Re: India and Factory Farming-- POLITICS

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/04 4:41:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> Dr. Vandana Shiva's might eat meat although if she's a Hindu she probably

> doesn't... Hindus do eat dairy products though... in the context of third

> world hunger and poverty she might just be right... can you quote her words on

> the subject?

Dedy,

This is the best I can do at the moment:

" She insists that meat consumption is what contributes to western diseases

and that grains and legumes can provide sufficient protein in the Third World.

Modern meat products are bad because they are higher in fat, she says.

Actually, when animals are raised humanely on local farms, they have more fat in

their

meat and milk and that fat is healthy fat. "

Reviewed at http://www.westonaprice.org/book_reviews/stolenharvest.html

IOW she supports the general leftist-vegeterian argument that meat is both

unhealthy and inefficient, and protein needs can be met much more efficiently,

vis-a-vis land and resource use, with plant foods.

By the way, it's worth noting that in India, like the US, the displacement of

traditional farmers was engineered by the government. WAPF's review of

_Stolen_Harvest_ (which I've been meaning to read but haven't yet) describes how

the soy oil imperialism was engineered by the outlaw of unpackaged edible oils,

etc.

Since leftists, and certainly the left that Shiva associates with, tend to

have a knee-jerk reaction against " free-trade, " I'm simply suggesting a little

caution be exercised with Shiva's explanation, that we not throw the baby out

with the bathwater.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/04 12:08:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> your best is NOT her words but rather a review of her book written by

> someone else.... still...

Indeed-- but it is a favorable review, so presumably the few caveats they

have are presented accurately. That said, it's possible they aren't.

> << " She insists that meat consumption is what contributes to western

> diseases and that grains and legumes can provide sufficient protein in the

Third

> World. Modern meat products are bad because they are higher in fat, she says.

> Actually, when animals are raised humanely on local farms, they have more fat

> in their meat and milk and that fat is healthy fat. " >>

>

> please note the even in this review she 'allegedly' says 'MODERN meat

> products are higher in fats' ... now as someone who I hope knows about the

modern

> imbalance in the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 FAs in grain-fed [modern] meat

> products as one of the causes of modern ill-health and about other

> artificial-feeding and preserving practices involved in 'modern' meat

production, you

> seem to be picking on the wrong word... just recall your own [successful]

> efforts to obtain pasture-fed animal products.

Actually, I seriously doubt the imbalance of n-6 to n-3s plays a significant

role in modern disease, except to the possible extent it contributes to n-3

deficiency. But considering that beef is not a significant source of pufa,

grain-fed beef in the food supply is going to have a relatively small effect on

n-3 deficiency, and, amidst use of vegetable oils, is going to have an entirely

negligible effect on n-6 excess.

IF the WAPF review is accurate, and I fully admit that it's possible that it

isn't, Shiva subscribes to the general theory that is widely held on the

vegetarian-left, which is that

a) meat is bad

modern meat is worse because its higher in fat

c) modern meat is worse because its higher in saturated fat

d) meat-raising is bad for the environment

e) meat-raising is 10-40% less efficient than grain and legume-raising in

fulfilling protein needs, and therefore contributes to world hunger by wasting

needed resources

From the WAPF interview, it appears she subscribes to this standard set. The

entire argument is fallacious, with the possible exception of " d " as applied

specifically to factory farming, though it is often asserted that *all*

meat-raising taxes the environment.

> IOW your frequent insistence on suspecting 'leftist' motives [vegetarian or

> not] behind every approach to alleviate human suffering that doesn't tally

> with your ideology 'du jour', is quite telling in itself...

I don't " suspect " Shiva is a leftist. Shiva IS a leftist. Shiva writes for

radical outfits like South End Press and ZNet/Z Magazine, so I don't see how

I'm " suspecting " leftism of her when she is quite openly a leftist.

When I say " leftist-vegetarian " I'm referring to a specific sub-Left ideology

and a specific brand of vegetarianism which forms a crossroads between the

Left and vegetarianism, not simply smearing someone for being a leftist or a

vegetarian. Some people are vegetarians because animals are cute, or because

they just believe it is health, and a lot of Leftists think vegetarianism is

elitist. But a subset of each cross paths to make the specific arguments that I

outlined above, and it is a widely held, specific, set of arguments.

> " knee-jerk reactions " are NOT the exclusive domain of what you call

> 'leftists'...

Of course.

Chris

[Guest guest]

<<This is the best I can do at the moment>>

your best is NOT her words but rather a review of her book written by someone

else.... still...

<< " She insists that meat consumption is what contributes to western diseases and

that grains and legumes can provide sufficient protein in the Third World.

Modern meat products are bad because they are higher in fat, she says. Actually,

when animals are raised humanely on local farms, they have more fat in their

meat and milk and that fat is healthy fat. " >>

please note the even in this review she 'allegedly' says 'MODERN meat products

are higher in fats' ... now as someone who I hope knows about the modern

imbalance in the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 FAs in grain-fed [modern] meat

products as one of the causes of modern ill-health and about other

artificial-feeding and preserving practices involved in 'modern' meat

production, you seem to be picking on the wrong word... just recall your own

[successful] efforts to obtain pasture-fed animal products.

IOW your frequent insistence on suspecting 'leftist' motives [vegetarian or not]

behind every approach to alleviate human suffering that doesn't tally with your

ideology 'du jour', is quite telling in itself...

" knee-jerk reactions " are NOT the exclusive domain of what you call

'leftists'...

Dedy

[Guest guest]

Quoting Rundle <Dpdg@...>:

> please note the even in this review she 'allegedly' says 'MODERN meat

> products are higher in fats' ... now as someone who I hope knows about

> the modern imbalance in the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 FAs in grain-fed

> [modern] meat products as one of the causes of modern ill-health and

> about other artificial-feeding and preserving practices involved in

> 'modern' meat production, you seem to be picking on the wrong word...

> just recall your own [successful] efforts to obtain pasture-fed animal

> products.

I've said it before, but I guess it bears repeating: I think that this

omega-6/omega-3 thing is, as far as beef goes, way overblown. There is so

little polyunsaturated fat in beef (about 3% of total fat) that it doesn't

have much of an impact on the overall dietary n6/n3 ratio. The real problem

is the proliferation of vegetable oils in the modern diet.

> IOW your frequent insistence on suspecting 'leftist' motives [vegetarian

> or not] behind every approach to alleviate human suffering that doesn't

> tally with your ideology 'du jour', is quite telling in itself...

I haven't seen him misapply the label yet. Besides, I would argue that just

about any approach to alleviating human suffering that doesn't tally with

economic liberalism is leftist more or less by definition.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> I've said it before, but I guess it bears repeating: I think that

this

> omega-6/omega-3 thing is, as far as beef goes, way overblown. There

is so

> little polyunsaturated fat in beef (about 3% of total fat) that it

doesn't

> have much of an impact on the overall dietary n6/n3 ratio. The real

problem

> is the proliferation of vegetable oils in the modern diet.

@@@@@@@@@@@

That's SF's view too, at least as of 1997:

@@@@@@@@ http://www.scdiet.org/7archives/lutz/paleo2.html

6. We look forward to seeing your research and intriguing findings

about the varying lengths of SFAs in wild and domesticated animals.

Stearic acid (18:0) has been shown to raise cholesterol in some

studies--and in any event, the whole cholesterol issue is bogus.

There may be differences in the N6/N3 ratios in wild and domesticated

ruminant adipose tissue, but in both overall total PUFA is low. The

real imbalances come with modern farming methods (for eggs, fish,

vegetables, etc.) and with the introduction of high N6 oils into the

diet. Excess N6/N3 ratios result in profound imbalances at the

cellular level that can lead to MI, cancer and many other diseases.

(6, 7) We certainly do agree that high levels of N6 in the diet are a

problem, but the source of excess N6 is not domesticated beef and

lamb.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Proponents of 100% grass-fed ruminant meat like ourselves often use

this n6/n3 thing as a key argument, but if it has a negligible effect

than perhaps we would be wiser to ignore it and choose stronger

arguments?

what are the key arguments?

CLA?

health of the animal?

less bad bacteria/parasites?

I'm thinking about 100% vs 95% grass-fed here, not cases where large

amounts of non-grass is used, resulting in blatantly unhealthy

animals from which we'd fail to benefit from eating various organs

and things.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Berg wrote -- << Besides, I would argue that just about any approach to

alleviating human suffering that doesn't tally with economic liberalism is

leftist more or less by definition.>>

-- " faites les manger des brioches " comes to mind.

Dedy