preferred. None will pick the steak. The reasons are many, but one is that the plant-based foods do not contain the cholesterol and unhealthy fats in the meat. Nor does the meat contain any of the necessary dietary fiber. The list goes on. My conclusion from the research is that for health (and a wide range of other) reasons a vegan diet is optimum, but that people can consume small amounts of high quality animal-based foods (not from modern industrialized farmed sources) with a low chance of detrimental health outcomes. Indeed, most people will be able to resist the detrimental effects. However, the more animal-based foods a person consumes, particularly if they are from industrialized agriculture sources, the greater the risks to health. In passing, it's may be interesting to note that the antagonistic tone of posts that disagree with the evidence about animal-based foods that I've been presenting--and even me presenting it--is reminiscent of the early days when tobacco came under attack and in the early days, again, at the beginning of the "fitness revolution". People who gave up cigarettes in those days or went jogging were considered somewhat "odd' and "flakes" and their evidence was discounted and ridiculed. Interesting, isn't it, how people respond when their cultures and lifestyles are shown to be wanting or detrimental.

A lifestyle adding a tiny risk to your chances of getting cancer or resistant bacterial infection is not necessarily wanting or detrimental. You can say it’s less healthy than a diet without those risks, but using qualitative words like detrimental or unhealthy implies a significant risk. There are carcinogens in the air we breathe, but you wouldn’t call leaving the house without a gas mask an unhealthy lifestyle choice.

That’s why you get people’s backs up. You’re not impartially presenting the facts; you’re putting a negative spin on them beyond what is warranted. Or maybe people just find your manner generally objectionable.

[barts]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The issue is whether the health risk is at all significant in terms of my choice of diet. Your links don’t address this, whereas the studies I quoted do.

The Gebreyes, Wondwossen, Thakur, Siddhartha, Morrow, Morgan, Journal of Food Protection. 2006, 69, 743-748 reference (there was no link) doesn't show that at all. It is silent on the issue of diet. The Casewell, Bywater, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2000, 46, 644-645 reference is to questionnaire sent to "recognized experts in the UK and elsewhere" over 10 years ago.

You may choose to take comfort in the references you posted, and discount, for example, ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from Antibiotic Use in Animals which opens with,

Scientific evidence has shown that certain bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are transferred from animals to humans through the consumption or handling of meat that contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, researchers disagree about the extent of harm to human health from this transference. Many studies have found that the use of antibiotics in animals poses significant risks for human health, but a small number of studies contend that the health risks of the transference are minimal. [emphasis barts]

In your own lifestyle and diet choices, you can choose to rely on the "many studies" that show risks, or the "small number" that show a minimal risk.

Your call, but they all show risk.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy A lifestyle adding a tiny risk to your chances of getting cancer or resistant bacterial infection is not necessarily wanting or detrimental. You can say it’s less healthy than a diet without those risks, but using qualitative words like detrimental or unhealthy implies a significant risk. There are carcinogens in the air we breathe, but you wouldn’t call leaving the house without a gas mask an unhealthy lifestyle choice. That’s why you get people’s backs up. You’re not impartially presenting the facts; you’re putting a negative spin on them beyond what is warranted. Or maybe people just find your manner generally objectionable.

As I've shown, you're not in a position to determine that the risks are "tiny." Most researchers would disagree with you.

Arguing in favor of a particular risky behavior because some other unrelated behavior poses a risk is specious.

That people get their backs or find my manner generally objectionable are some of the risks associated with participating in a debate forum. At any rate, I am impartially presenting the facts, and making the obvious conclusion that follows from them.

Perhaps you also find the "spin" objectionable and unwarranted in Breeding an Epidemic Antibiotics and Meat, Antibiotic Debate Overview, and Big meat tries to spin new antibiotics report.

At any rate, eat what you want. And judge the risks--or not--as you see fit for yourself and your family.

[barts]

Just a few more references on the risk posed by the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in meat production.

Obama, Farm Industry Clash Over Antibiotics

That’s turned U.S. farms into disease incubators for things like MRSA ST398, a new strain of drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Other types of drug-resistant staph infections already kill 18,000 Americans every year. The new strain, which appears to have evolved on Dutch farms and is spreading through U.S. pigs and into people, will only add to the toll.

Read More Obama, Farm Industry Clash Over Antibiotics | Wired Science | Wired.com

Administration Seeks to Restrict Antibiotics in Livestock

In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.

Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said.

Antimicrobial resistance

In North America and Europe, an estimated 50% in tonnage of all antimicrobial production is used in food-producing animals and poultry. The largest quantities are used as regular supplements for prophylaxis or growth promotion, thus exposing a large number of animals, irrespective of their health status, to frequently subtherapeutic concentrations of antimicrobials. Such wide­spread use of antimicrobials for disease control and growth promotion in animals has been paralleled by an increase in resistance in those bacteria (such as Salmonella and Campylobacter) that can spread from animals, often through food, to cause infections in humans.

Pressure rises to stop antibiotics in agriculture

Johns Hopkins University health sciences professor Ellen Silbergeld, who has reviewed every major study on this issue, said there's no doubt drug use in farm animals is a "major driver of antimicrobial resistance worldwide." "We have data to show it's in wastewaters and it goes to aquaculture and it goes here and there," agreed Dr. Stuart Levy, an expert on antibiotic resistance at Tufts University in Boston. "Antibiotic use in animals impacts everything."

Or you can rely on The Bacon Guy's conclusions.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Barts The Gebreyes, Wondwossen, Thakur, Siddhartha, Morrow, Morgan, Journal of Food Protection. 2006, 69, 743-748 reference (there was no link) doesn't show that at all. It is silent on the issue of diet. The Casewell, Bywater, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2000, 46, 644-645 reference is to questionnaire sent to "recognized experts in the UK and elsewhere" over 10 years ago. You may choose to take comfort in the references you posted, and discount, for example, ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from Antibiotic Use in Animals which opens with, Quote: Scientific evidence has shown that certain bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are transferred from animals to humans through the consumption or handling of meat that contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, researchers disagree about the extent of harm to human health from this transference. Many studies have found that the use of antibiotics in animals poses significant risks for human health, but a small number of studies contend that the health risks of the transference are minimal. [emphasis barts] In your own lifestyle and diet choices, you can choose to rely on the "many studies" that show risks, or the "small number" that show a minimal risk. Your call, but they all show risk.

Quote by: Barts As I've shown, you're not in a position to determine that the risks are "tiny." Most researchers would disagree with you.

You’ve not shown this. The fact is that they believe a pathogen could develop which, if it did, could cause a serious risk to public health. That doesn’t mean any one meat eater has anything other than a miniscule chance of picking up said pathogen.

Just look at the figures. How many people eat meat, and how many people end up becoming infected by a dangerously resistant bacteria? Even without considering the fact that the majority of resistant bacteria don’t come from meat, the risk is very small; certainly not enough to warrant calling all meat-containing diets unhealthy.

Quote by: Barts Arguing in favor of a particular risky behavior because some other unrelated behavior poses a risk is specious.

No, it isn’t. If a behaviour can be risky relative to another behaviour, without being considered unhealthy, your argument about meat falls apart. Until you can provide some numbers on the risk, the idea that eating meat is intrinsically unhealthy is as ridiculous as the idea that leaving the house without a gas mask is intrinsically unhealthy.

Quote by: Barts That people get their backs or find my manner generally objectionable are some of the risks associated with participating in a debate forum. At any rate, I am impartially presenting the facts, and making the obvious conclusion that follows from them.

That meat could contain some agents which can cause cancer, could contain resistant bacteria, and has some unhealthy components does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that anyone eating meat will live in “a state of chronic sickness and ill health”. You are not presenting anything impartially.

[barts]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy That meat could contain some agents which can cause cancer, could contain resistant bacteria, and has some unhealthy components does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that anyone eating meat will live in “a state of chronic sickness and ill health”. You are not presenting anything impartially.

It would seem you're not reviewing the references I posted for you.

As the references and links that have been previously posted show, meat does (not "could") contain cancer causing agents, often does (not could) contain both antibiotic resistant and other harmful bacteria, and does have other unhealthy components including residues of antibiotics. Meat raised "organically" in the best sense of that word poses fewer risks. As well, in all cases, there are foods that are healthier choices than meat.

Clearly, as well, in all cases a person who consumes any materials detrimental to their health, at any dose level, will be adversely affected, even if the effect is sub-clinical. The issue is the matter of degree, not the fact of the matter and the debilitation. Or do you think consuming such materials has no effect whatsoever?

You choose not to characterize this state of debilitation, however severe or slight, as not being one of "a state of chronic sickness and ill health." I do. That you don't like my characterization--which is your only argument--hardly has much merit, as it is basically an emotional one. For your part, you can characterize it any way you want, any way that makes you feel less concerned or not concerned at all about consuming foods with known harmful effects. Regardless of the words you use or I use, the detrimental health effects remain; they are biological and take no notice of your and my language choices.

You continue to irrationally and perversely deny the ill health effects of meat. Your only non-emotional argument--and it is a slight one--is that the ill health effects are minuscule. The preponderance of evidence does not support this view, which is why every health agency recommends reducing meat consumption, increasing the consumption of plant-based foods and, incidentally, ending the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production.

As for me not being impartial, I clearly have no idea anymore what you mean by that. The information and research about the detrimental effects of animal-based foods is unequivocal. Are you suggesting that, like you, in the face of compelling evidence, I'm supposed to not accept the conclusions that naturally follow and that are agreed by qualified experts? I'm curious as to what point you're trying to make by labeling me "not impartial". Am I supposed to be impartial? If so, why? As for the evidence, I have certainly offered it impartially and it speaks for itself to those who are prepared to hear.

As I keep saying, eat what you will and judge for yourself--or not--how minuscule the risks are. Deny what you will, as well, but the facts support the conclusion that if you're interested in good health, animal-based foods are contraindicated.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Barts often does (not could)

Often is not certain. Could is a word we used in the absence of certainty, Barts.

Quote by: Barts contain both antibiotic resistant and other harmful bacteria

If they’re so prevalent and so harmful, why are the numbers of people with diseases caused by dangerously resistant pathogens so low?

Quote by: Barts , and does have other unhealthy components including residues of antibiotics. Meat raised "organically" in the best sense of that word poses fewer risks. As well, in all cases, there are foods that are healthier choices than meat. Clearly, as well, in all cases a person who consumes any materials detrimental to their health, at any dose level, will be adversely affected, even if the effect is sub-clinical. The issue is the matter of degree, not the fact of the matter and the debilitation. Or do you think consuming such materials has no effect whatsoever?

Yes, that’s precisely what I think. Toxicity is dose dependent. It occurs when you consume more of a certain chemical than your metabolism is able to handle at once. If you take on a small amount, your metabolism is perfectly able to deal with it. Even cumulative poisons leave the system relatively quickly. There’s no absolute line between poisonous and non-poisonous; it depends entirely on dose. So yes, if you eat a lot of meat, these harmful compounds will have a noticeable effect on your health. That doesn't mean that moderate consumption of meat will.

Quote by: Barts You choose not to characterize this state of debilitation, however severe or slight, as not being one of "a state of chronic sickness and ill health." I do. That you don't like my characterization--which is your only argument—

This seems to be your staple response whenever someone asks you to prove something specific. The fact that people disagree with you doesn’t always mean they’re in denial; it might mean you’re just not very good at making a persuasive argument.

The most you have been able to say and support with evidence is that any amount of meat will introduce compounds to the body are nutritionally poor, but that in moderation the practical effects of this will be sub-clinical. Which is a fine conclusion to draw and there’d be no objections if you hadn’t decided to go one further and declare anyone eating meat to be living in a state of chronic sicknees and ill health. Nothing symptomless fits any conceivable definition of “chronic sickness and ill health”.

Quote by: Barts hardly has much merit, as it is basically an emotional one. For your part, you can characterize it any way you want, any way that makes you feel less concerned or not concerned at all about consuming foods with known harmful effects. Regardless of the words you use or I use, the detrimental health effects remain; they are biological and take no notice of your and my language choices. You continue to irrationally and perversely deny the ill health effects of meat. Your only non-emotional argument--and it is a slight one--is that the ill health effects are minuscule. The preponderance of evidence does not support this view

Then why are you finding it so difficult to provide any numbers proving this? All you’ve told us is that it could cause cancer, could pass on resistant bacteria and contains some components which will lead to serious health problems if taken in excess. The first two claims are irrelevant without a numerical estimate of the risk and the last does not apply to someone consuming small amounts of meat.

Quote by: Barts As for me not being impartial, I clearly have no idea anymore what you mean by that. The information and research about the detrimental effects of animal-based foods is unequivocal. Are you suggesting that, like you, in the face of compelling evidence, I'm supposed to not accept the conclusions that naturally follow and that are agreed by qualified experts?

Quote me one expert saying that anyone consuming meat in their diets will live in a state of chronic sickness and ill health. That, and some numbers on the risks of cancer and resistant bacteria, is all I’m asking you for. If you can't provide this, you can't prove your argument; and no amount of long winded protestations that everyone is in denial is going to change this.

The experts say that meat contains some components which are harmful. They do not say that all meat consumption will result in ill-health. That’s a conclusion you have drawn from your own prejudices.

Quote by: Barts I'm curious as to what point you're trying to make by labeling me "not impartial". Am I supposed to be impartial? If so, why?

You can take the information and decide that eating meat is bad. That’s fine; it’s a personal judgement on your part. The problem is that you are taking the information, drawing conclusions beyond what the evidence says, and posting them here as fact.

[barts]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Nothing symptomless fits any conceivable definition of “chronic sickness and ill health”. Then why are you finding it so difficult to provide any numbers proving this? All you’ve told us is that it could cause cancer, could pass on resistant bacteria and contains some components which will lead to serious health problems if taken in excess. The first two claims are irrelevant without a numerical estimate of the risk and the last does not apply to someone consuming small amounts of meat.

Let's parse these two arguments. One, hypertension is often symptomless as can be celiac disease. Everyone who lives in a modern city suffers from the effects of air pollution, yet rarely do they show "symptoms" in a clinical sense. Yet all people in these situations suffer from “chronic sickness and ill health.” Perhaps you believe that people with hypertension are perfectly healthy. Before we address the next argument, let me point out that there are no numbers to say that any particular blood pressure reading produces a particular risk in any particular person. There are people who live to ripe old ages with high blood pressure, but many more who die or suffer debilitating effects like stroke prematurely from conditions it exacerbates.

As for the second argument, to the best of my knowledge published numerical risk assessments for consuming small amounts of meat are not available. I suspect that given all the variables involved it is beyond our science to determine with any confidence that consuming 100 grams per day of beef produces risk a and 200 grams 1.001a in any particular person. The same problem occurs, for example, when assessing the risks of smoking cigarettes or water population. What is the absolute risk from 1 cigarette per day vs. 20 per day for any particular person? What is the risk of water containing mercury at 2.2ppb vs. 2.3ppb or even 35 ppb for any particular person? These numbers are unavailable and likely impossible to produce. Based on the lack of the numbers you seek, is smoking 1 cigarette per day healthy, or drinking mercury polluted water at 2.3ppb? Certainly to argue that in the absence of numbers, these behaviors are rendered healthy or not harmful is ludicrous and potentially dangerous. Long ago, responsible people abandoned the demand for absolute evidence before taking action for the precautionary approach. It would seem you don't agree.

As for "the last does not apply to someone consuming small amounts of meat", if I am fault, in your view, for making claims not supported by "numbers", clearly you're guilty of the same failings with this claim. Based on numbers, you cannot assure anyone that there are no deterimental health consequences from eating small (whatever that means) amounts of meat. And, surely the burden of proof should be on the proponents of of a product to show it's safe, and not the consumer to prove it's harmful.

Further to your argument, you, of course, realize the absence of the numbers you're demanding has no effect on the health effects of eating meat. Your biochemistry and health is not dependent on what we know or don't know.

If in your view, the absence of the spurious comfort of "numbers" renders eating small amounts of meat safe, enjoy your meat. I stand by my conclusions based on the preponderance of evidence. Should the absolute risk numbers you need to make a decision be available one day, I'll reconsider my eating choices.

If you'd like more reasons why meat is healthy for you and eating vegetables is not, let me suggest How to Disarm Meat Consumption Opponents published by the European Pig Producers.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Barts Let's parse these two arguments. One, hypertension is often symptomless as can be celiac disease. Everyone who lives in a modern city suffers from the effects of air pollution, yet rarely do they show "symptoms" in a clinical sense. Yet all people in these situations suffer from “chronic sickness and ill health.”

Do they? What major medical authority says all people in cities live in chronic sickness and ill health?

Quote by: Barts Perhaps you believe that people with hypertension are perfectly healthy. Before we address the next argument, let me point out that there are no numbers to say that any particular blood pressure reading produces a particular risk in any particular person. There are people who live to ripe old ages with high blood pressure, but many more who die or suffer debilitating effects like stroke prematurely from conditions it exacerbates.

We're not talking about a medical condition though; we're talking about a dietary choice. If you're saying meat, in any amount, will exacerbate certain pre-existing conditions, then for the people with those conditions it would be an unhealthy choice of food. But that doesn't hold true for the people without these conditions, just as it doesn't hold true that strawberries are unhealthy for people without strawberry allergies.

Quote by: Barts As for the second argument, to the best of my knowledge published numerical risk assessments for consuming small amounts of meat are not available. I suspect that given all the variables involved it is beyond our science to determine with any confidence that consuming 100 grams per day of beef produces risk a and 200 grams 1.001a in any particular person. The same problem occurs, for example, when assessing the risks of smoking cigarettes or water population. What is the absolute risk from 1 cigarette per day vs. 20 per day for any particular person? What is the risk of water containing mercury at 2.2ppb vs. 2.3ppb or even 35 ppb for any particular person? These numbers are unavailable and likely impossible to produce. Based on the lack of the numbers you seek, is smoking 1 cigarette per day healthy, or drinking mercury polluted water at 2.3ppb? Certainly to argue that in the absence of numbers, these behaviors are rendered healthy or not harmful is ludicrous and potentially dangerous.

It’s equally ludicrous to claim in the absence of numbers that these behaviours are harmful. I would be disinclined to claim that smoking one cigarette a day or drinking 2.3ppb mercury in water is harmless. But I would be equally disinclined to say that it’s harmful. If you don’t know something, don’t make claims about it.

Quote by: Barts Long ago, responsible people abandoned the demand for absolute evidence before taking action for the precautionary approach. It would seem you don't agree.

I have only your word that all responsible people assume everything to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Most people I know would call that ridiculous.

Quote by: Barts As for "the last does not apply to someone consuming small amounts of meat", if I am fault, in your view, for making claims not supported by "numbers", clearly you're guilty of the same failings with this claim. Based on numbers, you cannot assure anyone that there are no deterimental health consequences from eating small (whatever that means) amounts of meat. And, surely the burden of proof should be on the proponents of of a product to show it's safe, and not the consumer to prove it's harmful.

The burden of proof should be on the one who makes the original claim. I simply offered a null hypothesis.

Also, do you really need a source to tell you that toxicology is dose-dependent?

Quote by: Barts Further to your argument, you, of course, realize the absence of the numbers you're demanding has no effect on the health effects of eating meat. Your biochemistry and health is not dependent on what we know or don't know.

Your argument, on the other hand, is.

[barts]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The burden of proof should be on the one who makes the original claim. I simply offered a null hypothesis.

More than sufficient evidence has been offered to defend the original claim. That you choose to discount the evidence, or not accept it as sufficient, or merely dogmatically deny it for argumentative purposes is your choice. There's no empirical or even reasonable basis to justify your choice, and it is a choice--if you base your lifestyle and diet choices on it--that can only have detrimental health effects.

Indeed, a closer look at the "theory" of your argument, what's revealed is merely the indefensible notion that all is good until proven otherwise beyond all doubt. It's not a null argument at all as you claim. It's merely a rhetorical device that has no practical application. Indeed, it is a dangerous approach if applied in real life.

Let me repeat, eat what you will, and if you decide--contrary to the preponderance of evidence and majority opinion of informed experts--that the trans fats, cholesterol, antibiotic resistant bacteria, bacteria, and cancer-causing chemicals in meat and other animal-based foods are of no concern or the enjoyment of the meat is worth the health consequences enjoy your meal.

The facts are clear, the more processed or un-processed animal-based foods that you eat the greater the detrimental health effects. The more un-processed and less processed plant-based foods you eat the greater the beneficial health effects.

[barts]

A recent article about meat in America at CounterPunch.org If You Liked Bovine Growth Hormone, You'll Love Beta Agonists.

While researchers and scientists investigate the cause of our diabetes, obesity, asthma and ADHD epidemics, they should ask why the FDA approved a livestock drug banned in 160 nations and responsible for hyperactivity, muscle breakdown and 10 percent mortality in pigs...

But unlike the growth promoting antibiotics and hormones used in livestock which are withdrawn as the animal nears slaughter, ractopamine is started as the animal nears slaughter. As much as twenty percent of Paylean, given to pigs for their last 28 days, Optaflexx, given to cattle their last 28 to 42 days and Tomax, given to turkeys their last 7 to 14 days, remains in consumer meat says author and well known veterinarian Michael W. Fox.

For those who are interested,

Meat industry bracing for CBS antibiotic piece By Rita Jane Gabbett on 2/2/2010 Handtmann, Inc Barring another big news story, the CBS Evening News has now scheduled its two-part series on antibiotic use in livestock production to run Feb. 3-4, and based on some of the interviews conducted for the piece, the pork industry is expecting to take a hit.Source: Meatingplace.com - Home

[yukonmuffin]

Quote by: barts More than sufficient evidence has been offered to defend the original claim. That you choose to discount the evidence, or not accept it as sufficient, or merely dogmatically deny it for argumentative purposes is your choice. There's no empirical or even reasonable basis to justify your choice, and it is a choice--if you base your lifestyle and diet choices on it--that can only have detrimental health effects.

It would have taken you 5 seconds to put said links in that post, why cause confusion?

[The Bacon Guy]

Barts, perhaps you could try to answer some of the specific objections I raised in my post, rather than ignoring them and simply repeating the claims which were challenged.

Quote by: Barts More than sufficient evidence has been offered to defend the original claim.

Barts, no evidence has been offered to defend the claim that all meat eaters will live in a state of chronic sickness and ill health, or that small amounts of meat can reasonably be considered unhealthy. I've directly asked for it several times and been ignored several times.

Quote by: Barts That you choose to discount the evidence, or not accept it as sufficient, or merely dogmatically deny it for argumentative purposes is your choice. There's no empirical or even reasonable basis to justify your choice, and it is a choice--if you base your lifestyle and diet choices on it--that can only have detrimental health effects. Indeed, a closer look at the "theory" of your argument, what's revealed is merely the indefensible notion that all is good until proven otherwise beyond all doubt. It's not a null argument at all as you claim.

You don’t seem to know what a null hypothesis is. It’s the opposite of your hypothesis; thus it’s the null hypothesis. And of course a null hypothesis is not a real argument; it’s a device used to test your argument. If you can’t offer sufficient evidence or logic to refute the null hypothesis, your argument has not been proved.

Quote by: Barts Let me repeat, eat what you will, and if you decide--contrary to the preponderance of evidence and majority opinion of informed experts--that the trans fats, cholesterol, antibiotic resistant bacteria, bacteria, and cancer-causing chemicals in meat and other animal-based foods

You’ve been asked to prove that trans fats and cholesterol are symptomatically unhealthy in small amounts and to provide numbers on the claims about resistant bacteria and cancer. If you can’t provide this proof, your conclusions are not supported by the evidence.

Quote by: Barts are of no concern or the enjoyment of the meat is worth the health consequences enjoy your meal. The facts are clear, the more processed or un-processed animal-based foods that you eat the greater the detrimental health effects. The more un-processed and less processed plant-based foods you eat the greater the beneficial health effects.

Which you have been able to prove with regards to a vegetarian diet being compared to a diet containing a relatively large amount of meat. The evidence does not say that small amounts of meat will be unhealthy. That’s your own conclusions and I’m asking you to defend the logic behind it. Ignoring the objections to your logic and blindly claiming that everyone is in denial is not a strong defence.

[barts]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Barts, no evidence has been offered to defend the claim that all meat eaters will live in a state of chronic sickness and ill health, or that small amounts of meat can reasonably be considered unhealthy.

All meat eaters live in a state of chronic ill health. The less meat one eats the better. The best amount of meat to eat is none.

For your part you can characterize Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? as you will.

It's not possible to review the evidence and conclude that meat is good for you, nor conclude that meat does not degrade one's health.

If you choose not to conclude that eating meat results in a chronic state of sickness and ill health, that's your conclusion. It's not mine after reviewing the evidence. If people who eat meat tend to live shorter lives than those who don't, it's not because they are healthy. It's because they aren't.

If you'd like a more comprehensive review of the literature that is not available by a few links, read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.

[ironeagle]

Vegitarianism is just like homosexuality to me in many ways. It is an attention seeking behavior, it is unatural, it is a fad, it is based on brainwashing and immitation of of anti-social and ant-natural behavior, it is an unhealthy practice, it denies humanity and it's natural needs, it can cause tooth decay, severe malnutrition, and also just because you can hear a bean scream doesn't mean it doesn't feel pain, so don't tell me vegitarianism is anti-killing, or for the good of nature.

[Cyrus]

Quote by: Impenitent the best hunting is done with large boulders and Acme rockets... just ask Wile E. Coyote...

But he's never even gotten the Roadrunner, it may be funner hunting with large boulders and acme rockets, but it's certainly not more efficient

[barts]

Quote by: ironeagle Vegitarianism is just like homosexuality to me in many ways. It is an attention seeking behavior, it is unatural, it is a fad, it is based on brainwashing and immitation of of anti-social and ant-natural behavior, it is an unhealthy practice, it denies humanity and it's natural needs, it can cause tooth decay, severe malnutrition, and also just because you can hear a bean scream doesn't mean it doesn't feel pain, so don't tell me vegitarianism is anti-killing, or for the good of nature.

If you're interested, over on the Speciesism thread I posted a link to a study that showed that vegetarians were smarter than meat eaters, but of course based on the idiocy of your post you probably already knew that.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Gregory I know a few vegetarians, and I assume most of you aren't, but for the few who are... what is the specific reason for it? I know this isn't really a debate right now, but I suspect it could turn into one! Funny: VBForums

Vegetarianism is a fad. It also marks one was a liberal, and for some strange reason a peacenik. Vegies will out grow it eventually; when they really get hungry, or skinny or both.

Homosexuality is also a fad, and it also marks one as a liberal. Homosexuals will out grow it too; when they die because of it.

If one has to make a choice between the two, take vegetarianism. But from time to time, sneak a burger.