Re: Help me refute this vegetarian argument if possible

[Guest guest]

This person is referring to a book entitled, Diet For A Small Planet, written

back in the day. The whole notion, as I remember it was that of over

population, & how the world could possibly survive it? The book also suggested

complementary proteins ie: mixing grains & legumes @ a meal had more usable

protein than either grain or legume alone, hence complementary proteins would

allow for more space on an overcrowded planet.

The catch is the book made a point of complementary protein, not complete

protein. Since that time, 1970's, as I remember, many vegetarians had

difficulty with a whole host of deficiencies, unless they followed a strict set

of principals & laws of food combining, etc. way too tedious for the average

Joe, turned to eating grubs, bugs, yeast, ferments, molds, algae, etc. to help

balance out their deficiencies. It seems that microscopic animals are touted as

friendly bacteria, & for many a vegetarian they assume that may be the answer,

certainly many cultures through out the world have engaged in ferments specific

to that region, so to make the argument stronger it would be necessary to

determine what kind of vegetarianism your friend practices & if it is done for

religious/cultural purposes?

Best Regards, Jim

three3_six6_nine9 <three3_six6_nine9@...> wrote:

I'd love solid back-up, if possible, to refute the following (quoted

from a vegetarian I know):

'most of the agricultural output goes to feed animals so if animals

were not in the picture A LOT less agriculture would be needed to

support humans and the planet could support a lot more people

environmentally. Look up how much water/grain/land is necessary for a

single hamburger patty and you'll be surprised.'

This person is aware that grass-feeding is better than grain yet still

stated this. And of course they feel that vegetarianism is healthy for

humans.

Anything solid to refute this is welcome - good links and articles

that address exactly these points.

Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

---------------------------------

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

[Guest guest]

Well, it's true -- it takes more water/land/grain to grow a day's

calories worth of cow than a day's calories worth of grain.

There are, however, many areas that are appropriate for pasturing but

not for tilling. Cornell University found that more people could be

fed if New Yorkers ate mostly veggies, a little meat than if everyone

ate all vegetarian:

http://tinyurl.com/2pruo3

Val

On Mar 19, 2008, at 5:03 AM, three3_six6_nine9 wrote:

> I'd love solid back-up, if possible, to refute the following (quoted

> from a vegetarian I know):

>

> 'most of the agricultural output goes to feed animals so if animals

> were not in the picture A LOT less agriculture would be needed to

> support humans and the planet could support a lot more people

> environmentally. Look up how much water/grain/land is necessary for a

> single hamburger patty and you'll be surprised.'

>

> This person is aware that grass-feeding is better than grain yet still

> stated this. And of course they feel that vegetarianism is healthy for

> humans.

>

> Anything solid to refute this is welcome - good links and articles

> that address exactly these points.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Naw, that was outdated info. I ate vegetarian for 20 years. You

don't really have to worry about protein combining. Later

researchers than Lappe (Diet for a Small Planet) showed it's not hard

to get plenty of protein on a veg diet as long as you're eating

primarily whole foods and not relying on junk.

On Mar 19, 2008, at 6:41 AM, Igo wrote:

> This person is referring to a book entitled, Diet For A Small

> Planet, written back in the day. The whole notion, as I remember it

> was that of over population, & how the world could possibly survive

> it? The book also suggested complementary proteins ie: mixing

> grains & legumes @ a meal had more usable protein than either grain

> or legume alone, hence complementary proteins would allow for more

> space on an overcrowded planet.

> The catch is the book made a point of complementary protein, not

> complete protein. Since that time, 1970's, as I remember, many

> vegetarians had difficulty with a whole host of deficiencies,

> unless they followed a strict set of principals & laws of food

> combining, etc. way too tedious for the average Joe, turned to

> eating grubs, bugs, yeast, ferments, molds, algae, etc. to help

> balance out their deficiencies. It seems that microscopic animals

> are touted as friendly bacteria, & for many a vegetarian they

> assume that may be the answer, certainly many cultures through out

> the world have engaged in ferments specific to that region, so to

> make the argument stronger it would be necessary to determine what

> kind of vegetarianism your friend practices & if it is done for

> religious/cultural purposes?

>

> Best Regards, Jim

>

> three3_six6_nine9 <three3_six6_nine9@...> wrote:

> I'd love solid back-up, if possible, to refute the following (quoted

> from a vegetarian I know):

>

> 'most of the agricultural output goes to feed animals so if animals

> were not in the picture A LOT less agriculture would be needed to

> support humans and the planet could support a lot more people

> environmentally. Look up how much water/grain/land is necessary for a

> single hamburger patty and you'll be surprised.'

>

> This person is aware that grass-feeding is better than grain yet still

> stated this. And of course they feel that vegetarianism is healthy for

> humans.

>

> Anything solid to refute this is welcome - good links and articles

> that address exactly these points.

>

> Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes we are are talking about obsolete information. It does, however, beg the

question on how we define whole foods verses junk, & complementary proteins

verses complete proteins, based on more current research.

Sincerely, Jim

Val <listval@...> wrote:

Naw, that was outdated info. I ate vegetarian for 20 years. You

don't really have to worry about protein combining. Later

researchers than Lappe (Diet for a Small Planet) showed it's not hard

to get plenty of protein on a veg diet as long as you're eating

primarily whole foods and not relying on junk.

On Mar 19, 2008, at 6:41 AM, Igo wrote:

> This person is referring to a book entitled, Diet For A Small

> Planet, written back in the day. The whole notion, as I remember it

> was that of over population, & how the world could possibly survive

> it? The book also suggested complementary proteins ie: mixing

> grains & legumes @ a meal had more usable protein than either grain

> or legume alone, hence complementary proteins would allow for more

> space on an overcrowded planet.

> The catch is the book made a point of complementary protein, not

> complete protein. Since that time, 1970's, as I remember, many

> vegetarians had difficulty with a whole host of deficiencies,

> unless they followed a strict set of principals & laws of food

> combining, etc. way too tedious for the average Joe, turned to

> eating grubs, bugs, yeast, ferments, molds, algae, etc. to help

> balance out their deficiencies. It seems that microscopic animals

> are touted as friendly bacteria, & for many a vegetarian they

> assume that may be the answer, certainly many cultures through out

> the world have engaged in ferments specific to that region, so to

> make the argument stronger it would be necessary to determine what

> kind of vegetarianism your friend practices & if it is done for

> religious/cultural purposes?

>

> Best Regards, Jim

>

> three3_six6_nine9 <three3_six6_nine9@...> wrote:

> I'd love solid back-up, if possible, to refute the following (quoted

> from a vegetarian I know):

>

> 'most of the agricultural output goes to feed animals so if animals

> were not in the picture A LOT less agriculture would be needed to

> support humans and the planet could support a lot more people

> environmentally. Look up how much water/grain/land is necessary for a

> single hamburger patty and you'll be surprised.'

>

> This person is aware that grass-feeding is better than grain yet still

> stated this. And of course they feel that vegetarianism is healthy for

> humans.

>

> Anything solid to refute this is welcome - good links and articles

> that address exactly these points.

>

> Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the replies so far.

He's a ovo vegetarian who avoids soy and eats sprouted wheat bread,

beans, organic greens for salads, olive oil and some fruits and

organic spritzers as a treat. He used to be vegan (for 7 years) but

despite supplementing with B12 and getting enough protein he had

memory loss, lowered libido and fatigue. He started to crave eggs

badly so he added them to his diet and within a week all of the main

issues improved and it was like he was a different person! He eats

this way for 'spiritual reasons' he says (he's not religious), and

environmental reasons and he doesn't want to eat meat unless

absolutely necessary for his health. He doesn't eat fermented foods.

He used to eat coconut oil at my suggestion but dropped it. His health

still isn't good, he gets sick a lot with colds and flus but he says

he was sicker as a young person even though he lived in the country

and ate pasture fed dairy, eggs from his grandmother's chickens and

some meat.

The question I have is that although you can feed people cheaply with

grain that doesn't confer health. If animals were raised on grass and

the growing of grain was drastically reduced or eliminated, how would

that impact the environment? The world population is enormous now, of

course, so this is a tricky thing but I see only misery if people were

to go without animal foods. Without eggs he is very ill, for example.

[Guest guest]

sorry to learn of your friend's illness/discord. maybe he should focus less on

food & more on balance. for example he could have his blood drawn, a chem panel

with B12 & all would at least give a clue, as to what the possible discord is

drawn from & he may find reading materials helpful, like native nutrition

suggests. sometimes it is better to help ourselves rather than try & save the

world. when things are out of control or not in proper balance, we can only

take it one step at a time, & that of course starts with ourselves.

Best always, Jim

three3_six6_nine9 <three3_six6_nine9@...> wrote:

Thanks for the replies so far.

He's a ovo vegetarian who avoids soy and eats sprouted wheat bread,

beans, organic greens for salads, olive oil and some fruits and

organic spritzers as a treat. He used to be vegan (for 7 years) but

despite supplementing with B12 and getting enough protein he had

memory loss, lowered libido and fatigue. He started to crave eggs

badly so he added them to his diet and within a week all of the main

issues improved and it was like he was a different person! He eats

this way for 'spiritual reasons' he says (he's not religious), and

environmental reasons and he doesn't want to eat meat unless

absolutely necessary for his health. He doesn't eat fermented foods.

He used to eat coconut oil at my suggestion but dropped it. His health

still isn't good, he gets sick a lot with colds and flus but he says

he was sicker as a young person even though he lived in the country

and ate pasture fed dairy, eggs from his grandmother's chickens and

some meat.

The question I have is that although you can feed people cheaply with

grain that doesn't confer health. If animals were raised on grass and

the growing of grain was drastically reduced or eliminated, how would

that impact the environment? The world population is enormous now, of

course, so this is a tricky thing but I see only misery if people were

to go without animal foods. Without eggs he is very ill, for example.

Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

---------------------------------

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Jim, those are excellent points. He hasn't had any testing

done and I agree it would be good. He doesn't think his colds and flus

can be prevented - he figures that's the way he'll be because he was

affected so much by the mono. He'd like them to stop but doesn't do

anything aside from eat in a way he feels is healthy for him and

doesn't impact the environment a lot.

[Guest guest]

Jim, I haven't read -current- research (I'm no longer veg and haven't

been in a couple of years) but the last thing I heard was 'don't

worry about complementary proteins. They tend to take care of

themselves in vegetarians eating a wide variety of foods.' A peanut

butter sandwich is a complete protein, for instance. Ditto a bean

burrito or a grilled cheese or a bowl of oatmeal with milk on it or

beans and rice or polenta with a bit of cheese grated in -- all the

normal ways you'd eat two kinds of proteins. An egg is a complete

protein, so anything with an egg included -- even an egg white -- is

complete. Modern vegans have more trouble because of B12 which is

only found in animal products, but in traditional 'vegan' diets the

small amounts of bugs and such in pre-industrial agricultural

products tended to take care of even that.

Probably the diet most able to sustainably feed the most people in a

healthy way is a heavy focus on a variety of plants with a bit of

eggs, dairy, and meat added in as condiments. About like our

ancestors were eating from a few thousand to a few hundred years ago.

Again, I'm not up to date on the research, but unless there's been

something new that is vastly different from what was being said five

years ago, worrying about complementing proteins isn't necessary.

Val

On Mar 19, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Igo wrote:

> Yes we are are talking about obsolete information. It does,

> however, beg the question on how we define whole foods verses junk,

> & complementary proteins verses complete proteins, based on more

> current research.

>

> Sincerely, Jim

>

> Val <listval@...> wrote:

> Naw, that was outdated info. I ate vegetarian for 20 years. You

> don't really have to worry about protein combining. Later

> researchers than Lappe (Diet for a Small Planet) showed it's not hard

> to get plenty of protein on a veg diet as long as you're eating

> primarily whole foods and not relying on junk.

>

> On Mar 19, 2008, at 6:41 AM, Igo wrote:

>

> > This person is referring to a book entitled, Diet For A Small

> > Planet, written back in the day. The whole notion, as I remember it

> > was that of over population, & how the world could possibly survive

> > it? The book also suggested complementary proteins ie: mixing

> > grains & legumes @ a meal had more usable protein than either grain

> > or legume alone, hence complementary proteins would allow for more

> > space on an overcrowded planet.

> > The catch is the book made a point of complementary protein, not

> > complete protein. Since that time, 1970's, as I remember, many

> > vegetarians had difficulty with a whole host of deficiencies,

> > unless they followed a strict set of principals & laws of food

> > combining, etc. way too tedious for the average Joe, turned to

> > eating grubs, bugs, yeast, ferments, molds, algae, etc. to help

> > balance out their deficiencies. It seems that microscopic animals

> > are touted as friendly bacteria, & for many a vegetarian they

> > assume that may be the answer, certainly many cultures through out

> > the world have engaged in ferments specific to that region, so to

> > make the argument stronger it would be necessary to determine what

> > kind of vegetarianism your friend practices & if it is done for

> > religious/cultural purposes?

> >

> > Best Regards, Jim

> >

> > three3_six6_nine9 <three3_six6_nine9@...> wrote:

> > I'd love solid back-up, if possible, to refute the following (quoted

> > from a vegetarian I know):

> >

> > 'most of the agricultural output goes to feed animals so if animals

> > were not in the picture A LOT less agriculture would be needed to

> > support humans and the planet could support a lot more people

> > environmentally. Look up how much water/grain/land is necessary

> for a

> > single hamburger patty and you'll be surprised.'

> >

> > This person is aware that grass-feeding is better than grain yet

> still

> > stated this. And of course they feel that vegetarianism is

> healthy for

> > humans.

> >

> > Anything solid to refute this is welcome - good links and articles

> > that address exactly these points.

> >

> > Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Grains probably aren't really what we're intended to eat. They have

to be processed at least somewhat -- most need to be hulled, ground

and cooked or fermented -- in order to be edible to humans, and we

didn't start making them a focus of our diets until maybe ten

thousand years ago. If we really want to eat the way our bodies were

intended to eat, we probably should be focussing on plants with eggs

and meats and animal fats as a secondary part of our diets, as that's

what we'd have had available pre-agriculture. Add a bit of dairy and

grains in small amounts, but really those two are latecomers. Not

that there aren't cultures that eventually made dairy a primary focus

and stayed healthy, but both dairy and grains are latecomers to our

diets.

On Mar 19, 2008, at 7:32 AM, three3_six6_nine9 wrote:

> Thanks for the replies so far.

>

> He's a ovo vegetarian who avoids soy and eats sprouted wheat bread,

> beans, organic greens for salads, olive oil and some fruits and

> organic spritzers as a treat. He used to be vegan (for 7 years) but

> despite supplementing with B12 and getting enough protein he had

> memory loss, lowered libido and fatigue. He started to crave eggs

> badly so he added them to his diet and within a week all of the main

> issues improved and it was like he was a different person! He eats

> this way for 'spiritual reasons' he says (he's not religious), and

> environmental reasons and he doesn't want to eat meat unless

> absolutely necessary for his health. He doesn't eat fermented foods.

> He used to eat coconut oil at my suggestion but dropped it. His health

> still isn't good, he gets sick a lot with colds and flus but he says

> he was sicker as a young person even though he lived in the country

> and ate pasture fed dairy, eggs from his grandmother's chickens and

> some meat.

>

> The question I have is that although you can feed people cheaply with

> grain that doesn't confer health. If animals were raised on grass and

> the growing of grain was drastically reduced or eliminated, how would

> that impact the environment? The world population is enormous now, of

> course, so this is a tricky thing but I see only misery if people were

> to go without animal foods. Without eggs he is very ill, for example.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- " three3_six6_nine9 " <three3_six6_nine9@...> wrote:

> I'd love solid back-up, if possible, to refute the following (quoted

> from a vegetarian I know):

> 'most of the agricultural output goes to feed animals so if animals

> were not in the picture A LOT less agriculture would be needed to

> support humans and the planet could support a lot more people

> environmentally. Look up how much water/grain/land is necessary for a

> single hamburger patty and you'll be surprised.'

Read " The Naive Vegetarian " by Barry Groves, PhD nutritionist:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

[Guest guest]

Colds and flu are a result of toxins in the body. A focus on detox and

building the immune system would be my suggestion. Nutrition does this.

You can have good nutrition on a vegetarian diet.

Your dark greens are very alkalizing and help to neutralize the poisons

in the system. Fruits and vegetables eaten in their natural state is a

main key too. Cooked food does not digest well, and causes the body to

become sluggish. Raw foods are full of enzymes and easy to digest.

Maybe your friend needs to get the blood work done to evaluate the

problem and then work according to the information from that.

>

> Thanks, Jim, those are excellent points. He hasn't had any testing

> done and I agree it would be good. He doesn't think his colds and flus

> can be prevented - he figures that's the way he'll be because he was

> affected so much by the mono. He'd like them to stop but doesn't do

> anything aside from eat in a way he feels is healthy for him and

> doesn't impact the environment a lot.

>

[Guest guest]

While I know your question was about environment, the conditions you

describe make me wonder the following:

Does he get enough Vitamin C?

Does he get adequate EFA? I have seen vegetarian EPA and DHA supplements -

some people just can't make these themselves and he could be one of them.

How is his B vitamin intake outside of B12? Does he eat any sources of heat

sensitive B1 and B6 (Ferments? Raw Foods?)

Does he understand the importance of eating adequate fat alongside

beta-carotene so that it is properly converted into Vitamin A? (Mashed

Sweet Potatoes prepared with butter and cream or Pumpkin pie made with cream

are great sources of beta-carotene+fat.)

Does he live at an altitude where the sun does not support Vitamin D

production for part of the year? Does he get sun regularly?

How is his sulfur intake? (Elemental as well as protein based methionine

and cysteine.)

There is so much more to diet than just animal vs. plant foods... Sure,

animal foods have certain advantages - but it really sounds like he may just

be missing something (and that could definitely be due to his years of being

vegan, but it is hard to say if he was sickly before he became vegan.)

-Lana

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:32 AM, three3_six6_nine9 <

three3_six6_nine9@...> wrote:

> His health

> still isn't good, he gets sick a lot with colds and flus but he says

> he was sicker as a young person even though he lived in the country

> and ate pasture fed dairy, eggs from his grandmother's chickens and

> some meat.

> He used to be vegan (for 7 years) but despite supplementing with B12 and

> getting enough protein he had memory loss, lowered libido and fatigue.

>

[Guest guest]

What about the example of the Salatin farm in Omnivore's Dilemna by

Pollin. They use overlapping ecosystems to strengthen the land

for further production. Raising animals on the land creates fertilizer

byproducts that provide nutrients for other animals and crops. It is

not really a zero sum game in this scenario. The problem is that in

modern farming and meat production does not utilize the techniques

described.

I am no expert in this area, but this is basically what I understood.

In a similar way, I understood that early south american Andean cultures

produced oversized yields utilizing dense terraced farming with many

complementary plant (and some animal) species.

[Guest guest]

--- <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> Read " The Naive Vegetarian " by Barry Groves, PhD nutritionist:

> http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

>

--- Igo <jimi761@...> wrote:

> I read it, that is one hunk of a body of research, lots to consider &

> to critique.

Jim, there is one assertion that Groves' makes that I'm not sure is

realistic - that vegans are more violent. There are plenty of violent

omnivores

Most of his other arguments I like.

I can see how violent behavior might be related to nutrition and diet,

and IIRC this is discussed in NAPD (I need to go back and re-read).

[Guest guest]

Check out Dr. Barry Groves essay, " The Naive Vegetarian " :

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html the beyondveg website

is also helpful, I seem to have deleted that link.

Desh

[Guest guest]

This is the key point. The vegetarian argument ignores pasturing which turns

indigestible grass into protein, so the grain comparison does not apply

unless you are talking about grain-fed meat. Also, it ignores

the unsustainability of monocrop vegetable farming. Tilling the

soil contributes to erosion and lets the carbon locked in the soil out to

contribute to global warming. Even if it is organic, you usually need to

import large amounts of fertility from outside. I started to realize this

when I thought about how much compost I had to buy to fertilize my organic

garden. Small, sustainable farms can provide much of their fertility on

site, but realistically only if they also pasture animals and use the manure

for fertilizers. " Veganic " agriculture even aims to eliminate that and seems

committed to a non-sustainable and anti-ecological approach: nature recycles

matter through interaction of a wide number of species, both plants and

animals. Besides Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma, the literature on

" permaculture " helped point out the absurdity of this approach.

These considerations

do emphasize the importance of pasturing animals in a sustainable way

rather than buying grain-fed meat. I say this as a former vegan (though

never a supporter of veganic agriculture and other absurdities). Someone who

buys meat and produce from small, local, organic farms will support the

environment better than someone who buys California (or Chinese) organic

produce produced in huge monocultures and shipped from far away.

Bill

|Well, it's true -- it takes more water/land/grain to grow a day's

|calories worth of cow than a day's calories worth of grain.

|

|There are, however, many areas that are appropriate for pasturing but

|not for tilling. Cornell University found that more people could be

|fed if New Yorkers ate mostly veggies, a little meat than if everyone

|ate all vegetarian:

|

[Guest guest]

Neurotransmitters are made from protein and fat, and depending on the

way a vegan does it, I can see being deficient in both.

Check out the literature on neurotransmitters and loss of impulse

control and explosive anger - there's a lot with serotonin just for

starters, I know.

Conie

> > I read it, that is one hunk of a body of research, lots to

consider &

> > to critique.

>

> Jim, there is one assertion that Groves' makes that I'm not sure is

> realistic - that vegans are more violent. There are plenty of

violent

> omnivores

>

> Most of his other arguments I like.

>

> I can see how violent behavior might be related to nutrition and

diet,

> and IIRC this is discussed in NAPD (I need to go back and re-read).

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lana,

> Does he get enough Vitamin C?

Probably with the salads he eats. He eats potatoes too which seem to

have a bit of C even when cooked, I believe.

> Does he get adequate EFA? I have seen vegetarian EPA and DHA

supplements - some people just can't make these themselves and he

could be one of them.

>

He would get some from the eggs he eats.

> How is his B vitamin intake outside of B12? Does he eat any sources

of heat sensitive B1 and B6 (Ferments? Raw Foods?)

>

In a supplement, yes. Raw vegetables/fruits, yes.

> Does he understand the importance of eating adequate fat alongside

> beta-carotene so that it is properly converted into Vitamin A?

(Mashed Sweet Potatoes prepared with butter and cream or Pumpkin pie

made with cream are great sources of beta-carotene+fat.)

He isn't low fat, per se, he eats plenty of olive oil.

> Does he live at an altitude where the sun does not support Vitamin D

> production for part of the year? Does he get sun regularly?

No, he wouldn't get enough sun.

> How is his sulfur intake? (Elemental as well as protein based

methionine

> and cysteine.)

I'm not sure.

[Guest guest]

--- Desh " De Bell-Frantz " <deshabell@...> wrote:

> the beyondveg website is also helpful, I seem to have deleted that

> link.

Here's the Beyond Vegetarianism link for anyone who hasn't seen it:

http://www.beyondveg.com/

I've looked at bits and pieces of their web site in the past. They

have a lot of material I haven't looked at yet. Thanks for the

reminder Desh.

This is their discussion about vegetarianism:

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/frank-talk/index.shtml

I need to read it.

I notice they also have a section on " Rethinking Natural Hygiene " :

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/nat-hyg/index.shtml

Jim Igo, would you care to comment on it. I know little about it,

although I have read some of their discussions about cooked versus

raw, which I posted a few months ago.

[Guest guest]

As far as Vegans being more violent, I would guess that the do not get

appropriate Omega3s. Even if they consume plenty of flax and other

omega3 fatty acids from vegetagle sources the sources are out of balance

with low DHA, correct?

Below is an article from the NYTimes that discusses lower rates of

violence with a high fish oil diet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/magazine/16wwln_idealab.html

Idea Lab

Does Eating Salmon Lower the Murder Rate?

<>By STEPHEN MIHM, Published: April 16, 2006

Most prisons are notorious for the quality of their cuisine (pretty

poor) and the behavior of their residents (pretty violent). They are

therefore ideal locations to test a novel hypothesis: that violent

aggression is largely a product of poor nutrition

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/die\

t/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>.

Toward that end, researchers are studying whether inmates become less

violent when put on a diet rich in vitamins

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/vit\

amins/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>

and in the fatty acids found in seafood.

Could a salmon steak and a side of spinach really help curb violence,

not just in prison but everywhere? In 2001, Dr. ph Hibbeln, a senior

clinical investigator at the National Institutes of Health, published a

study, provocatively titled " Seafood Consumption and Homicide

Mortality, " that found a correlation between a higher intake of omega-3

fatty acids (most often obtained from fish) and lower murder rates.

Of course, seeing a correlation between fatty acids and nonviolence

doesn't necessarily prove that fatty acids inhibit violence. Bernard

Gesch, a senior research scientist at Oxford University, set out to show

that better nutrition does, in fact, decrease violence. He enrolled 231

volunteers at a British prison in his study; one-half received a

placebo, while the other half received fatty acids and other

supplements. Over time, the antisocial behavior (as measured by assaults

and other violations) of the inmates who had been given the supplements

dropped by more than a third relative to their previous records. The

control group showed little change. Gesch published his results in 2002

and plans to start a larger study later this year. Similar trials are

already under way in Holland and Norway.

What would it mean if we found a clear link between diet and violent

behavior? To start with, it might challenge the notion that violence is

a product of free will. " But how do you exercise that free will without

using your brain? " Gesch asks. " And how, exactly, is the brain going to

work properly without an adequate nutrient supply? " The belief that

people choose to be violent may be irrelevant if the brain isn't firing

on all cylinders. This may especially be the case for impulsive acts of

violence, which are less a choice than a failure to rein in one's worst

instincts.

Consider, for example, a study conducted by researchers in Finland. They

tested prisoners convicted of violent crimes and found that they had

lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids than ordinary, healthy subjects.

Why? Omega-3's foster the growth of neurons in the brain's frontal

cortex, the bit of gray matter that controls impulsive behavior. Having

enough of these fatty acids may keep violent impulses in check. Violent

criminals may not be the only ones who would benefit from more fatty

acids in their diet. In a recent double-blind trial, when omega-3's were

given to people with a history of substance abuse, the symptoms of

" anger " fell by 50 percent.

Of course, omega-3's are widely hailed these days as a miracle

substance, credited with boosting health in dozens of ways. But Gesch

warns against what he calls " silver bullets. " The state of the evidence,

he says, " doesn't allow us to pinpoint which dietary fat is responsible

for changes in behavior. " In his new study, he will look into whether

several interdependent nutrients may play a role.

Gesch further adds that we shouldn't expect nutrition alone to banish

violent behavior. " The brain needs to be nourished in two ways. It needs

to be educated, and it needs nutrients. Both social and physical factors

are important. " Simply throwing fish and vegetables at violent criminals

is unlikely to have a lasting effect on its own.

Caveats aside, there's something that many people may find unnerving

about the idea of curing violent behavior by changing what people eat.

It threatens to let criminals evade responsibility for their actions.

Think, for example, of the infamous " Twinkie defense, " in which an

accused murderer's lawyer suggested that junk food was partly to blame

for his client's compromised mental state. More controversial, perhaps,

is the brave-new-world idea of using diet to enforce docility and

conformity to the rules, a sort of state-sponsored version of that

timeless parental demand to children everywhere: " Eat your vegetables. "

Then again, we already live in a society in which parents have resorted

to drugs like Ritalin to quell unwanted outbursts and impulsive

behavior. And when you approach it from that perspective, changing what

people eat may not be so radical after all.

Mihm teaches history at the University of Georgia.

--

W. Ferguson

2120 The Strand #7

Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Email: sfergucla@...

Cell: (310) 489-3501

[Guest guest]

you may try first commending him on his concern for the environment

and people (this might also help open him up to hearing what you have

to say). i would stress what others have mentioned here about animal

husbandry. it isn't more agriculture that is going to feed the world.

i think it is more teaching people to grow their own food on small

community farms with healthy soil, rather than demolishing cultures

and forcing them to comply with various (often corporate) interests

including industrial agriculture. you could also use the example of

the soy crops that have taken a big place in the rain forest now.

where they used to clear cut for cattle, they are now clear cutting

for " the soy king " . you may get more soybeans, but that doesn't

exactly make for healthier people or a healthier environment.

essentially, ending world hunger means restoring people's cultures and

heritage--supporting their own original way of living and feeding

themselves.

sabine.

>

> I'd love solid back-up, if possible, to refute the following (quoted

> from a vegetarian I know):

>

>

[Guest guest]

And lets not forget that we haven't even established that inadequate

protien is the factor that is causing the said problems vegetarians

have faced. Remember, meat supplies much more than protein; folks who

only eat muscle meat suffer for that choice, too.

>

> Yes we are are talking about obsolete information. It does, however,

beg the question on how we define whole foods verses junk, &

complementary proteins verses complete proteins, based on more current

research.

>