Discussion on:

Melbourne debates eating animals

??????People who do have animals off their menu are likely to live healthier and longer life than those who have animals on their menu,??? Singer contended.

... but will they live any happier?

Seen a loved one die slowly from cancer, heart disease, stroke? Make you happy does it? Multiple studies show those three illnesses go down 90% in vegetarians.

Go see a slaughter house at work and tell me how happy you feel then.

Cheer up.

... and other illnesses rise due to the lack of certain necessary meat proteins. You have to look at the whole, and eliminating either side is bad for human health.

A study reported in Nutrition Journal in June 2010 surprisingly (to the study authors) showed that vegetarians have lower incidence of depression, anxiety, and other mood problems than their meat-eating neighbours.

I personally know a young man who lived vegan for years; only to have a doctor tell him he NEEDED meat protein if he wanted to regain his health. Too little meat is just as bad as too much meat.

Live with it.

Isn't this the same Peter Singer who advocates putting to death the mentally and physically handicapped? We clearly eat too much meat but we live in a world where animals eat other animals to survive because they evolved that way. Some misguided individuals try to convert their cats and dogs, both carnivores, into vegetarians and their pets suffer poor health and early death. I find it ironic that someone like Singer can be so empathetic to animals and so callous toward humans who do not meet his standard of human perfection. Somewhere Aldous Huxley is smiling.

People like eating meat
Peter Singer is emphatic towards animals
Peter Singer hates people
People are meat
Therefore ........ :oD

How'dya like those axioms!

The same Peter Singer who said killing an infant is not the same as killing an adult because the infant has no capability for reason.

Killing babies is ok with old Pete, yet he defends animals right to live.

I'm still waiting for someone to actually make a good pro-meat argument. Come on, someone please???

What more do you need?

Besides, how much land would it take to feed the billions of people on the planet if there were no meat in any of our diets? How much fertilizer would be needed, organic or otherwise? Where would we put all of the the meat animals that we currently have if we no longer needed them for food?

Salad is what food eats to me.

Meat is a lot of consumable energy per ounce compared to most vegetables. The plus is that meat has all the proteins in one source. Meat can be preserved in many ways to make it last a long winter.

Those should be good pro-meat arguments that you want. I consider myself as an accidental vegetarian. I started by skipping red meat and eating chicken and turkey, then I limited meat as a side dish instead of the main course, then I ate meat occasionally and then realized that I had not eaten any meat in months. At the same time, I lost weight and gained energy.

I do not think that meat should be off of everyone's menu, but I think that people should be aware of how much misery they eat when they eat something that was raised in cramped conditions and treated badly until it was ready to be slaughtered. Humans are ominvores, we can eat nearly anything and thrive. There is no dietary requirement for meat with every meal, every day for a lifetime.

However, too much of a good thing can and will be unhealthy--that includes eliminating meats entirely.

Moderation is the important thing. Back in the pre-industrial days meat was as much a luxury as a necessity; you ate what you hunted or grew yourself. Today's economy of 'meat manufacture' not only eliminates the healthy aspects of free-range animals but also injects them with drugs and antibiotics that make that meat unhealthy in the long run. Add to this the Western society's propensity to eat far more meat and fewer vegetables is merely a part of the obesity epidemic. Add to this certain artificially-processed grains used as sweeteners and fillers and we have industry killing their own customers.

Can we change this? Maybe. But outlawing the use of meat in entirety is in the long run going to exacerbate the issue, not eliminate it.

No, meat is not necessary for a healthy life. The many healthy vegans in society are a simple enough proof against that statement.

More to the essential point, and it is a common one, that there is an 'optimal' amount of meat, which is less than what 'most people' currently eat, but is non-zero.

The recent long-running harvard study showed that this is not the case. This study provided clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death. The ideal amount of meat to eat for health reasons is zero.

... than just RED meats. Or do you count chicken, pork and the many kinds of seafood as RED meats as well?

As I said before, too much of anything is bad for you, no matter what it is.
Meats include the kinds of proteins and amino acids needed to aid intelligence. Meats include materials that enhance the body's abilities to process other foods. Humans are Omnivores--not herbivores. To eliminate meat from our diet is to eliminate half of what makes us what we are.

But please note that I'm not arguing that we should all eat a 100% carnivorous diet, either. Just as our bodies need meat, our bodies need the minerals and vitamins obtained through grains and leafy foods as well. Our bodies can use the proteins gained from legumes and beans and other plant foods as well. The ideal diet is a balanced one that should include roughly equal amounts of each of the different kinds of foods.

Please stop believing that there is a "one food does all" solution; there simply isn't one.

His doctor told him to eat meat or expect to lose what little health he had remaining.

Not a dietitian or doctor in the bunch.

An evolutionary archeologist would be better when you are talking how long man has been eating meat. That stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.

Who cares what such a diet change does to a body that has evolved to eat meat.

Who cares that the children of vegans suffer from rickets and other growth problems because of malnutrition brought on by uneducated parents forcing a politically correct fad diet on a baby.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/06/09/39038.aspx

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html

The problem of sick vegan children hit a peak in the US a few years ago before the CDC, AMA and others convinced major vegan advocacy groups to join a joint effort to educate vegan parents of the dangers of a strict vegan diet on a growing child.

The recommendation was not to raise the child vegan, but if you must there is a special vegan diet and supplement regimen that must be followed by the mother during pregnancy and by the child until they are an adult.

Many vegan parents had no clue of the damage they were doing to their kids.

Sure. Let the all knowing elitists of society, a philosopher, a banker and a newspaper editor, tell you what to do.

I think what these farmers fail to take into account is that current meat consumption levels would have to drop drastically for "sustainable" farms to be able to meet the demand. It's a matter of numbers - the higher the level of demand, ethical and ecological concerns go out the window.

Our bodies, are designed as OMNIVORES. Meat, and veggies. Our teeth are designed for both, our bodies are designed for both. Our bodies are designed to get nutrients from both, primarily because we get different nutrients from each. Playing to emotions for how we eat our food, and what we eat as our food is idiotic. The debate in and of itself, is idiotic.

This is a common misconception. It is true that our species and ancestral species have probably eaten 'occasional' meat for at least a million years, but that pales in comparison to the long evolutionary history of our genus, which has been predominantly or completely vegetarian.

As a clue to this, it is only necessary to look at the structure of a herbivore vs that of a carnivore.

Herbivores have well developed facial muscles with a jaw joint above the plane of the molars. These allow good side to side and back to front chewing movements. The muscles used are the Masseter and pterygoids. The jaw has an expanded angle compared to carnivores, and tellingly the mouth opening is normally small compared to the head size. The teeth are broad, flattened and spade shaped. The canines are dull and short (with a few exceptions where they are long and straight for defence). Food requires extensive chewing, and the saliva provides carbohydrate digesting enzymes. The stomach can be simple of complex (multiple chambers) but always has a pH of about 4-5 (i.e. mild acidity) with food in it. The stomach capacity is always less than about 30% of the total volume of the digestive tract and the small intestine is generally longer than 10 times the body length of the animal. The colon is long and complex, and may be sacculated (that is, divided into sacs or sections). The liver in herbivores cannot detoxify Vitamin A and the kidney provides moderate concentration of the urine. The nails of herbivores are flattened or blunt (like hooves).

Carnivores on the other hand have reduced facial muscles to allow 'gaping', and a reduced angle on the jaw. The jaw is jointed on the same plane as the molars, the major jaw muscle is the Temporalis, and this allows the jaw to 'shear' (meat) with minimal side to side movement. The mouth opening is often large. The incisors are short and pointed, and the canines are long, sharp and curved. Even the molars are sharp, jagged and blade-like. Carnivores tend not to chew, but swallow their food whole, and their saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. Their stomach is short, simple and extremely acid (pH 1 or so). It comprises 60% or more of the total digestive tract, and the small intestine is only 3-6 times the body length. The colon is simple, short and smooth. The liver can detoxify Vitamin A. They often have extremely concentrated urine, and their claws are long and sharp.

In every regard, without exception, homo sapiens has the bodily make up of a herbivore.

This probably explains why those on a predominantly or entirely plant-based diet live longer.

The idea that we get 'special nutrients' from flesh, or that we need 'complete proteins' is simply not true, as I'm sure every one of the hundreds of millions of vegetarians living today can probably attest.

Humans have been eating meat closer to 2.5 million years. There is strong evidence that humans mental evolution happened faster once their diet improved to include more animal products.

There is emerging evidence that the surge in attention deficit disorders in the late 1980s and 1990s along with increases in other chemical imbalance issues in growing children mirrors the trend toward low fat diets.

As much as people hate to admit it, our bodies have built dependencies on a steady supply of small amounts of animal protein and fat. While not a cure, simply drinking whole milk daily has been found to ease ADD symptoms in some young children as well as drugs without the side effects. The older the kid the less effective whole milk is because the damage has already been done.

Adult vegans or vegetarians who have already completed their growth curves are a different story as their bodies needs are different. To deny that difference is folly.

The problem with most peoples diets is not the fat or meat content, but the quantity. The roots of the obesity epidemic is another discussion for another time.

No, there is not strong evidence that humans mental evolution is related to animal products. The very theory that it is based on has been completely debunked (http://paleovegan.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/its-curtains-for-expensive-tissue.html). Doesn't stop the meat industry saying it, but it should.

The American Dietetic Society is clear that a plant based diet is suitable for humans through every phase of their life, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for
athletes. If you have additional information that they are not familiar with, can you provide links please?

American Dietetic Society? How about the American Dietetic Association which is now the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

- The order in which you introduce solid foods doesn't matter for most babies. The traditional progression has been single-grain cereals followed by vegetables, fruits and meats. While there is nothing wrong with this pattern, pureed meat or poultry actually may be the best first food to provide sources of iron and zinc.

http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=8049

Other little bits of honesty about the benefits of meat are sprinkled throughout their site.

They mention on their site as I have said here. It is all about how much you eat.

And much of the developed world is spoiled by prosperity and eats too much meat. But some meat is good for you.

Early hunters likely did not catch food daily. That was followed by modest times when people did not have the means to eat meat daily. Even into the mid 20th century most people did not have access to meat on a daily basis.

Modern refridgeration changed that. Mankind now has meat available at the corner market or the fast food joint down the block.

So he eats too much.

Society got ahead of evolution.

vegetarians. At no time in the history of mankind through any research I have ever studied has mankind as a whole been a vegetarian species. I won't deny there have been times of famine where foods of any kind have been scarce, but Man as a species has never gone without meat for even one lifetime, much less any socialogically significant period of time.

Also, Bruce from Melbourne, please show me a census of any nation or group of nations that counts hundreds of millions of vegetarians as a significant part of their population. Yes, I'll admit I'm aware of some, but with a population of some 8 billion people on Earth, you imply that fully 10% of them (still far from a majority) are not omnivorous.

3.2 percent vegitarians in USA.

0.5 percent vegans.

Both are far below 10 percent.

They do claim 10 percent follow a vegitarian leaning diet. Which means they eat a modest amount of meat. As any good diet should. As I have said, too much of a good thing can be bad.

No better proof is the fact you can die drinking too much water.

http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/vegetarianism-in-america/

If everyone stops eating meat, what happens to the animals? Do we kill them because they are producing methane? Or put them in zoos? My husband does not eat meat, and he has not for several years now, he is heart healthy, but his brain is deteriorating. Does being a vegetarian prevent Alzheimers???