We must face facts - meat is the problem

[mspohr]

Brazilian meat firm’s A- sustainability rating has campaigners up in arms

Environmentalists question high grade given to JBS and accuse it of deforestation in the Amazon and under-reporting emissions

www.theguardian.com

The award of an A-minus sustainability grade to the world’s biggest meat company has raised eyebrows and kicked off a debate about the rating system for environmental and social governance. Brazilian meat company JBS has previously been linked to deforestation in the Amazon, where its slaughterhouses process beef from ranches carved out of the Amazon, Cerrado and other biomes. But in the latest Climate Change Report by the influential rating organisation CDP, the multinational got a grade of A- for its efforts to tackle climate change – up from B in the previous assessment – and was given a “leadership” status award. The high score, which was based on self-reporting by JBS, has provoked incredulity. Twenty civil society groups are now calling on the London-based CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) to strip JBS of its A-minus score amid accusations of greenwashing and misleading investors, supermarkets and consumers.

 

[mspohr]

this: Can Particles in Dairy and Beef Cause Cancer and MS? - Medscape - Mar 13, 2023

In our Western diet, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.

Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C virus

 

[DrGriz]

this: Can Particles in Dairy and Beef Cause Cancer and MS? - Medscape - Mar 13, 2023

In our Western diet, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.

Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C virus

hang on:

Not saying they're not a problem, but.

 

[mspohr]

hang on:

View attachment 923958
Not saying they're not a problem, but.

Yes, this is a new theory (by reputable scientists) and like anything that forces people to radically change thinking, there are skeptics.
No doubt this will need to be explored and tested extensively before acceptance or rejection.
The examples of papillomaviruses, herpes viruses and heliobacter are examples of similar theories which were widely ridiculed before proof and acceptance.

 

[DrGriz]

Yes, this is a new theory (by reputable scientists) and like anything that forces people to radically change thinking, there are skeptics.
No doubt this will need to be explored and tested extensively before acceptance or rejection.
The examples of papillomaviruses, herpes viruses and heliobacter are examples of similar theories which were widely ridiculed before proof and acceptance.

Yes, I lived through all that. "Ridiculed" is a strong term for what went and still goes on. More like, this is an idea that warrants further study.

There's plenty of ugly stuff in processed foods we already know about to give one pause.

And I worry about pesticides and herbicides in the organic farm that my neighbors run, because, hey, their neighbors aren't.

But it's worth looking into.

 

[DanCar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642245425716424705

 

[DrGriz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642245425716424705

Pretty sure a true paleo diet contained far more fresh twigs and leaves than steak. But certainly those good folks ate the megafauna as they wiped them out.

 

[mspohr]

Pretty sure a true paleo diet contained far more fresh twigs and leaves than steak. But certainly those good folks ate the megafauna as they wiped them out.

Also lot of bugs... Delicious!

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

Pretty sure a true paleo diet contained far more fresh twigs and leaves than steak. But certainly those good folks ate the megafauna as they wiped them out.

I always found the idea of reverting to a true paleo diet an odd concept. Typically, our ancestors lived about half as long... and it wasn't like they chose what they ate from a diverse global food network. They ate what was around them, I am sure some days/weeks were a feast of protein from a downed mammoth, and the next week, tubers and bark; and that likely varied significantly by area as well... so many holes in this logic.

 

[DrGriz]

I always found the idea of reverting to a true paleo diet an odd concept. Typically, our ancestors lived about half as long... and it wasn't like they chose what they ate from a diverse global food network. They ate what was around them, I am sure some days/weeks were a feast of protein from a downed mammoth, and the next week, tubers and bark; and that likely varied significantly by area as well... so many holes in this logic.

Well, you are correct. I think the idea is that physiologically we are evolved to be omnivores that didn't eat a lot of grains, instead mostly available vegetation and bugs, with the occasional meat bonus. (Of course, that then became conflated with a high protein "meat" diet for some who wanted that anyway.)

You don't see as much diabetes and heart disease in populations that eat those simpler diets, but I think they died younger of other things. Trauma and carnivores. Infirmity due to old age or injury maybe leads to inability to obtain adequate nutrition.

The thing is, many modern diets and their processed foods aren't matched to our physiology. We were evolved to survive periods of starvation, at least to reproductive age.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I always found the idea of reverting to a true paleo diet an odd concept. Typically, our ancestors lived about half as long... and it wasn't like they chose what they ate from a diverse global food network. They ate what was around them, I am sure some days/weeks were a feast of protein from a downed mammoth, and the next week, tubers and bark; and that likely varied significantly by area as well... so many holes in this logic.

I don't think there's holes in it so much as large logical leaps.

Whether or not early humans had choices available, the fundamental logical leap of paleo is that because the human species has been successful, at least some early human diets must have been optimal.

 

[DrGriz]

I don't think there's holes in it so much as large logical leaps.

Whether or not early humans had choices available, the fundamental logical leap of paleo is that because the human species has been successful, at least some early human diets must have been optimal.

And "paleo" was never just one thing. Depended on so many circumstances.

 

[K.I.T.T.23]

And "paleo" was never just one thing. Depended on so many circumstances.

Totally fair, and I think your points and @ItsNotAboutTheMoney are mostly accurate. I do think that it is a bit of a stretch to say that only optimum diets resulted in lineage, as many non-ideal diets work fine to get a population past the reproductive barriers (aka, 12 y/o to 30s) in pre-historical times. Maybe not optimum, but sufficient would be a more accurate statement?

Arguably, if we took diets to a paleo mindset and only ate what was non processed, not grain, and local we could cut down on the environmental impact quickly. (bringing it back to the point of this thread)

Btw, please don't take me as a Paleo hater. When I need to cut weight I use a meat/vegetable only diet; basically Paleo. I actually enjoy the diet but find it hard to perform without the additional carbs.

 

[JRP3]

Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting the intake of dietary cholesterol (found mostly in eggs) as much as possible

 

[cookiefactory]

Newer prevailing consensus (2013+) is that dietary cholesterol is not linked to negative health effects for the majority of people:

Why Dietary Cholesterol Does Not Matter (For Most People)

The role of dietary cholesterol in human health has been a controversial topic. Here’s a look at the research on dietary cholesterol and the

www.healthline.com

Are eggs risky for heart health? - Harvard Health

Large studies have not found evidence of higher rates of heart attacks, strokes, or other cardiovascular diseases in people who eat up to one egg per day....

www.health.harvard.edu

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743

 

[JRP3]

Newer prevailing consensus (2013+) is that dietary cholesterol is not linked to negative health effects for the majority of people:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743

Did you read the study you linked?

To achieve healthy dietary patterns, consumers are advised to eat a dietary pattern characterized by fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat or fat-free dairy products, lean protein sources, nuts, seeds, and vegetable oils, consistent with those recommended in the 2015 to 2020 DGA. These patterns have a relatively high ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acid to saturated fatty acid and are low in cholesterol, achieved by minimizing the intake of major sources of saturated fat intake (animal fats) and including liquid nontropical vegetable oils. Choosing plant-based protein sources will limit cholesterol intake.

Given the relatively high content of cholesterol in egg yolks, it remains advisable to limit intake to current levels.

 

[DrGriz]

Interesting presentation. I reviewed the article that it focuses on and found some interesting thoughts related:

Findings of the current study suggest that cholesterol from egg yolk may be harmful in the context of the current US diet, in which overnutrition and overweight/obesity are more common than malnutrition and underweight. This is consistent with the evidence that frequent egg consumption has been significantly associated with diabetes risk only in US studies.42

Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, appropriate interpretation of the study findings requires consideration of measurement error for self-reported diet data. Further, this study relied on single measurement of egg and dietary cholesterol consumption. Exposure misclassification may be of concern, but results were similar when censoring participants at different time points. Second, all cohorts used different dietary assessment tools except 2 Framingham cohorts, which created heterogeneities for data analyses. This was addressed by the following: (1) implementing a rigorous methodology to harmonize diet data; (2) performing cohort-stratified analyses; and (3) conducting several sensitivity analyses. Third, residual confounding was likely, although a number of covariates were adjusted. Fourth, data were not available for investigating subtypes of CHD, stroke, and heart failure, as well as more detailed cause-specific mortality such as cancer mortality. Fifth, generalizing our results to non-US populations requires caution due to different nutrition and food environments and chronic disease epidemiology. Sixth, the study findings are observational and cannot establish causality.

Dietary studies are notoriously hard to do. People don't eat the same diet from day to day, let alone over the course of their lives, what with fad diets and changing information. I am just a little skeptical about a study that claims to measure impact to the level of "half an egg a day." Then excuses itself suggesting maybe this only applies in a country where people generally eat crap.

Not to endorse egg eating. They are like, aborted dinosaurs and that just can't be ethical.

Anyway, I agree with their caveat that the "studies are observational and cannot establish causality." Observational studies are very subjective.

 

[mspohr]

https://vegconomist.com/market-and-trends/german-meat-consumption-record-low-plant-based-record-high/

The report states that Germans consumed about 2.8 kg less pork, 900 grams less beef and veal, and 400 grams less poultry last year. Encouragingly, this translates to net production of animal meat: 9.8% less pork and 8.2% less beef and veal were produced domestically compared to 2021, while net production of poultry meat was down 2.9%.This is good news for the environment, for people’s health and, of course, for animals. Animal agriculture is responsible for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, along with widespread deforestation, and the pollution of waterways. It is imperative that policies are implemented to ensure that the trend seen in Germany is replicated elsewhere.

 

[JRP3]

Interesting presentation. I reviewed the article that it focuses on and found some interesting thoughts related:



Dietary studies are notoriously hard to do. People don't eat the same diet from day to day, let alone over the course of their lives, what with fad diets and changing information. I am just a little skeptical about a study that claims to measure impact to the level of "half an egg a day." Then excuses itself suggesting maybe this only applies in a country where people generally eat crap.

Not to endorse egg eating. They are like, aborted dinosaurs and that just can't be ethical.

Anyway, I agree with their caveat that the "studies are observational and cannot establish causality." Observational studies are very subjective.

There were a number of studies covered in the video, link to source materials can be found here under "sources cited":

Dietary Guidelines: “Eat as Little Dietary Cholesterol as Possible” | NutritionFacts.org

Why do the official federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting the intake of dietary cholesterol (found mostly in eggs) as much as possible?

nutritionfacts.org

 

[mspohr]

Interesting presentation. I reviewed the article that it focuses on and found some interesting thoughts related:



Dietary studies are notoriously hard to do. People don't eat the same diet from day to day, let alone over the course of their lives, what with fad diets and changing information. I am just a little skeptical about a study that claims to measure impact to the level of "half an egg a day." Then excuses itself suggesting maybe this only applies in a country where people generally eat crap.

Not to endorse egg eating. They are like, aborted dinosaurs and that just can't be ethical.

Anyway, I agree with their caveat that the "studies are observational and cannot establish causality." Observational studies are very subjective.

This study measured cholesterol levels over the hours after eating eggs. So not subject to diet recall errors. Cholesterol goes up.