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

Dehorning

These days we remove the horns from almost all cattle when they are a few days old. But the traditional milk cow needed to be able to look after herself, and was familiar with the family and so generally docile enough to be safe.

This gal, "Bessy", has a truly impressive set of horns! But everyone obviously feels quite safe around her.

FDA starts to reign in anti-microbial feeds

The growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics probably has diverse causes.  Certainly the over-prescribing and improper disposal of human medications plays a role.  however I, personally, also feel that the use f antibiotics in livestock feed is also playing a part.

So I think that the FDA is taking a step in the right direction.  they are requesting that companies not allow antibiotics important in human medicine also be used in livestock feed

Links

• Phasing Out Certain Antibiotic Use in Farm Animals
• FDA to crack down on antibiotics in animals reared for meat

Guardian Op-Ed: My beef isn't with beef: why I stopped being a vegetarian

"Every meal you eat that supports a sustainable farm changes the agricultural world. I cannot possibly stress this enough. Your fork is your ballot, and when you vote to eat a steak or leg of lamb purchased from a small farmer you are showing the industrial system you are actively opting out. You are showing them you are willing to sacrifice more of your paycheck to dine with dignity."

[Jenna Woginrich/Guardian]

Labelling

Labelling alerts consumers to qualities of the food that are not apparent from its intrinsic appearance.  these qualities are referred to variously as imperceptible, intrinsic or unobservable--and may include statuses such as 'organic' or 'genetically modified'. Concern about these qualities is termed "ethical preference". In the absence of labelling or other information that informs ethical choices, consumer are likely to feel less trust in the product. (Michalopoulos et al, 2008).

Understandably, makers of products that many consumers have an ethical aversion (e.g. GM salmon) to tend to resist providing or allowing others to provide labelling relating to the underlying imperceptible quality.

Michalopoulos, T., Korthals, M., & Hogeveen, H. (2007). Trading “Ethical Preferences” in the Market: Outline of a Politically Liberal Framework for the Ethical Characterization of Foods Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21 (1), 3-27 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-007-9059-4

Beef Fat Clogs Waterway

"Some 15,000 gallons of animal fat poured into the channel through a storm drain on Tuesday after an onshore storage tank owned by agricultural company Jacob Sterns and Sons leaked 250,000 gallons of the greasy substance...." [HuffPo]

Cloned Animals

A cloned animal is one that is born with the full genotype of an already living animal.

There are serious ethical issues associated with abnormalities that cause fetal or neonatal death and other abnormalities.  Clone may also demonstrated accelerated aging.

However a cloned animal, if born without defect, is no different from a naturally conceived animal in its general conformation and behavior (Archer et al, 2003).

References:

• Archer, G.S. et al (2003). behavioral variation among cloned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 321-331.

Is Drinking Milk Natural?

Babies have high level of an enzyme called lactase in their small intestine.  This allows then to digest the lactose in milk.  The persistence of lactase in adults is genetically-determined and highly variable.

In cultures and geographical areas where milk drinking has a long history (Northern Europe, parts of Africa and Arabia) a high proportion of the population shows lactase persistence (Beja-Pereira et al, 2003; Hollox et al, 2001). This suggests that there has been an evolutionary shift towards lactase persistence paralleling the development of dairying approximately 8-9 thousand years ago.

Thus, whether or not you consider the drinking of cow's milk 'natural' is a matter of perspective.  A person with lactase persistence is able to drink milk in reasonable moderation and experience health benefits rather than deficits. 

Reference:

• Beja-Pereira, A. et al. (2003). Gene-culture coevolution between cattle milk protein genes and human lactase genes. Nature Genetics, 35, 311-313.
• Hollox, E.J. et al (2001). Lactase haplotype diversity in the old world. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68,160-172.

What is Ethical Meating Eating?

If a person believes that killing an animal to consume its flesh is fundamental unjustifiable, for them there is not such thing as ethical meat eating.  However when meat is avoided for reasons of animal welfare or environmental impacts, a case can be made.

George Schedler (2005)  makes the interesting argument that the animals that exist for meat production, and their enjoyment of their lives, should be counted in favor of a meat eating community.  He also argues that vegetable production causes suffering to 'field animals' whose dens and sometimes lives are destroyed during cultivation. He argues that fewer animals are in fact killed under a grazing system than a cropping system.  This in addition to the human pleasure derived from meat eating can be used to argue in favor of 'ethical meat eating'.

People are swayed in their meat purchasing behavior by ethical considerations such as the perceived welfare of animals raised to produce meat (Tonsor et al, 2011).  However other factors such as perceived food safety typically have a higher magnitude of effect.

References:

• Schedler, G. (2005). Does ethical meat eating maximise utility? Social Theory and Practice, 31, 499.
• Tonsor, GT; Olynk NJ (2011). Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 59-72.

Labelling

In order for consumers to support agricultural and harvest practices they consider ethically desirable, they must be able to identify products that use these methods.  For this reason a number of labelling schemes have developed to identify food qualities such as:

• Organic
• Sustainably Harvested
• Humanely Raised
• Country of Origin

Such labelling requires clear criterion for inclusion as well as an inspection process, typically with an independent auditor.

See also:

• Canada Protests Country of Origin Labelling

References:

• Bostrom, M. (2006). Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: standardization organizations in cases of eco-labelling. Organization, 13, 345-367.

Mercury in Fish

Most consumers are aware that mercury (in the form of methylmercury pollution) can accumulate in the flesh of fish. Concentrations high enough to constitute a health risk my be found in some species such as swordfish.

Chen & Williams (2009) surveyed fish consumed in the United states and found that mercury levels declined significantly between 1995 and 2005. However they still recommend that pregnant women and children should not consume high quantities of the species most likely to accumulate mercury, such as swordfish and shark.

References:

• Chen DY, Williams VJ. (2009). Marine fish food in the United States and methylmercury risk. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 19, 109-124.

Meat and Evolution

Many commentators try to appeal to an idea of what is natural or healthy, what humans are 'designed' to eat.  For example Gary Smith of the "Center for Red Meat Safety" claims that "Evolutionsist tell us humanity ... should now consider returning to a diet more like that of out Paleolithic ancestors--high-protein and low fat". 

A more dispassionate reading of the evolutionary data suggests that our more distant ancestors were herbivores.  Humans developed into omnivores during the late Miocene era, to provide energy for their relatively large bodies and energetic lifestyles.  As such, humans are naturally omnivores (Deneen, 2002; Milton, 1999; Smil, 2002).

As omnivores humans have some characteristics typical of of our distant herbivore ancestors such as:

• Needing to get our vitamin C from our diet
• Having a intestine that is long in comparison to our body size

However out bodies have been retrofitted in the more immediate evolutionary past to digest meat as is apparent from features such as:

• Production of hydrochloric acid by the stomach

Did Meat Make Us What We Are Today?
It is sometimes argued that switching to an omnivorous diet led directing to an increase in brain size and the evolution of humans as we are today. Others argue that the increased brain and decreased tooth size of hominids developed primarily before the shift to meat-eating and later adaption might related to the handling and cooking of tubers as much as meat (Pasquet and Hladick, 2005).

Conclusion
While consumption of meat is clearly part of our current biological design, it cannot be assumed that because something is natural that it is necessary or good.  People with access to diverse food sources can get all of their nutritional needs from non-animal sources (Smith, 2005).

See also:

•  Why Do People Eat Meat?

References:

• Deneen, S. (2002). Body of evidence: were humans meant to eat meat? E, 13, 33-34.
• Milton K. (1999). A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 11-21.
• Pasquet P, Hladick C-M. (2005). Theories of human evolutionary trends in meat eating and studies of primate intestinal tracts. Estudios Del Hombre, 21-31.
• Smil, V. (2002). Eating meat: evolution, patterns and consequences. Population and Development Review, 28, 599-639.
• Smith GC. (2005). Why people eat beef. National Cattlemen's Beef Association Annual Convention in San Antonio, TX. February 2, 2005.

Xenotransplantation

Public Acceptance
There are very few uses of animals, other than food, that involve taking part of a non-human animal into our body.  Thus it is not surprising that Michael and Brown, 2004) found strong connections between how people understand eating meat, and their attitudes to xenotransplantation (the use of an animal body part to replace a fail human body part).

The authors argue that any new phenomenon is initially understood with reference to something familiar.  Because animals are used and understood in such diverse ways, and meat represents the closest equivalent for a situation such as the use of pig as donors of cells, valves, and potentially organs. However meat itself is frequently seen as a source of concern based on intensive farming, disease issues and animal transportation methods.  So this comparison is not entirely unproblematic.

Michael and Brown carried out focus groups and extracted three main types of argument: whether people involved in the process are trustworthy, whether ones opinion carries an weight, and how needing a life-saving procedure would change one's willingness to use a xenotransplanted organ. The focus groups exchanges around meat eating show how it provides a familiar model for understanding the option of using animal parts for human purposes--in situations where the literal need may be much greater than eating meat, which is rarely absolutely necessary for continued health and life.

Conversely, it has been suggested that if swine are more widely accepted as organ donors people may feel more 'closely related' to pigs and become less willing to eat them (Glein, 2002).

Risks
The immediate problem with transplantion from a non-human donor is rejection.  Research is underway to try and develop donor animals and anti-immune regimes that will allow a wider array of organs and tissues to be donated by non-human animals. 

This is also a longer term risk of the transfer of infection agents and the development of dangerous zoonotic diseases (Glein, 2002).

References:

• Glein, H. (2002). Custom made piggeries in Norway? View of the meat producing industry. Acta. Vet. Scand., Suppl 99, 51-52.
• Michael, M., Brown, N. (2004). The meat of the matter:grasping and judging xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 379-397.

Dietary Restriction and Illness

Diet elimination studies typically use small groups suffering from the health issue under investigate, with a control time period or group, and a time period or group under the influence of on a restricted diet, typically for a period of 2-8 weeks.

Migraines
A small study employed phases with diets where any foods that patient had IgG positivity for were eliminated, and another where they were deliberately increased.  these foods varied between patients but commonly included seafood and cheese, and for some patients included eggs, milk and meat.  Diet was shown to effect migraine frequency ( Alpay et al, 2010).

Asthma
A small study of asthmatic children in the United Kingdom gives some credence to the idea that a milk and egg-free diet can improve their symptom. Thirteen experimental and nine control children were studies over an 8 week period and the children on a restricted diet showed improvements in IgC antibodies, and in some cases lung function and overall health as self-reported and confirmed by a pediatrician.

References:

• Alpay K, Ertas, M, Orhan E, Ustay DK, Lieners C, Baykan B. (2010) Cephalalgia, 30, 829-837.
• Yusoff, N.A.M., Hampton, S.M., Dickerson, J.W.T., Morgan, J.B. (2004). The effects of exclusions of dietary egg and milk in the management of asthmatic children: a pilot study. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 124, 74-80.

Why Do People Eat Meat?

Why Do People Eat Meat?

Flavor
It seems that taste is the main driver of meat consumption. Meat is consumed predominantly for the pleasure derived from consumption (Becker et al, 2004; Verbecke et at, 2004).

Becker et al (2004) studied the attitudes of members of the general public and found some interesting correlations: 1) The main reason people eat meat is for its taste, and 2) people who eat more meat feel less in control (both of their own health and the conditions under which meat-producing animals are kept).  In fact, the more people ate conventionally produced meat, the less interested they were in pursuing improvements to the meat production system.

So, we seem to be in a situation where the key consumers and enjoyers of meat products are also the most likely actively disinterested in eating in a way that improves their health and the welfare of farmed animals.  This, frankly, needs to change.

Why Do People Not Eat Meat?
A minority of people identify themselves as vegetarian (e.g. 2.3%, Gossard and York, 2003). If you look at why some people do not eat meat--it often includes an objection to modern farming methods. Thus local, sustainable and welfare-friendly farming practises may be sufficient to convince some vegetarians to enjoy meat in moderation (Lennon, 2007).  This may partially explain why some people who identify as vegetarian do eat some meat (Gossard and York, 2003).

Which People Eat Meat?
A study of US consumers found that meat consumption is positively associated with being male, Black and Asian ethnicities and being employed as a laborer.  It is negatively associated with level of education and age, and unrelated to income and geography (Gossard and York, 2003).

A survey in Belgium found that 57% of people eat fresh  (versus prepared/pre-cooked) meat dailly.  The population could be divided into 'straightforward meat lovers' and those who were 'concerned' or 'cautious' due to safety issues such as dioxins and BSE.  The difference between these groups is that 'concerned' consumers are reducing their meat intake in terms of quantity and seeking higher quality. There is also a group is 'indifferent consumers' who are not driven by high enjoyment of meat but are not worried about the issues either, low price is their main concern.

References:

• Becker, R., Kals, E., Frohlich, P. (2004). meat consumption and commitments on meat policy: combining individual and public health. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 143-155.
• Gossard MH, York R. (2003). Social structiral influences on meat consumption. Research in Human Ecology, 10, 1-9.
• Lennon, C. (2007) Why vegetarians eat meat. Food and Wine, August, 60-61.
• Verbeke, W; Vackier, I. (2004). Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science, 67, 159-168.