Meat Moderation

Over at Telegraph's Lifestyle section, Amelia Freer is expressing a meat moderation message. Speaking specifically to the potential health issues cause by eating meat she says: "It’s my view that eating meat isn’t as catastrophic as some studies suggest, mainly due to poor data and the wider lifestyles of the meat eaters who take part."

The idea of meat moderation is generally lost under the more vehement meat versus vegetarian/vegan argument. However much of the data on this issue compares vegetarian versus meat eaters from the community, both eating and otherwise behaving as they usually do.  Like Freer, I suspect that this comparison may over-emphasis the risks of eating any meat because the norm is to eat rather too much of it.There is very little evidence about the health impacts of consuming specific amounts or types of meat.

An all-or-none message may also be off-putting to many people who would find the idea of totally surrendering their favorite meals either undesirable or unrealistic. Freer concludes: "So, should you eat meat? Yes, if you want to. But make it the best you can afford and have it every so often rather than every day. In other words: be mindful of meat."

When meat eating becomes more of a conscious decision, and somewhat less common, this does free up some time and resources.  Consider, for example going from eating meat two times a day to once every two days.  If you make up the difference with grains and vegetable this will save money that can be used to buy meat that is both higher quality and from sources that have benefits for animals welfare and/or the environment.

Also doing a little research into where the meat is coming from seems more achievable if you are doing it one or two times a week rather than one or two times a day. Thus potentially leading not only to meat that is better for your health and conscience, but potentially more gourmet and artisan products that give you a wonderful flavor experience.

Meat moderation does not need to be about self-denial, but about maximizing the real pleasure you gain from the meat you consume rather than doing to as part of a mindless, and largely joyless, eating routine.

Lone Star Dining

The Lone Star tick is moving northwards, bringing the potential complication of meat allergy to new populations. One can imagine a block-buster novel where radical vegans remove meat from our diet through pandemic rather than persuasion.

Or given that thorough cooking mostly destroys the carbohydrate the allergy reacts to, maybe we'll just be saved from this restaurant-chic fashion for meat that is barely cooked.

Meat Allergy May be Caused by Tick Bites

The media is reporting that tick bites may be causing beef and pork allergies that are severe enough to be life-threatening. While this is a lesser known risk of tick bites it has been reported in the literature as far back as 2009.  The allergy relates to a sugar ("Alpha-gal") found not only in these commonly consumed meats but the flesh of most mammals.  However the sensitivity of patients seems to vary greatly between meat types.

You do not need to show a severe or systemic reaction to the tick bite in order to develop a meat allergy--in fact it may occur more often when there is only a moderate, localized response.  Overall this phenomenon is still not widely recognized although it has been demonstrated now in multiple countries including the United States, Sweden and Australia.

People with a sudden allergic reaction after eating meat, especially beef, may need to prompt their doctors to consider tick bite as the cause.  It is a likely contender if you have a sudden onset meat allergy, live in an area with ticks, and may have been exposed to multiple bites that did not seem serious at the time.

Tick-Bite-related Meat Allergy References:

• An association between tick bite reactions and red meat allergy in humans (2009)
• The relevance of tick bites to the production of IgE antibodies to the mammalian oligosaccharide galactose-α-1,3-galactose (2011)
• Red meat allergy in Sweden: Association with tick sensitization and B-negative blood groups (2013)
•  Tick bites and red meat allergy (2013)

Dog Eating as a Rabies Risk

The processing of stray dogs into meat seems to be a growing industry in Nigeria, and it is known that some of the dogs slaughtered for this purpose are infected with rabies.

Research has shown that some people infected with rabies seem to have been exposed via dog meat consumptions, and also that people involved in this trade often do not know how to recognize rabies or the risk it poses to human consumers.  

Once contracted rabies has the highest fatality rate of any known disease. So a strong emphasis must be placed on presentation via education and inspection of meat production facilities whenever possible.

Ekanem, E., Eyong, K., Philip-Ephraim, E., Eyong, M., Adams, E., & Asindi, A. (2014). Stray dog trade fuelled by dog meat consumption as a risk factor for rabies infection in Calabar, southern Nigeria African Health Sciences, 13 (4) DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v13i4.44  

Odeh, L., Umoh, J., & Dzikwi, A. (2013). Assessment of Risk of Possible Exposure to Rabies among Processors and Consumers of Dog Meat in Zaria and Kafanchan, Kaduna State, Nigeria Global Journal of Health Science, 6 (1) DOI: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n1p142

Celebrity Salami Hoax

So BiteLabs website says: "Bitelabs grows meat from celebrity tissue samples and uses it to make artisanal salami."

Is this true? No. It is yet another yuppie idea for a "thought provoking" fake product.

The main thought it provokes in me that that these people are not half as smart as they think they are.

Oh look, see how we are making a comment on celebrity and maybe fooling some proles into thinking its real. LOLs cannibalism is so taboo. In vitro people meat etc.

Yawn.

Men, Woman, and Quiche

It is common knowledge that vegetarianism is more common with women.  Hank Rothgerber reveals some of the underlying factors in these gender differences.

Rothberger studued undergraduates and found that assertive defenses of meat eating were more common in males and associated with feelings of masculinity. Specifically more masculine indivduals were were likely to use justifications such as that eating meat is healthy, justified by religion and allowed by animals' lower status. More feminine individuals tends to have strategies of avoidance such as not thinking to much about where meat comes from.

It is interesting to see that  part of the masculine strategy that seems out of character is the denial of animal suffering in meat production.  This strikes me as more a strategy pf avoidance--assuming lack of suffering rather than really trying to assess the degree of suffering that may or may not occur.  This both masculine and feminine strategies can be said to embrace a degree of denial and dissociation for the animal. Overall masculine individuals are more unapologetic meat eaters but also apparently less interested in the welfare aspects of how meat is produced, or as Rothberger phrased it "hostile to animal welfare".

The author goes on to present various pro-vegetarian arguments phrased in a more masculine way (e.g. rational, non-conformist) but they do not look at how being in denial about animal welfare issues--whether one eats meet or not--is not a macho orientation but a weak 'head in the sand' position in contrast to either fixing the problems or changing which food products to support (within or beyond the meat category).

Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14 (4), 363-375 DOI: 10.1037/a0030379