Poll: Meat causes cancer :O | What will you do? | Human Evolution vs. Contemporary Science?

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
MrFalconfly said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Snipity]snip
1) Pollutant.

"I am 98% sure that Denmark is about as non-polluting as one can be and still have sustainable (as in provides enough food both for the citizens of the country and for export) farming. Whatever other countries do, we can't be held responsible for. And if there are places to be improved, you can be damned sure someone is working on getting said improvements implemented.

It's not only about the numerical value, but the per capita, and the types of pollutant. And Denmark has the US (not to mention multiple EU countries) beat."

It wouldn't matter whether Denmark is the least polluting world or the most when we're talking about the incorporation of an industry that doesn't have any merit to begin with. It's kind of like editing. Whether it's two thousand words of fifty thousand it just makes sense to cut out excess; even more so when the joy it brings is disproportionate to the suffering.

"2) Mass starvation.

Well in this case, there'd be a noticeable deficit in the food on the market for the planet. If all countries were to eliminate all farming cattle, and swine we wouldn't be making enough food for everybody on the planet, let alone for someone to stuff themselves."

So we have enough food to feed people and cows which people use to feed themselves anyway but we wouldn't have enough if we cut out feeding billions of cows?

"3) "Ooh people can't control themselves because junkfood is being offered everywhere.

Sorry but if people are this spineless, I will not be held accountable for their actions (especially considering that this seem to be another US issue that is portrayed to be a global one)."

Still a matter of fact that it plays a part towards this problem in a very powerful nation that influences how other places of the world function at least to some degree.

4) Circle of life.

No one said their death was noble. Only that it was natural.

Are you sure?

"For something beautiful to live, something else had to die."

That's an appeal to nature. We're not defined by how either animals or the natural world functions. We're defined by how we choose to function. Privilege allows us to live in ways which completely defy that expectation. Besides, even as an appeal to nature the argument doesn't exactly work when I've been criticizing factory-farming; an industry which is by no means natural.

"5) No one has to kill

So what you're proposing is "kill and eat" restaurants? Where you get to see, and then kill, and then prepare your own food? Personally I think that'd be a great idea. People would then know what made the food taste so well."


I'm really not sure how you got that out of what I said. I'm saying that people who have no need to kill shouldn't.

"But as you say, it's a choice. And I choose to eat refined versions of what my ancestors ate. Meat and two veg (Or in the case of this evening it was mulligatawny soup. Gotta love some good chicken)."

It's never much of a good idea to follow the tradition's of people that are inherently less educated, intelligent, and never even had the least of an idea on how our modern society should and can be run.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Areloch said:
The comic was more intended to point at how media tends to over-play "dramatic" discoveries, not that scientists tweak results to make them seem jucier - though that can happen too sometimes.
No, that's not it. It's about how you can stumble across significant values (p>0.05) by pure chance in an experiment if you just do it enough times. The media reaction is part of it, but it's not the point of it. The media misunderstands it, but scientists sometimes do bad research and get a published article. A few years back it was estimated that 50% of all articles in neurobiology published in Nature were wrong simply because of how they treat statistics.

I'm not a biologist or a doctor(though my friend is and I enjoy talking to him about medical things), though I do enjoy skimming medical articles and the like, so my knowledge on the subject is broad strokes and thus subject to inaccuracies. I do appreciate you throwing in more detailed information.


The thrust of my point was that mutations happen to cells all the time, and that's where most cancer action comes from. Even basic reproductive and metabolic processes of the cells that compose your body can lead to it, and thus worrying about how meat, or any other number of low-order carcinogens can minutely increase the CHANCE of it happening is kind of a wasted effort. Obviously there's lots of stuff that is horribly carcinogenic and should be stayed away from, but it sounds like meat merely has solid proof that it increases the chances, not that the increase of the chance itself is particularly big.

And yeah, when you consider just how many cells are in the body, and how it takes some relatively specific damage to certain parts of the DNA sequence to kick off cancerous behaviors, it's pretty impressive how well the body keeps itself in check. Which just ties back to the "Guys, it's really probably not as bad as it's being made out to be"
Everything works like that though. Smoking doesn't cause cancer, it merely increases the risk. The increased risk of colorectal cancer with consumption of meat consumption is estimated to be 50%, which is alarmingly high, but in part because the risk of colorectal cancer (at least in Norway) is expected to be 4%. That is a 2% in absolute increase for a cancer with relatively poor prognosis unless it is discovered early. Based on what I know (which is limited as cancer isn't my field of expertise) it worries me.

It does however reflect poorly on media reporting on science. I read an article headline which pointed out that meat is placed in the same category as asbestos and tobacco, making it sounds as dangerous, which is wrong. It is a reason to reconsider diet and reduce intake favouring lean meat over red meat, but it doesn't mean we have to stop eating either meat or red meat entirely. The media articles are scary and I can predict a few general responses. Some are too scared to eat meat (they might eventually lapse back to eating meat once the scare is forgotten), they might decide that "Well, everything gives me cancer" and just ignore it simply because the media does this with every discovered carcinogen regardless of the absolute increase in risk, they may distrust science because of how media makes it look and stop taking medical advice from scientists.

I want people to take an informed decision about their meat consumption knowing that the risk for cancer increases, but the media contributes to either fear on one side of the spectrum or apathy on the other end.

As for the telomeres, yeah, that entire thing is kind of in a vague spot. As far as I'd read it seems to have a pretty solid prospect(though not much concrete proof) as being tied to cells becoming less ideal over time (as mutations occur, certain cells or cell factories begin to slow or shut down, such as the case for the cells that help maintain bones which is why old folks have much more brittle bones, even if they're keeping up on their nutrients).

I'll have to read on that more.
Well, the telomer shortening isn't usually referred to as a mutation, but you do have the right idea. You are on to something so I will try to elaborate and tie it to the hypothesis I consider likely.

All of our cells have mechanisms to prevent division when it has sustained damages on its DNA that cannot be fixed or to halt division until it can be fixed. If a cell is prevented from dividing it can die or reach a state of senescence, where it is still alive and can perform functions (although likely at a reduced rate. As we age and our chromosomes shrink with each division cells eventually reach a state where the chromosomes are significantly shorter. This is likely detected as irrepairable DNA damage and the cells will not divide further. This effect will be the biggest in cells with high replacement rate such as the skin (which might explain wrinkles) or bone cells. Cells will still die, but not be replaced as quickly reducing the number of cells to perform a task.

This is still a hypothesis, but I think you have the right idea in your interpretation of it, there is more to aging than just this as cells will stop dividing even if you prevent this from happening so there's a secondary mechanism too.
 

sky pies

New member
Oct 24, 2015
395
0
0
There seems to have been a lot of posting that is using the assertion that CNN are talking out of their ass as a starting off point and just going from there.

It is worth, I think, taking the time to consider that this study - or collection of studies - of which CNN reports is not quite as discard'able as all that. I'm not saying I believe it, but it was put out, apparently, by the WHO - a UN agency- who I feel we can at least trust as a reasonably conscientious source.

Assertions that they are trying to stir up controversy strike me as unreasonable, for instance. What would they have to gain from it - they're no the ones selling the food, they don't have shares in quinoa as far as I'm aware?

And do you really think the WHO would release an awaited for statement to the International press without having a pretty good body of evidence behind it? I mean, maybe CNN hasn't got a bibliography, but doesn't it stand to reason that there would be one somewhere?

Just some thoughts.

I stand by my original position, by the way. I think that humans have been eating meat since before we were humans, and sure it might be increasing risk of cancer, but I eat it in moderation anyway and almost never eat things like Bacon so I'm not too fussed.

I eat a lot of chicken. Because it's cheaper. Feeling kinda bad for asian countries who eat a lot of spam, etc, because there aren't enough cows in China to produce good quality beef for the masses.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
snip for brevity
1) What I'm getting at is that the limiting factor for "polluting" for us is a technological limit. To pollute any less we need for bioethanol to be more mainstream, or for EV tractors to be viable.

2) Thing is, if we cut out the protein element we need to get it elsewhere, and that would require even more energy and area to sustain. So far, cows are the most efficient method of converting raw bio-matter into protein.

3) The US isn't that powerful. Also, never ever attribute personal lack of character to the "culture".

4) Humans are a result of the natural interactions of the 92 naturally occurring elements. If anything "choice" is merely a result of the probabilistic interactions between electron-clouds in atoms. You are appealing to nature by saying that we shouldn't have a diet that contains meat. I'm appealing to nature by pointing towards the fact that as long as Homo Sapiens have walked the planet, meat has been a part of their diet. Obviously there's something in meat we need to sustain ourselves.

5) And why should I cut out a component of my diet which is required for me to function optimally, just because someone goes wobbly-legged at the prospect of putting a bullet between the eyes of "Martha the cow"? Strictly speaking, dogs can also live on a herbivorous diet (they are omnivores. They evolved that trait when we started domesticating them), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give them a balanced diet, just because someone thinks killing for food is "murder".

Silvanus said:
MrFalconfly said:
No one said their death was noble. Only that it was natural.
True, but that it is natural is irrelevant to the morality of it.
And considering the fact that lions kill antelopes, falcons kill pigeons, wolves kill deer and so on, I don't think it's immoral to eat a steak, so long as the cow has had a reasonably happy life until it was killed (something I can be sure of because of the strict animal-welfare standards here in Denmark).
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
MrFalconfly said:
And considering the fact that lions kill antelopes, falcons kill pigeons, wolves kill deer and so on, I don't think it's immoral to eat a steak, so long as the cow has had a reasonably happy life until it was killed (something I can be sure of because of the strict animal-welfare standards here in Denmark).
"Considering that Black Widows kill their mates post-coitus, I don't think it's immoral to do the same". "Considering that ants enslave other ants, I don't think it's immoral to do the same". Y'see how this works? That's just an appeal to nature. Something occurring in nature is utterly irrelevant to its morality, and doesn't justify it as a human behaviour.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Silvanus said:
MrFalconfly said:
And considering the fact that lions kill antelopes, falcons kill pigeons, wolves kill deer and so on, I don't think it's immoral to eat a steak, so long as the cow has had a reasonably happy life until it was killed (something I can be sure of because of the strict animal-welfare standards here in Denmark).
"Considering that Black Widows kill their mates post-coitus, I don't think it's immoral to do the same". "Considering that ants enslave other ants, I don't think it's immoral to do the same". Y'see how this works? Something occurring in nature is utterly irrelevant to its morality, and doesn't justify it as a human behaviour.
Yes, let's compare primates with bloody arachnids why don't we.

My previous comparison were mostly mammalian predators (and one bird of prey), compared with a fellow mammal omnivore.

Mammalians typically have more things in common between each other, than a vertebrate has with an invertebrate animal.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
MrFalconfly said:
Yes, let's compare primates with bloody arachnids why don't we.

My previous comparison were mostly mammalian predators (and one bird of prey), compared with a fellow mammal omnivore.

Mammalians typically have more things in common between each other, than a vertebrate has with an invertebrate animal.
It's still just as relevant to our behaviour (I.E., not at all). If you want a mammalian example, think of lions killing the cubs when they join a new pride.

Why does the occurrence of something in nature justify it? That's nonsense.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
MrFalconfly said:
No it fucking isn't.

Spiders and ants have a limited neural network, with even less computing power than our limbic system (the "do I feel good" system. The most primitive of our behaviour has their foundations here). Lions at least have a social structure that bear a resemblance to primate family units.

Now as you said Lions kill foreign (or predecessor) cubs, but are we talking about how to maintain a family unit?!?

NO!!!
So... an appeal to nature is rational when it comes to certain subjects, but not rational when it comes to others? Why on earth is that?

You're drawing the line where is most convenient for you, that's all.

MrFalconfly said:
We are talking about killing animals for food. Either address the bloody point about killing a cow to get a steak or get bloody lost.
You've not actually offered an argument about the virtues of it, the benefits, the suffering. You've not offered an argument that looks in any depth at the act itself-- you've said only that it occurs in nature. What follows from that? Nothing. We do not do whatever is natural; we have the capacity for reason.
 

Simonism451

New member
Oct 27, 2008
272
0
0
Dr. Thrax said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Except that's clearly not the case when anyone living in a city can literally choose what they eat. No one living in a privileged society ever has to actually worry about having to kill something for their own well being
I was going to pretty much stay out of this thread, but then I saw this.
What about the Native Americans, or other indigenous tribes back in older times who had to hunt and forage for their own food?

Since they can be considered a "privileged society" simply because, for a time, they were the only society. They still had to hunt animals to feed their people, they even raised cattle for slaughter, for their food and for leather. Hunters used as much of the animals they killed as they could, the fur for clothes, bones for decoration or ceremonies, and the meat for food. Had these people decided to not eat meat, these people would have made the decision to not be able to feed or clothe their people. Now, of course, they didn't have all the fancy shmancy options we have today, however, they needed to eat meat to survive, especially during the harsh winters, where farming wasn't possible.

A vegetarian or vegan diet isn't practical for everyone, everyone has differing tastes, and in order to meet the same nutritional values of an omnivorous diet, you'd probably get stuck with eating something you don't like, or making up the deficiencies with supplements. I have my own rather limited tastes, I don't like most fruit, either for taste or texture reasons, I only like a small handful of veggies, I can't stomach any seafood, and there are other weird conditionals that restrict what I can eat. A vegetarian, and especially vegan, diet is impossible for me, because I don't like a majority of their foods, and I refuse to resort to taking pills to gain what nutrients I'm missing, when a properly prepared meat can adequately satisfy my dietary needs. In fact, you could say that I eat meat because if I don't, I won't be able to properly supply my system with the nutrients it needs, and I'd die of malnutrition.

The best lesson the raptor can teach you is to be grateful for the prey that sustains you. The worst lesson it can teach you is a practical demonstration of that point.
Oh, for fuck's sake, when people talk about a privileged society in a contemporary context, they usually mean privileged by today's standards.

Also, don't you think it's a bit revealing that you spend a paragraph describing how sometimes you don't have much choices in your fight for survival and then immediately after that talk about how you would literally rather die than eat your fucking vegetables. Somehow I doubt tribal societies would take that argument seriously. Somehow I doubt your mom would either, for that matter.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Silvanus said:
MrFalconfly said:
No it fucking isn't.

Spiders and ants have a limited neural network, with even less computing power than our limbic system (the "do I feel good" system. The most primitive of our behaviour has their foundations here). Lions at least have a social structure that bear a resemblance to primate family units.

Now as you said Lions kill foreign (or predecessor) cubs, but are we talking about how to maintain a family unit?!?

NO!!!
So... an appeal to nature is rational when it comes to certain subjects, but not rational when it comes to others? Why on earth is that?

You're drawing the line where is most convenient for you, that's all.
My "appeal to nature" has always been very limited in scope (as it should). It's a very basic concept. Engine (the Mitochondria in our cells) need fuel. Most of that fuel are sugars. But during the operation of our "engine", it sustains wear and tear, which needs to be repaired and maintained. This is where we need food. Now our bodies (with their comparatively large brains) need an omnivorous diet. Which means meat (and two veg).

I've never used nature for anything else than explain how the foodchain works. And that's all appeal to nature should ever be used for. I also stressed HEAVILY that as long as the animal which is being used for food has had a happy life, there isn't much amorality.

Now, I know FOR A FACT that the animals which end up on my plate has had a happy life. That's is a lot more than can be said for most self righteous vegan bell ends in the US, who blithely bumble around in their Ford F150 pickups, and eat produce that is responsible for more per plant pollution than an entire wheat field would produce in Denmark.

Silvanus said:
MrFalconfly said:
We are talking about killing animals for food. Either address the bloody point about killing a cow to get a steak or get bloody lost.
You've not actually offered an argument about the virtues of it, the benefits, the suffering. You've not offered an argument that looks in any depth at the act itself-- you've said only that it occurs in nature. What follows from that? Nothing. We do not do whatever is natural; we have the capacity for reason.
WHAT SUFFERING?

I fucking know that the bumbletwats in the US of bloody Asshats can't bloody figure out how to integrate even a minimum of animal bloody welfare into their farming fucking programs.

BUT GUESS WHAT. We don't fucking import any of that shit, because of that very fuckign reason. Because the animals have fucking suffered, trying to keep up with the spineless twats who can't stop shovelling in Big Mac after Big Mac.
 

Simonism451

New member
Oct 27, 2008
272
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
MrFalconfly said:
Also, my point still stands. For something beautiful to live something else had to die.
The problem with the consumption of meat isn't necessarily that animals have to die to provide the meat, but the conditions in which they live. Battery farming is essentially a hundred Holocausts happening simultaneously. This isn't an exaggeration, chickens alone outnumber humans by about 8-10 times and the sole reason for their prevalence is for industrial farming. I find it interesting how even meat eaters are repulsed by footage of battery farms, yet they continue using them. There's nothing "beautiful" about it, no other animal does this.
No, it's essentially zero holocausts happening at once, since we're talking about animals and not human people. Also, the problem with the holocaust wasn't only the conditions in which the people that fell victim to it lived but also that they were actually killed, so I guess if we were to use your comparison, the problem with the consumption of meat would in fact be that animals have to die to provide meat.
I'm impressed by the mental gymnastics needed to believe that keeping an animal in horrible conditions is comparable to torturing a human but that killing it to eat it isn't comparable to murder.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
MrFalconfly said:
My "appeal to nature" has always been very limited in scope (as it should). It's a very basic concept. Engine (the Mitochondria in our cells) need fuel. Most of that fuel are sugars. But during the operation of our "engine", it sustains wear and tear, which needs to be repaired and maintained. This is where we need food. Now our bodies (with their comparatively large brains) need an omnivorous diet. Which means meat (and two veg).
True, right up to the last part. Our bodies do not need meat, because we are not obligate carnivores.

MrFalconfly said:
I've never used nature for anything else than explain how the foodchain works. And that's all appeal to nature should ever be used for. I also stressed HEAVILY that as long as the animal which is being used for food has had a happy life, there isn't much amorality.
We all know how the food chain works. It doesn't justify our behaviour, though-- it's a descriptive model of predation, not a guide on how to live. We're free to choose. We are not beholden to it.

MrFalconfly said:
WHAT SUFFERING?

I fucking know that the bumbletwats in the US of bloody Asshats can't bloody figure out how to integrate even a minimum of animal bloody welfare into their farming fucking programs.

BUT GUESS WHAT. We don't fucking import any of that shit, because of that very fuckign reason. Because the animals have fucking suffered, trying to keep up with the spineless twats who can't stop shovelling in Big Mac after Big Mac.
I did not mean to suggest there was (much) suffering involved; I merely asked for a cost-benefit analysis.

Also, drop the aggressive tone, if you would.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Silvanus said:
MrFalconfly said:
My "appeal to nature" has always been very limited in scope (as it should). It's a very basic concept. Engine (the Mitochondria in our cells) need fuel. Most of that fuel are sugars. But during the operation of our "engine", it sustains wear and tear, which needs to be repaired and maintained. This is where we need food. Now our bodies (with their comparatively large brains) need an omnivorous diet. Which means meat (and two veg).
True, right up to the last part. Our bodies do not need meat, because we are not obligate carnivores.

MrFalconfly said:
I've never used nature for anything else than explain how the foodchain works. And that's all appeal to nature should ever be used for. I also stressed HEAVILY that as long as the animal which is being used for food has had a happy life, there isn't much amorality.
We all know how the food chain works. It doesn't justify our behaviour, though-- it's a descriptive model of predation, not a guide on how to live. We're free to choose. We are not beholden to it.

MrFalconfly said:
WHAT SUFFERING?

I fucking know that the bumbletwats in the US of bloody Asshats can't bloody figure out how to integrate even a minimum of animal bloody welfare into their farming fucking programs.

BUT GUESS WHAT. We don't fucking import any of that shit, because of that very fuckign reason. Because the animals have fucking suffered, trying to keep up with the spineless twats who can't stop shovelling in Big Mac after Big Mac.
I did not mean to suggest there was (much) suffering involved; I merely asked for a cost-benefit analysis.

Also, drop the aggressive tone, if you would.
1) We are omnivores. That means a BALANCED diet. Not a strictly meat diet. A balanced one.

2) A model to how one ought to live? No! At the most it's a model of how things work. And again. As long as the animals don't suffer, there's no amorality.

3) As for getting a more efficient method of producing protein (your cost benefit analysis), one would have to use aquaculture. Herbivorous fish convert biomatter (read: plants) into animal protein more efficiently.

As for the benefits of a proteinrich diet.

Brain growth.

The reason Homo Sapiens Sapiens has such a large brain compared to its body, compared with the rest of the primates is because of the addition of meat to its diet.

And as we've established. Any suffering imparted on the animal should be minimized, but that still doesn't mean one should refrain from a diet containing meat and veg.

So adding meat to our diet is all benefit with very little cost to the welfare of animals, if done correctly.

EDIT:

As for my aggressive tone.

You'll have to excuse me, but the suffering of animals is a sore point for me, and being accused of being the instigator of animal-suffering half a planet away just grinds my gears.
 

Roboshi

New member
Jul 28, 2008
229
0
0
This is the problem with science and the media, the Media is always looking for a "story" while Science only produces studies and theories. Often a study can be done badly or have a basic flaw in it's reasoning or and simply be blown out of proportion.

This is why science thrives on peer review and repeatable tests.

Remember the whole problem we STILL have over immunisation? That was down to a few badly done studies reaching a media and suddenly we have a few million kids who are not getting their shots and infecting others.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,977
348
88
Country
US
CrystalShadow said:
Long story short, most things cause cancer or are otherwise bad for you.
This. A few years back there was another study that showed that carbohydrate heated to the point of browning was also carcinogenic, meaning that bread causes cancer. Pressure treated lumber contains arsenic, better not cut on or burn it.

I'm a type I diabetic in his thirties, one side of whose family has a thorough history of cancer and the other has a history of frequent and severe heart problems. We're not long lived folk. So, fuck it, it's not going to kill me much quicker than I was going to die anyways. Just have to hope it's my heart that goes, because at least that will be comparably quick.
 

47_Ronin

New member
Jul 30, 2012
161
0
0
MrFalconfly said:
1) We are omnivores. That means a BALANCED diet. Not a strictly meat diet. A balanced one.
Incorrect. It means we are able to sustain ourselves with all kinds of diets, not that we need to or ought to. You are correct in asserting that protein consumption (facilitated by a meaty (ha!) diet) helped the brain growth, we are however no longer depended on meat for that. Take into account, that for many of our ancestors and also the homo sapiens, meat played a minor role in their diet.
MrFalconfly said:
So adding meat to our diet is all benefit with very little cost to the welfare of animals, if done correctly.
I really don't wish to be rude or to insult you, but you must be deluded to think that the mass production of meat is being done "correctly".

We do not "need" meat; it kills animals, it is harmful to the environment (think methane greenhouse gas) and it is often harmful to us (cancer risk; antibiotic resistance).
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
47_Ronin said:
MrFalconfly said:
1) We are omnivores. That means a BALANCED diet. Not a strictly meat diet. A balanced one.
Incorrect. It means we are able to sustain ourselves with all kinds of diets, not that we need to or ought to. You are correct in asserting that protein consumption (facilitated by a meaty (ha!) diet) helped the brain growth, we are however no longer depended on meat for that. Take into account, that for many of our ancestors and also the homo sapiens, meat played a minor role in their diet.
MrFalconfly said:
So adding meat to our diet is all benefit with very little cost to the welfare of animals, if done correctly.
I really don't wish to be rude or to insult you, but you must be deluded to think that the mass production of meat is being done "correctly".

We do not "need" meat; it kills animals, it is harmful to the environment (think methane greenhouse gas) and it is often harmful to us (cancer risk; antibiotic resistance).
And as I've already said. I know that the US (and UK, and many other EU nations), are making a right dogs breakfast out of farming responsibly and keeping animal welfare in mind.

However, that produce isn't being imported to where I live, exactly because it's a right dogs breakfast.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Lightknight said:
This is actually when taking vitamin supplements that are known as anti-oxidants as opposed to naturally occurring anti-oxidants found in food. It has actually been shown that many vitamin supplements significantly increase the risk of cancer. Like the news that Vitamin E supplements significantly increases the chances of prostrate cancer whereas vitamin E rich diets seem to have reduced the risk of prostrate cancer. So it's an interesting area of study but I don't think saying that "anti-oxidants" increase cancer growth is necessarily true across the board so much as in those specific areas and usually just with the supplements (or highly processed vitamins just like it's processed meats that supposedly cause this cancer risk increase).
Keeping in mind I am not a doctor, just passing along the article I saw.

http://www.cshl.edu/news-a-features/scientists-propose-how-antioxidants-can-accelerate-cancers-and-why-they-dont-protect-against-them.html
If you read the article, please draw your attention to the start of the second paragraph:

"Yet clinical trials of antioxidant supplements"

See, trials are conducted either with supplements or natural foods AND supplements. There's a lot of discussion that overdoing the amount of vitamins causes this problem and supplements often meet or exceed the daily recommended dose even before accounting for any quantities a person may be naturally consuming.

However, the theory on using oxidants instead sounds pretty darn interesting. I'd like to see that addressed since the logic is firm.

But please recall that natural foods have been tied to reduction in cancer risks amongst other things: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/features/seven-easy-to-find-foods-that-may-help-fight-cancer

So my premise that meat is competing for healthier food options is still a logical question to inquire.
 

sky pies

New member
Oct 24, 2015
395
0
0
Roboshi said:
This is the problem with science and the media, the Media is always looking for a "story" while Science only produces studies and theories.
I ask if you noted the link I put in to my OP which directed you to the WHO website where they respond to Q&A about the announcement?

I have addressed this assertion that the story can be discarded because it is from CNN... I refer you to my comment on page 3... hold on...

sky pies said:
There seems to have been a lot of posting that is using the assertion that CNN are talking out of their ass as a starting off point and just going from there.

It is worth, I think, taking the time to consider that this study - or collection of studies - of which CNN reports is not quite as discard'able as all that. I'm not saying I believe it, but it was put out, apparently, by the WHO - a UN agency- who I feel we can at least trust as a reasonably conscientious source.

Assertions that they are trying to stir up controversy strike me as unreasonable, for instance. What would they have to gain from it - they're no the ones selling the food, they don't have shares in quinoa as far as I'm aware?

And do you really think the WHO would release an awaited for statement to the International press without having a pretty good body of evidence behind it? I mean, maybe CNN hasn't got a bibliography, but doesn't it stand to reason that there would be one somewhere?

Just some thoughts.
Just some thoughts.

:p
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Simonism451 said:
No, it's essentially zero holocausts happening at once, since we're talking about animals and not human people. Also, the problem with the holocaust wasn't only the conditions in which the people that fell victim to it lived but also that they were actually killed, so I guess if we were to use your comparison, the problem with the consumption of meat would in fact be that animals have to die to provide meat.
I'm impressed by the mental gymnastics needed to believe that keeping an animal in horrible conditions is comparable to torturing a human but that killing it to eat it isn't comparable to murder.
If you don't think the lives of non-human animals are as important as those of humans that's fine, I too have a bias towards my own species. But that bias has a limit and it's not a stretch at all to compare battery farming to the conditions people faced in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Yeah the species being slaughtered is different, but can you not see the parallels between concentration camps and battery farms? What animals go through is torture, plain and simple. They are force-fed nutrients and antibiotics, they barely have room to move, body parts are removed and then at the end they get to watch in horror as they're brought to the slaughter.

My point about the conditions animals live in to produce meat and other products was to compare battery farming to the hunting that other animals do. People always defend meat consumption by comparing humans to other animals, but those animals don't breed billions of other animals with the sole purpose of slaughtering them. Actually maybe my comparison with the Holocaust is a bit inaccurate. If the Nazis bred Jews for the sole purpose of slaughtering them over and over again that would be on par.

I might, might excuse all that if humans needed meat to survive. But they don't, they certainly don't need to consume as much as they do. I can't believe this is considered a controversial opinion, there is no way that we need the current excessive supply of meat. It's like trying to justify the rapid consumption of fossil fuels (and seeing as meat production contributes highly to pollution and deforestation, it has the added issue of ruining the environment).

Apart from the victimised species, what difference is there between this and the Holocaust? And no, I don't mean differences that make it worse.