by Lindy
(Malaysia)
Breakfast Energizer:
1 ripe mango (pit removed)
1 red apple
3 ripe bananas
Blend together and enjoy drink
Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Real Environmental Impact of Red Meat: Part 2
In my previous article on the environmental impact of red meat, I explained how grazing livestock can be an environmentally friendly farming technique, helping to remove carbon from the atmosphere and consume less water resources than has been estimated.
While all large-scale food production, even organic food, has some level of impact on the environment, it’s clear that red meat has borne the brunt of most claims of negative environmental impact. The major claim I want to address today is the claim that grazing livestock leads to soil erosion and desertification, which is far from the truth. In fact, grazing cattle could even be a factor that restores the environment if used intelligently and responsibly.
Could eating grass-fed meat actually help save the environment?
I’m sure many of you have already heard Allan Savory’s TED talk on the subject, but if you haven’t, it’s worth a listen. He argues that despite the popular assertion that livestock cause desertification, cattle and other livestock can actually reverse desertification when their grazing patterns are managed closely. He goes so far as to say that livestock may actually be our best hope for restoring land that is currently unusable. He has spent quite a few years in Africa testing different grazing methods, and has achieved some impressive results. In his talk, he shows pictures of land that used to be barren and infertile, but has been completely restored using intensive grazing methods.
As you can imagine, his claims are highly controversial, and there’s no clear consensus in the literature about whether livestock are detrimental or helpful to the land. Some studies seem to corroborate Savory’s claims; for example, this study found that a specific grazing pattern increased the water content of the soil. However, there are other studies that show no benefits whatsoever from intensive grazing, and some even show harm. But this really shouldn’t surprise us; it’s illogical to assume that the methods used to restore land in Africa will also work in every other part of the world. Climates are different, soil is different, plants are different, and the type of livestock is different, so what works well in one area might not work in another area. The good news is that, as Savory’s talk shows us, livestock aren’t always harmful to the land, and can even be highly beneficial when managed responsibly. But we can’t say that livestock is always helpful, either. This highlights yet again the importance of finding a farmer you trust, because a responsible farmer will know how to manage their livestock in a way that preserves the land.
I’ve hinted at this throughout the post, but I want to directly address the difference in environmental impact between grass-fed and grain-fed red meat. Believe it or not, it’s controversial as to whether or not pasture-raised animals are better for the environment. In fact, many researchers have argued that grass-fed livestock is far worse for the environment! They claim that because it takes longer for animals to mature on pasture than in a feedlot, they consume more resources over their lifespan, making them a bigger burden on the environment. Ruminants on pasture also produce more methane than ruminants on concentrate because of the higher fiber content of their food. (9)
However, most of these researchers haven’t considered the big picture. As I mentioned earlier, cattle on pasture can be carbon negative by enhancing carbon sequestration, while cows cooped up in a building are completely detached from the natural carbon cycle. Pastured cattle are also friendlier to water resources, as we saw by the comparison in water use between mostly pastured cattle in Australia and mostly grain-fed cattle in the US. Further, it’s important to consider the other environmental hazards of feedlots, including pollution from manure, antibiotics, and pesticides. Researchers that look at the big picture find that when all factors accounted for, pastured cattle are much more environmentally friendly than their feedlot counterparts. (10) (11) (12) So, if you weren’t already convinced, this is another great reason to choose grass-fed beef when possible!
It’s safe to say that ruminants, especially when raised on natural pasture, are not nearly as harmful to the environment as they’re made out to be by the media and conventional wisdom. They don’t use inordinate amounts of water, and although they do produce methane, they also remove carbon from the environment through grazing and can be carbon negative under the right circumstances. And although irresponsible grazing can lead to desertification in some circumstances, the proper management of livestock can actually enhance the health of the land.
As I’ve said many times before, it’s important to purchase red meat from a farmer you trust when at all possible. It’s evident that responsibly raised, grass-fed animals are kinder to the environment than those raised in a feedlot, not to mention that the animal itself has a better life. But I’d also encourage you to keep things in perspective. Red meat might not be the most ‘environmentally friendly’ food out there, but I highly doubt it’s the worst. But even if red meat were as terrible for the environment as conventional wisdom claims it is, please remember that eating isn’t the only activity you do that impacts the environment. Yes, livestock produces a lot of methane. You know what else produces a lot of methane? Landfills. (And wetlands and rice paddies, interestingly enough.) Food waste is also a pretty big problem. Some researchers attribute 25% of total freshwater use and about 300 million barrels of oil per year to food waste. (13) Now, I’m not telling you this so you can try to calculate how many cans you’d need to recycle to ‘make up for’ the environmental impact of your 6oz grass-fed steak. I just think it’s important that we don’t forget all the other things we can do to help the environment that don’t require eliminating an excellent source of nutrition from our diet.
Now I’d like to hear from you. Did any of this surprise you? Have you ever changed your eating habits to be more environmentally friendly? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
Tagged as: beef, desert, environment, erosion, grass-fed, grazing, livestock, meat
I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.Follow Chris Online:
Discover your own ideal diet & end confusion about what to eat forever.
Learn More
Boost fertility naturally & promote lifelong health for you & your baby.
Learn More
Personalized online portal with easy-to-use tools, expert advice, and the support of a passionate, intelligent community.
Learn More
Break through the energy swings, digestive upset, and obstacles of adopting a Paleo diet.
Learn MoreSuper Salad
by Hugh
(Fairfax, CA)
You can see by the list of ingredients why I call this the Super Salad. It’s loaded with great nutrition and is very tasty. Mix all ingredients in a large bowl and enjoy. No dressing necessary as the avo and other wet ingredients make their own natural dressing. Easy to make. Easy clean-up. Boy I like the raw food way.
2 heads red butter lettuce
2 carrots grated
3 cucumbers sliced
1 zucchini grated
2 tomatoes
4 sheets nori cut into strips
Large double handful of sunflower sprouts
1 avocado
1 cup cultured vegetables
1" fresh ginger diced
Of course you can always add the juice of an orange or one of your favorite raw dressings if you prefer.
Aspartame in Milk: More “Real Milk” Myths
You may have heard about the latest uproar: the dairy industry wants the FDA to change its definition of milk. Why? They claim that it will benefit children’s health, that kids will drink more milk if they don’t realize it’s sweetened with aspartame. They’re referring to chocolate milk and other flavored milks for the most part, but low-fat milks also contain added sweeteners.
Some school systems have banned sugary beverages in order to combat childhood obesity, including flavored milks containing added sugar or high fructose corn syrup. The dairy industry reacted by offering reduced-calorie chocolate milk. They now claim that terms such a “reduced calorie,” “reduced sugar,” “low-calorie” or “diet” turns kids off. The FDA presently requires that any “non-nutritive” additive be boldly listed on the front label as well as being included in the ingredient list. In addition, non-nutritive additives change milk composition so much that the FDA decided these altered drinks cannot be simply called “milk” or “chocolate milk,” but must be labeled as “low-calorie” or “reduced calorie” beverages.
The dairy industry purports that milk lower in sugar and sweetened with aspartame is a healthy choice for our kids. The industry is playing on parent’s concerns: many parents still think that their children are getting needed nutrients by drinking chocolate milk that they wouldn’t get otherwise. If you think this is true, you may want to take a look at my article: “Which is More Deadly: Aspartame or Sugar?” In an NPR.com article, nutrition professor Barry Popkin says that there is no real evidence that flavored milks increase milk consumption among children.
Does Milk Contribute to Obesity?Low-fat dairy choices are common today. We’ve been told that whole milk can contribute to weight gain and heart disease. Yet, reducing fat reduces flavor. That’s why low-fat milk often has added sugar or artificial sweetener.
The Physicians for Responsible Medicine (PFRM) report that a recent study published in Archives of Disease in Childhood found that low-fat milk did not lower obesity rates among small children. In fact, kids that drank one percent or skim milk were more likely to be overweight or obese than kids that drank whole milk.
An earlier study, published in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, came up with similar results. Tracking 12 adolescents for four years, the researchers found that drinking skim milk and one percent milk was associated with weight gain but milk fat was not.
Plus, researchers are finding that artificial sweeteners can change the chemistry of our brain and satiation receptors, leading to sweet cravings and unhealthy eating. You can read more about this in “Sweet Addiction: Artificial Sweeteners Not So Sweet After All.”
Got Strong Bones?Many parents believe their kids need to drink milk at school in order to get needed calcium for strong bones. PFRM thinks milk should be taken off the school menu because studies don’t support milk consumption and bone health. A Harvard study found that drinking milk doesn’t prevent the risk of bone fracture in women and recent studies find that drinking milk doesn’t prevent stress fractures in adolescent girls.
Milk fat is what helps us to absorb calcium. Stripping the fat and pasteurizing milk prevents us from absorbing its nutrients adequately.
What’s Real Milk?First of all, consider what you’re getting in milk. Cows are fed grains rather than grass. They’re loaded with hormones to boost milk production and given antibiotics to prevent disease. They’re exposed to fertilizers and pesticides. If you aren’t buying locally, you don’t know what kind of conditions surround the milk you drink. Check out “Are These Chemicals in Your Milk?” to see what you may be ingesting.
Then there’s pasteurization. High heat destroys helpful bacteria in milk so that it’s more vulnerable to population by bad bacteria. This heat destroys and denatures enzymes that help us to digest milk and utilize its nutrients. Pasteurization destroys the majority of vitamins A, C, D, E and the B vitamins. And calcium? We become less able to absorb calcium in milk because the pasteurization process destroys phosphatase, an enzyme we’d normally use to take calcium up.
Raw milk is real milk. To understand the truth about the dangers of pasteurized milk and the benefits of raw milk, read “Raw Milk Myths: Are We Prisoners of Pasteurization?” I don’t think that pasteurized milk should be labeled as real milk, never mind low-fat milk with aspartame. There are plenty of healthy food choices you can give your kids to make sure they get needed nutrients. Just as the dairy industry shouldn’t be able to trick children and parents into choosing an artificially sweetened drink, parents shouldn’t be okaying sugary drinks like chocolate milk because they contain calcium. Teach your kids to eat and appreciate real foods and you won’t have to worry about what the food industry is trying to pass off as real food.
Lessons LearnedLow-fat milk contains added sugar or artificial sweeteners.Low-fat, flavored milks are linked to weight gain in children.Pasteurization destroys nutrients in milk.Real milk is raw milk.SourcesAllison Aubrey, “Can Milk Sweetened With Aspartame Still Be Called Milk?” National Public Radio, March 3, 2013, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/06/173618723/can-milk-sweetened-with-aspartame-still-be-called-milk“Low-Fat Milk Does Not Prevent or Reverse Childhood Obesity,” Physicians for Responsible Medicine, March 20, 2013, http://www.pcrm.org/health/medNews/low-fat-milk-does-not-prevent-or-reverse-childhood“Let’s Really Move Milk Out of School Lunches,” Physicians for Responsible Medicine, http://www.pcrm.org/health/healthy-school-lunches/letsreallymove/lets-really-move-milk-out-of-school-lunchesDisclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above may be “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
The Roundup
Here is The Roundup, Edition 6, bringing you the best from around the web from the past two weeks!
Last week, Forbes.com described how the journal Nature admonished Walter Willett, a leading nutrition and epidemiology researcher at the Harvard school, for being biased against scientists who reach different conclusions than he does. Specifically, they focused on his criticism of the recent study by Katherine Flegal and colleagues demonstrating that being slightly overweight may actually be protective. While this study suggests that decades of advice to avoid even modest weight gain may be misguided, and that a little bit of extra weight is particularly beneficial for older adults, Willett called the study “rubbish” and not worth reading. Many obesity experts and health biostatisticians take issue with the harsh tone of Willett’s statements, and as one of the most frequently quoted academic sources on nutrition in the news media, Willett’s opinion holds significant weight with the public. Unfortunately, Willett tends to argue against any scientific research that contradicts the public health recommendations he, and the nutrition department at Harvard, have made.
In February, I wrote an article describing the various explanations that could account for the protective effect of overweight seen in various studies, including the meta-analysis that Willett took such issue with. While obesity is not a desirable state of health, it’s worth noting that if you’re living a health-promoting lifestyle but still carrying around a few extra pounds, you might be healthier than popular media would lead you to believe.
What’s ironic about Willett’s criticism of Flegal’s study is that a research team he led recently published a study that generated huge controversy when its conclusions were retracted at the last minute by the publicity team at Harvard’s teaching hospital. The data were so weak and unsupportive of Willet’s claims that the paper was rejected by six journals before it was finally accepted by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, where Willett is a member of the editorial board (as pointed out in the Forbes.com article). Regardless of whether Willett is right or wrong in his criticism of Flegal’s study, publicly blasting another researcher for drawing unfounded conclusions from their data seems a little out of line given his own recent experience.
A review in the British Medical Journal supports the theory that the flu vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed. I’ve spoken about the issues with the flu vaccine on one of my podcasts.A peer-reviewed article makes recommendations for dietary fat based on evidence and not dietary dogma.Clinical trials show that purposeful infection with hookworm (N. americanus) modified host response to gluten.New research sheds light on brain-related side effects of statins.A new study shows that the low FODMAP diet improves gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. For more information about FODMAPs, check out this article I wrote on the subject.Chris Masterjohn, PhD, needs support to help fund research on nutrient dense traditional diets at his lab at the University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignThe New York Times explains how GMO technology has bred the nutrition out of plant foods.Food Renegade reports on a raw milk farmer who recently won a major victory for private food rights.Kaayla Daniel, PhD, explains how replacing meat and eggs with soy products can lead to bone loss.Tagged as: diet, flu vaccine, fodmap, nutrition, research, the Roundup, walter willett I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.Follow Chris Online: Discover your own ideal diet & end confusion about what to eat forever.
Learn More Boost fertility naturally & promote lifelong health for you & your baby.
Learn More Personalized online portal with easy-to-use tools, expert advice, and the support of a passionate, intelligent community.
Learn More Break through the energy swings, digestive upset, and obstacles of adopting a Paleo diet.
Learn MoreThe liver and kidney Cleanser
by Mark Brown
(Tamarac, FL)
3 leaves of red kale
1 carrot
1 stalk celery
3 leaves dandelion
handful of spinach
handful of blueberries
slice of ginger
1 fuji apple
1 pear
1 lemon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)