Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths

Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths

The Proof Is Here - Meat IS Deadly

The [UK] Department of Health has been urged to review its guidance on red meat after a study found that eating almost half the daily recommended amount can significantly increase the risk of dying early from cancer and heart disease.

By Rebecca Smith

According to the study, people should cut their red meat consumption to 1.5 ounces (42 grams) a day, equivalent to one large steak a week. This could prevent almost one in 10 early deaths in men and one in 13 in women. 

Photo: ANDREW CROWLEY

Small quantities of processed meat such as bacon, sausages or salami can increase the likelihood of dying early by a fifth, researchers from Harvard School of Medicine found. Eating steak increases the risk of early death by 12%.

The study found that cutting the amount of red meat in peoples’ diets to 1.5 ounces (42 grams) a day, equivalent to one large steak a week, could prevent almost one in 10 early deaths in men and one in 13 in women.

The scientists said that the government’s current advice that people should eat no more than 2.5 ounces (70 grams) a day, around the level the average Briton already consumes, was “generous”.

Dr Frank Hu, co-author of the study, said: “Given the growing evidence that even modest amounts of red meat is associated with increased risk of chronic disease and premature death, 2.5 ounces (70 grams) per day seems generous. The bottom line is that we should make red meat only an occassional rather than regular part of our diet.”

Red meat often contains high amounts of saturated fat, while bacon and salami contain large amounts of salt. Replacing red meat with poultry, fish or vegetables, whole grains and other healthy foods cut the risk of dying by up to one fifth, the study found.

The study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed more than 100,000 people for around 28 years asking them periodically about their diet and lifestyle.

It was found that for every serving of red meat - equivalent to 3 ounces (85 grams) - eaten each day there was an 18 per cent increased risk of dying from heart disease and a 10 per cent increased risk of dying from cancer.

For each serving of processed meat, equivalent to two slices of bacon or one hot dog, the risk of dying from heart disease rose by a 21 per cent and from cancer by 16 per cent.

Lead author Dr An Pan from the Department of Nutrition at Harvard, wrote in the journal: “We found that greater consumption of unprocessed and processed red meats is associated with higher mortality risk.

“Compared with red meat, other dietary components, such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole grains, were associated with lower risk.

“These results indicate that replacement of red meat with alternative healthy dietary components may lower the mortality risk.”

Scientists added that people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise.

In an accompanying editorial Dr Dean Ornish, of the University of California, San Francisco, said that eating less red meat could also help tackle climate change.

He said: “In addition to their health benefits, the food choices we make each day affect other important areas as well. What is personally sustainable is globally sustainable. What is good for you is good for our planet.”

A landmark study by the World Cancer Research Fund published in 2005 recommended that people should not eat more than 1.1lb (499 grams) of red meat a week, and that children should not be given processed meat like sausages at all.

Dr Rachel Thompson, Deputy Head of Science at the World Cancer Research Fund, said:

“This study strengthens the body of evidence which shows a link between red meat and chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. The research itself seems solid and is based on two large scale cohort studies monitored over a long period of time."

Dr Carrie Ruxton, from the Meat Advisory Panel (MAP), a British group of doctors and scientists funded by the industry, cast doubt on the findings and said the conclusions were based on a "theoretical" model"

She said that red meat is a valuable source of iron, zine and vitamin D which is vital for health, especially in pregnant women and infants.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Red meat can be part of a balanced diet. But people who eat a lot of red and processed meat should consider cutting down as regularly eating a lot could increase your risk of bowel cancer."

From The Telegraph @ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9138230/Red-meat-is-blamed-for-one-in-10-early-deaths.html

Vegetarianism vs Meat Eating: The Standoff Is Over

 by Vadim Kirillov

Until recently, due to the lack of quality statistical studies, too great of a role in the great debate between vegetarians and meat eaters was played by a rhetorical component. A large-scale study involving 120,000 people showed that consumption of red meat significantly reduces life expectancy.

The position of vegetarians, due to the lack of data on long-term effects of meat diet on health, often boiled down to not always scientifically sound and ethical reasoning. The meat eaters recognized the proven harm of pre-processed (smoked, canned, freeze dried, etc.) meat and large amounts of animal fats. However, they stood their ground, indicating that the nutrient properties of freshly prepared meats (also unproven scientifically) are more important than hypothetical long-term risk of meat diet.

A large study conducted by a group of doctors from the Harvard School of Public Health, who worked under the guidance of Doctor of Medicine An Pan, revealed that fears of vegetarians are absolutely justified. Consumption of red meat is clearly correlated with a higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and metabolic diseases, while the replacement of meat from mammals with fish and poultry greatly reduces this risk.

The findings are published in the Archives of Internal Medicine – the journal of the American Medical Association.

In the analysis of long-term effects on meat diet, An Pan and his colleagues relied on a statistical study of an impressive scale. A total of 37,698 men and 83,644 women participated in the study. Their health, along with the diet, was tracked for 28 years in the second group, and for 22 years in the first group. During this time, 23,926 deaths were recorded in the two groups surveyed, of which 5,910 – from cardiovascular disease and 9,464 – from cancer.

“We found that higher consumption of red meat is associated with a significant increase in mortality from these diseases, and this relationship can be traced in the case of pre-processed and freshly prepared meats, with higher correlations for the pre-processed. When replacing red meat with fish, vegetables and poultry, there was an inverse relationship – reduced mortality,” the authors commented on the results of the study.

The study revealed that in total life expectancy falls by 13% in case of daily consumption of freshly prepared meat the size of a palm, and a whopping 20% ​​of the daily consumption of portions of pre-processed meats – a hot dog or two strips of bacon. For the disease that became the cause of death in both groups, the dependence of risks from the consumption of red meat was as follows: the risk of cardiovascular disease increased by 18% and 21% for fresh and processed meat, respectively, and cancer – by 10% and 16%.

These numbers can be considered statistically neutral, that is, free from those observed during the variables such as age, body mass index, physical activity and family history of cardiovascular disease and cancer. It is also important that all the observed members of the group were physically healthy at the start of the study.

In the second part of the analysis, the authors assessed the combined effect of replacing red meat with other foodstuffs. It was found that the risk of death in case of the exclusion of red meat from the diet is lowered if the daily portion of meat is replaced by a portion of fish (by 7%), poultry (by 14%), nuts (by 19%), vegetables (by 10%) and cereals (by 14%).

“We also found that 9.3% of deaths among men and 7.6% among women could be prevented in the observed period of time if all participants reduced their daily consumption of red meat by 50%,” summarized the researchers.

In other words, three and a half thousand men and six thousand women who participated in the study would have survived if they had cut their meat consumption by at least in half.

pravda.ru


Via Truth Theory @ http://truththeory.com/2012/03/21/vegetarians-vs-meat-eaters-standoff-is-over/

Help This Unique Site Survive

Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

Just click in the jar - 

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Change Your Diet & Help Save Animals From a Life of Suffering

Change Your Diet & Help Save Animals From a Life of Suffering

By DAVID GEROW IRVING

—

A close inspection of slaughterhouse methods reveals that cruelty is an inescapable byproduct of animal slaughter no matter where it takes place and regardless of how well-trained animal handlers are.

In slaughterhouses in the United States, for example, where animal welfare standards are enforced by no less than the United States Department of Agriculture, cruelty still dominates the industry.

There, cows are forced into kill boxes at the rate of 400 per hour. Each cow is supposed to be killed by stunning, but at the speed at which these animals are dispatched, it is inevitable that many are not killed or even rendered unconscious. At the end of the line those unfortunate enough to still be alive are hung upside down from hooks like all the rest where their throats are slit, their hides are ripped from their bodies, and their hoofs are cut off though they are fully alive and conscious. In this position they struggle with whatever strength is left to them as they bleed to death.

The inferences to be drawn are obvious. Whether in Australia, the United States or any other place in the world where animals are slaughtered for food, so long as cruelty is a part of the modus operandi, the animal foods that people eat can only be derived through the suffering of animals.

If we want to put a stop to that suffering only two choices are available. Either we eliminate the suffering in the slaughter process or we eliminate animal products from our diet.

As to the first, the question becomes, is it even possible to eradicate animal suffering from the animal slaughter process? And as to the second, the power to remove animal products from the diet as a means of eliminating suffering to farm animals lies exclusively with every individual and is a choice that is open to everyone.

Let us take a look at some of the chief players involved in slaughtering animals. First are the animals slaughtered for food. Next comes the public that consumes the slaughtered animals but wants animals to be treated humanely. Third are the farmers and those engaged in food production who are responsible for the manner in which animals raised for slaughter are treated. Fourth, we have the government which is responsible for supervising animal slaughter. The government is always tied to business interests which demand that commerce continues at all costs even if the most reprehensible kinds of cruelty to animals are uncovered. This renders the government incapable of doing the morally right thing – that is, if we believe that cruelty to animals is morally wrong. Fifth come those citizens who refuse to participate in the cruel treatment of animals under any circumstances and who work to eliminate the suffering of animals.

The players above can serve as a model from which we can determine that if we believe that animals should not suffer by human hands, then it is impossible to do the right thing unless we eliminate the suffering caused by humans one way or the other. This is especially important for the public because the members of the public know intuitively that if they approve of actions that in any way cause animals to suffer – including those committed by their own government and the corporate sector – they then condone and become participants in causing the suffering. Moreover, if they approve of it continuously then cruelty toward animals becomes a way of life, and their lives are then cruelty-based.

 

An important factor also to be considered is that what happens in slaughterhouses represents only one part of the suffering which animals destined for slaughter endure. In order to reach the abattoirs, animals have to be transported there. And the transportation of animals invariably involves considerable suffering to the animals.

Cows are crammed into 18-wheelers for journeys of hundreds of miles without food or water under the most deplorable conditions. Neither air conditioning on the hottest days of summer or heat on the coldest days of winter are provided. Many of these animals suffer heart attacks along the journey.

Pigs experience similar conditions. Though they normally live 10 to 15 years, they are transported to slaughter after living only six months. In the winter, the pigs are packed so tightly in the unheated trucks that their skin freezes against the sides of the trucks. Handlers have to enter the trucks and cut the skin loose with knives.

Chickens also suffer a gruesome fate. More than 40 billion chickens are transported every year. After only 45 days of life, boiler chickens are loaded into crates for transport. Throwers grab several chickens by their legs and throw them to catchers who stuff them tightly into crates with other chickens at a rate of 1000 to 1500 per hour. These chickens suffer dislocated and broken hips, legs, and wings. 

An estimated 95% of the birds sustain broken bones with three or four different breakages. En route, they are given no food, water, or shelter during extreme temperatures. They cannot even spread their wings in the tightly packed crates and many die and lie underfoot of the other chickens in their crates. Chickens are extremely sensitive to pain and suffer considerably.

 Animals transported by ship also are subject to dangerous conditions and put at high risk for injury and death. Several ships have sunk, caught fire, or have had equipment failures at sea that have cost the lives of many thousands of animals.

At every step of the process that turns animals into food, we encounter the fact that it is a cruel endeavour that causes much suffering to animals. Suffering is built into the system.

Farmers, unfortunately, have become so habituated to farming techniques that include such methods that they have become indifferent to the suffering farming imposes upon the animals.

Small wonder that they see nothing amiss in putting baby calves into dark crates where they cannot turn around and where they are lonely and fearful without their mothers. The mothers bellow for days at the loss of their infants which have been taken from them. The farmers feed the young calves an iron deficient formula designed to keep their flesh white for humans to eat. The calves suffer from anemia, diarrhea, and pneumonia. After a few months the calves are killed.

And what of the fathers of these calves? They are kept in huge feed lots containing hundreds of pens filled with cows numbering into the tens of thousands where they stand in excrement-filled lots and are fed a diet of coarse grains in order to fatten them for market. In their pens they are injected with antibiotics to offset the chemicals and disease resistant bacteria in their feed.

Cows are intended by nature to graze on grassy plains, eat shrubbery, and feel the warmth of the sun on their backs. Only humans with an eye on profit could so subvert nature’s intentions as to confine cows in small pens in filthy, manure-filled environments in which the air is thick with bacteria and particulate matter and feed them an unhealthy diet of grains and antibiotics just so humans can eat them.

The above descriptions barely scratch the surface of the all-pervasive suffering to which animals used in the food chain are forced to submit.

Unfortunately, the suffering of farm animals described in this article is built into our food. Without it, these foods could not be produced. If we are concerned about eliminating the suffering of animals, it is our responsibility to acknowledge the extent to which the suffering of animals permeates the entire food production process.

Wherever animals are slaughtered larger forces are also at work. For example, around 56 billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption every year. The carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide gasses and the waste they produce pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. Livestock produces as much in greenhouse gases as the entire transportation sector.

And to get rid of the excrement, enormous quantities of manure are stacked into mountains of waste or loaded into lagoons, the sludge from which is spread way too thickly over crops where, like the mountains of manure, it seeps into the earth and contaminates the ground water that finds its way into our rivers and streams.

A United Nations report indicates that already 38% of the entire ice-free land surface goes to livestock production. With the world population expected to rise from nearly 6.7 billion to 9 billion in the next thirty-five years, how much of the ice-free land surface will then be required for livestock? And what about the next thirty-five years after that? Shall we then put our livestock on the moon just so human beings can continue to satisfy their appetite for animal flesh?

Besides the suffering of animals in our food production system and the pollution of our rivers and streams, the list of the issues associated with the widespread, systemic exploitation of animals as it relates to the quality of human life has become a serious matter to which more and more thoughtful people are turning their attention.

These problems include the increase in poverty in the developing countries caused by growing grain to feed animals for human consumptions on land that should be used to grow crops to feed impoverished people.

It involves the fraudulent taking of billions of tax dollars by our universities for needless animal research that could be going to address important societal matters.

It concerns the creation of unnecessary drugs for the treatment of conditions such as heart disease and excessive weight caused by eating animals.

And it includes the epidemic of childhood obesity that is ruining the health of many of our children so that already one-third of boys and even more girls (39%) born in the year 2000 are now at lifetime risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.

If we want to eliminate the suffering of animals, one of the best ways we can do this is to simply stop eating them. Unfortunately, this idea seems to fill us with dread that we will die from a lack of protein and that our poor taste buds will never forgive us if we do.

But contrary to the propaganda put out by the meat, seafood, poultry, and dairy industries, the facts are that if we simply satisfy our daily caloric needs, a feat easily accomplished by consuming a diet of vegetables, fruits, legumes, and grains, we will meet our protein needs (small amounts of vitamin B12 should supplement a vegan diet).

Concurrently, we might want to begin to investigate the claim that animal protein in our diet is a leading cause of the killer diseases, a scientific fact being ignored by our healthcare organisations and certainly not one that the meat, seafood, poultry, and dairy industries are anxious to discuss.

As for our taste buds, abandoning an animal-based diet opens up all kinds of fresh tastes and flavours. For those who like to cook, it is a whole new culinary adventure. Going without animal foods can only lead to enormous benefits for our personal health, the betterment of the earth, and the welfare of innocent animals.

If we want to feel the clearness in our hearts and minds that results from right living, if we want to feel that we are good people and that our compassion is limitless, if we want the peace of mind that comes from living in a way that is not tied to the suffering of animals, and if we hope to make an imprint on the world that will leave it a better place than we found it, then we can do no better than to live in a way that expresses concern and caring for the welfare and well being of the other species that cohabit our planet. There can be no better place to begin than to stop eating animals. When we do, we will eliminate much of their suffering.

David Irving is the author of The Protein Myth: Significantly Reducing the Risk of Cancer, Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes While Saving the Animals and the Planet (O-Books, 2011). This new book illustrates how we can avoid the major killer diseases by eliminating animal products from our diet. The Protein Myth makes a compelling case that the way to a healthier life and a better world is ending the exploitation of animals. The book is available from all good bookstores or visit www.newdawnreviews.com.



The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 129 (November-December 2011).

From New Dawn @ http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/change-your-diet-help-save-animals-from-a-life-of-suffering

Please Help Keep This Site Online

Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

 

Xtra Images – http://cms1.good.is/posts/slide_1320358312animal.jpg

http://www.veganise.me/wp-content/uploads/veg.jpg

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/arc/BzAnimalRightsCartoon13.jpg

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/13/135/559/1355945_370.jpg 

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559   

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Native Americans and Vegetarianism

Native Americans and Vegetarianism

The Myth of Carnivorous Natives

 

By Rita Laws, Ph.D. How well we know the stereotype of the rugged Plains Indian: killer of buffalo, dressed in quill-decorated buckskin, elaborately feathered eaddress, and leather moccasins, living in an animal skin teepee, master of the dog and horse, and stranger to vegetables. But this lifestyle, once limited almost exclusively to the Apaches, flourished no more than a couple hundred years. It is not representative of most Native Americans of today or yesterday. Indeed, the "buffalo-as-lifestyle" phenomenon is a direct result of European influence, as we shall see. Among my own people, the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi and Oklahoma, vegetables are the traditional diet mainstay. A French manuscript of the eighteenth century describes the Choctaws' vegetarian leanings in shelter and food. The homes were constructed not of skins, but of wood, mud, bark and cane. The principal food, eaten daily from earthen pots, was a vegetarian stew containing corn, pumpkin and beans. The bread was made from corn and acorns. Other common favorites were roasted corn and corn porridge. (Meat in the form of small game was an infrequent repast.) The ancient Choctaws were, first and foremost, farmers. Even the clothing was plant based, artistically embroidered dresses for the women and cotton breeches for the men. Choctaws have never adorned their hair with feathers. The rich lands of the Choctaws in present-day Mississippi were so greatly coveted by nineteenth century Americans that most of the tribe was forcibly removed to what is now called Oklahoma. Oklahoma was chosen both because it was largely uninhabited and because several explorations of the territory had deemed the land barren and useless for any purpose. The truth, however, was that Oklahoma was so fertile a land that it was an Indian breadbasket. That is, it was used by Indians on all sides as an agricultural resource. Although many Choctaws suffered and died during removal on the infamous "Trail of Tears", those that survived built anew and successfully in Oklahoma, their agricultural genius intact. George Catlin, the famous nineteenth century Indian historian, described the Choctaw lands of southern Oklahoma in the 1840's this way: "...the ground was almost literally covered with vines, producing the greatest profusion of delicious grapes,...and hanging in such endless clusters... our progress was oftentimes completely arrested by hundreds of acres of small plum trees...every bush that was in sight was so loaded with the weight of its...fruit, that they were in many instances literally without leaves on their branches, and quite bent to the ground... and beds of wild currants, gooseberries, and (edible) prickly pear." (Many of the "wild" foods Anglo explorers encountered on their journeys were actually carefully cultivated by Indians.) Many of the Choctaw foods cooked at celebrations even today are vegetarian. Corn is so important to us it is considered divine. Our corn legend says that is was a gift from Hashtali, the Great Spirit. Corn was given in gratitude because Choctaws had fed the daughter of the Great Spirit when she was hungry. (Hashtali is literally "Noon Day Sun". Choctaws believe the Great Spirit resides within the sun, for it is the sun that allows the corn to grow!) Another Choctaw story describes the afterlife as a giant playground where all but murderers are allowed. What do Choctaws eat in "heaven"? Their sweetest treat, of course: melons, a never-ending supply. More than one tribe has creation legends which describe people as vegetarian, living in a kind of Garden of Eden. A Cherokee legend describes humans, plants, and animals as having lived in the beginning in "equality and mutual helpfulness". The needs of all were met without killing one another. When man became aggressive and ate some of the animals, the animals invented diseases to keep human population in check. The plants remained friendly, however, and offered themselves not only as food to man, but also as medicine, to combat the new diseases. More tribes were like the Choctaws than were different. Aztec, Mayan, and Zapotec children in olden times ate 100% vegetarian diets until at least the age of ten years old. The primary food was cereal, especially varieties of corn. Such a diet was believed to make the child strong and disease resistant. (The Spaniards were amazed to discover that these Indians had twice the life-span they did.) A totally vegetarian diet also insured that the children would retain a life-long love of grains, and thus, live a healthier life. Even today, the Indian healers of those tribes are likely to advise the sick to "return to the arms of Mother Corn" in order to get well. Such a return might include eating a lot of atole. (The easiest way to make atole is to simmer commercially produced masa harina corn flour with water. Then flavor it with chocolate or cinnamon, and sweeten to taste.) Atole is considered a sacred food. It is ironic that Indians are strongly associated with hunting and fishing when, in fact, "nearly half of all the plant foods grown in the world today were first cultivated by the American Indians, and were unknown elsewhere until the discovery of the Americas." Can you imagine Italian food without tomato paste, Ireland without white potatoes, or Hungarian goulash without paprika? All these foods have Indian origins. An incomplete list of other Indian foods given to the world includes bell peppers, red peppers, peanuts, cashews, sweet potatoes, avocados, passion fruit, zucchini, green beans, kidney beans, maple syrup, lima beans, cranberries, pecans, okra, chocolate, vanilla, sunflower seeds, pumpkin, cassava, walnuts, forty-seven varieties of berries, pineapple, and, of course, corn and popcorn. Many history textbooks tell the story of Squanto, a Pawtuxent Indian who lived in the early 1600's. Squanto is famous for having saved the Pilgrims from starvation. He showed them how to gather wilderness foods and how to plant corn. There have been thousands of Squantos since, even though their names are not so well-known. In fact modern day agriculture owes its heart and soul to Indian-taught methods of seed development, hybridization, planting, growing, irrigating, storing, utilizing and cooking. And the spirit of Squanto survives to this day. One example is a Peruvian government research station tucked away in a remote Amazon Indian village called Genaro Herrera. University trained botanists, agronomists and foresters work there, scientifically studying all the ways the local Indians grow and prepare food. They are also learning how to utilize forests without destroying them, and how to combat pests without chemicals. The trend that moved some North American Indian tribes away from plant food-based diets can be traced to Coronado, a sixteenth century Spanish explorer. Prior to his time, hunting was a hobby among most Indians, not a vocation. The Apaches were one of the few tribes who relied heavily on animal killing for survival. But all that changed as Coronado and his army traversed the West and Midwest from Mexico. Some of his horses got away and quickly multiplied on the grassy plains. Indians re-tamed this new denizen, and the Age of Buffalo began.     Bison skulls waiting to be ground for fertilizer, circa 1870. Burton Historical Collection/Detroit Public Library Horses replaced dogs as beasts of burden and offered excellent transportation. This was as important an innovation to the Plains Indians as the automobile would be to Anglos later on. Life on the Plains became much easier very quickly. >From the east came another powerful influence: guns. The first American settlers brought their firearms with them. Because of the Indian "threat", they were soon immersed in weapons development and succeeded in making more accurate and powerful weapons. But they also supplied weapons to Indians who allied themselves with colonial causes. Because it was so much easier to kill an animal with a rifle than with a bow and arrow, guns spread quickly among the Indians. Between the horse and the rifle, buffalo killing was now much simpler. The Apaches were joined by other tribes, such as the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapahos, Comanches, and Kiowas. These tribes "lost the corn", gave up agriculture, and started living nomadic existences for the first time. It wasn't long before their food, clothing, and shelter were entirely dependent on one animal, the buffalo. George Catlin lamented this fact as early as 1830. He predicted the extinction of the buffalo (which very nearly happened) and the danger of not being diversified. Catlin pointed out that, were the Plains Indians only killing a buffalo for their own use, the situation might not be so grave. But because the great beasts were being slaughtered for profit, they were destined to be wiped out. It was the white man who profited. There was an insatiable Eastern market for buffalo tongue and buffalo robes. In 1832, Catlin described a wholesale buffalo slaughter carried out by six hundred Sioux on horseback. These men killed fourteen hundred animals, and then took only their tongues. These were traded to whites for a few gallons of whiskey. The whiskey, no doubt, helped to dull the Indian talent to make maximum use of an animal. Among the tribes who did not trade with whites, each animal was completely used, down to the hooves. No part went to waste. And buffalo were not killed in the winter, for the Indians lived on autumn dried meat during that time. But now buffalo were killed in the winter most of all. It was in cold weather that their magnificent coats grew long and luxuriant. Catlin estimated that 200,000 buffalo were killed each year to make coats for people back East. The average hide netted the Indian hunter one pint of whiskey. Had the Indians understood the concept of animal extinction, they may have ceased the slaughter. But to the Indians, the buffalo was a gift from the Great Spirit, a gift which would always keep coming. Decades after the disappearance of huge herds, Plains Indians still believed their return was imminent. They danced the Ghost Dance, designed to bring back the buffalo, and prayed for this miracle as late as 1890. In spite of the ease and financial incentives of killing buffalo, there were tribes that did not abandon the old ways of the Plains. In addition to the farming tribes of the Southeast, tribes in the Midwest, Southwest, and Northwest stuck to agriculture. For example, the Osage, Pawnee, Arikaras, Mandans, Wichitas, and Caddoans remained in permanent farming settlements. Even surrounded by buffalo, they built their homes of timber and earth. And among some of the Indians of the Southwest, cotton, basketry, and pottery were preferred over animal-based substitutes like leather pouches. Catlin was eerily accurate when he predicted dire consequences for the buffalo-dependent tribes. To this day, it is these Indians who have fared the worst from assimilation with other races. The Sioux of South Dakota, for one, have the worst poverty and one of the highest alcoholism rates in the country. Conversely, the tribes who depended little or not at all on animal exploitation for their survival, like the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw, are thriving and growing, having assimilated without surrendering their culture. In the past, and in more than a few tribes, meat-eating was a rare activity, certainly not a daily event. Since the introduction of European meat-eating customs, the introduction of the horse and the gun, and the proliferation of alcoholic beverages and white traders, a lot has changed. Relatively few Indians can claim to be vegetarians today. But it was not always so. For most Native Americans of old, meat was not only not the food of choice, its consumption was not revered (as in modern times when Americans eat turkey on Thanksgiving as if it were a religious duty). There was nothing ceremonial about meat. It was a plant, tobacco, that was used most extensively during ceremonies and rites, and then only in moderation. Big celebrations such as Fall Festivals centered around the harvest, especially the gathering of the corn. The Choctaws are not the only ones who continue to dance the Corn Dance. What would this country be like today if the ancient ways were still observed? I believe it is fair to say that the Indian respect for non-human life forms would have had a greater impact on American society. Corn, not turkey meat, might be the celebrated Thanksgiving Day dish. Fewer species would have become extinct, the environment would be healthier, and Indian and non-Indian Americans alike would be living longer and healthier lives. There might also be less sexism and racism, for many people believe that, as you treat your animals (the most defenseless), so you will treat your children, your women, and your minorities. Without realizing it, the Indian warriors and hunters of ages past played right into the hands of the white men who coveted their lands and their buffalo. When the lands were taken from them, and the buffalo herds decimated, there was nothing to fall back on. But the Indians who chose the peaceful path and relied on diversity and the abundance of plants for their survival were able to save their lifestyles. Even after being moved to new lands they could hang on, re-plant, and go forward. Now we, their descendants, must recapture the spirit of the ancient traditions for the benefit of all people. We must move away from the European influences that did away with a healthier style of living. We must again embrace our brothers and sisters, the animals, and "return to the corn" once and for all. (Rita Laws is Choctaw and Cherokee. She lives and writes in Oklahoma. Her Choctaw name, Hina Hanta, means Bright Path of Peace, which is what she considers vegetariansim to be. She has been vegetarian for over 14 years.)

---

© International Vegetarian Union

This article first appeared in the Vegetarian Journal, September 1994, published by The Vegetarian Resource Group via the International Vegetarian Union @ http://www.ivu.org/history/native_americans.html

Please Help Keep This Site Online

Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

 

Images – http://www.marriedtothesea.com/022410/native-american-plan-b.gif

https://motherjones.com/files/images/362in_buffalo_b.jpg

http://www.eugeneveg.org/img/Special/A1/RightNowShirt_280x269.jpg

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559   

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Daily Red Meat Raises Chances of Dying Early

Daily Red Meat Raises Chances of Dying Early

Study Is First Large Analysis of Link With Overall Health

The new study says, "If people want to be healthy and live longer, consume less red and processed meat," global nutrition professor Barry Popkin said. (By James M. Thresher For The Washington Post)

Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to the first large study to examine whether regularly eating beef or pork increases mortality.

The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.

Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.

"The bottom line is we found an association between red meat and processed meat and an increased risk of mortality," said Rashmi Sinha of the National Cancer Institute, who led the study published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

In contrast, routine consumption of fish, chicken, turkey and other poultry decreased the risk of death by a small amount.

"The uniqueness of this study is its size and length of follow-up," said Barry M. Popkin, a professor of global nutrition at the University of North Carolina, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. "This is a slam-dunk to say that, 'Yes, indeed, if people want to be healthy and live longer, consume less red and processed meat.' "

There are many explanations for how red meat might be unhealthy: Cooking red meat generates cancer-causing compounds; red meat is also high in saturated fat, which has been associated with breast and colorectal cancer; and meat is high in iron, also believed to promote cancer. People who eat red meat are more likely to have high blood pressure and cholesterol, which increases the risk of heart disease. Processed meats contain substances known as nitrosamines, which have been linked to cancer.

Although pork is often promoted as "white meat," it is believed to increase the risk of cancer because of its iron content, Sinha said.

Regardless of the mechanism, the research provides new evidence that people should follow long-standing recommendations to minimize consumption of red meat, several experts said.

"The take-home message is pretty clear," said Walter Willett, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It would be better to shift from red meat to white meat such as chicken and fish, which if anything is associated with lower mortality."

The American Meat Institute, a trade group, dismissed the findings, however, saying they were based on unreliable self-reporting by the study participants.

"Meat products are part of a healthy, balanced diet, and studies show they actually provide a sense of satisfaction and fullness that can help with weight control. Proper body weight contributes to good health overall," James H. Hodges, the group's executive vice president, said in a written statement.

For the study, researchers analyzed data from 545,653 predominantly white volunteers, ages 50 to 71, participating in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. In 1995, the subjects filled out detailed questionnaires about their diets, including meat consumption. Over the next 10 years, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died.

After accounting for other variables that might confound the findings, such as smoking and physical activity, the researchers found that those who ate the most red meat -- about a quarter-pound a day -- were more likely to die of any reason, and from heart disease and cancer in particular, than those who ate the least -- the equivalent of a couple of slices of ham a day.

Among women, those who ate the most red meat were 36 percent more likely to die for any reason, 20 percent more likely to die of cancer and 50 percent more likely to die of heart disease. Men who ate the most meat were 31 percent more likely to die for any reason, 22 percent more likely to die of cancer and 27 percent more likely to die of heart disease.

In contrast, those who consumed the most white meat were about 8 percent less likely to die during the study period than those who ate the least, the researchers found. Poultry contains more unsaturated fat, which improves cholesterol levels, and fish contains omega-3 fatty acids, which are believed to help reduce the risk of heart disease.

The risk also rose among those who consumed the most processed meat, which included any kind of sausage, cold cuts or hot dogs. Women who consumed the most processed meat (about an ounce a day) were about 25 percent more likely to die overall, about 11 percent more likely to die of cancer and about 38 percent more likely to die from heart disease, compared to those who ate the least. The men who ate the most processed meat were 16 percent more likely to die for any reason, about 12 percent more likely to die of cancer and about 9 percent more likely to die of heart disease.

Experts stressed that the findings do not mean that people need to eliminate red meat from their diet, but instead should avoid eating it every day.

"You can be very healthy being a vegetarian, but you can be very healthy being a non-vegetarian if you keep your red-meat intake low," Willett said. "If you are eating meat twice a day and can cut back to once a day there's a big benefit. If you cut back to two or three times a week there's even more benefit. If you eliminate it entirely, there's a little more benefit, but the big benefit is getting away from everyday red-meat consumption."

In addition to the health benefits, a major reduction in the eating of red meat would probably have a host of other benefits to society, Popkin said: reducing water shortages and pollution, cutting energy consumption, and tamping down greenhouse gas emissions -- all of which are associated with large-scale livestock production.

"There's a big interplay between the global increase in animal food intake and the effects on climate change," he said. "If we cut by a few ounces a day our red-meat intake, we would have big impact on emissions and environmental degradation."

By Rob Stein

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A01

  

From The Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html

PS – Most poultry are full of toxic chemicals and most fish are full of heavy metals. Why kill innocent beings if you don’t have to? 

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

@  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com (or click on any tag at the bottom of the page for direct references – case sensitive)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559 

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com