Mr. Bittman’s book can be more easily accepted by the public and likely will put him on television and radio shows, and provide exposure for marketing purposes. The result of his not addressing the true facts, however, is that his book directly implies that it is okay to continue eating meat; that it’s okay to continue choosing foods that cause significant global depletion and health risks to ourselves. Clearly, it is not okay at all. Individuals such as Mr. Bittman, who are provided with a platform, should provide the correct information or give the platform to someone who is more capable and concerned about creating proper direction.
The most profound example of the politics of food systems and corporate influence on you can be found in Food Politics, a book in which author Marion Nestle divulges the vast grip the meat and dairy industry has on the U.S. public and the way in which they limit and affect our food choices. In 1986, Dr. Nestle moved to Washington DC to work for the U.S. Public Health Service, where she managed the editorial production of the first government-directed book about diet and health in America, the seven-hundred-page The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health. It can be explained no better than in her introduction: “My first day on the job, I was given the rules: No matter what the research indicated, the report could not recommend ‘eat less meat’ … or the report will never be published.” Research, in fact, did undeniably indicate that meat and dairy products were linked to various disease states and that eating animal products of any kind—but particularly meat and dairy—would substantially increase our risk of heart and cardiovascular disease, hypertension, gall and kidney stone development, and some cancers. Instead of being able to report these findings and provide appropriate suggestions to the public in a straightforward manner, Dr. Nestle was coerced into incorporating them in a suppressed fashion that would not be so detrimental to the powerful livestock industry. Specifically, instead of stating the facts of these findings and that consumption of meat and dairy should be substantially limited or eliminated from the diet, the book uses wording such as “choose a diet low in …” or “have two or three servings of meat.” This effectively allowed the meat and dairy industry to continue the cultural brainwashing of the American public through misleading and misinforming marketing.
The case against consuming livestock could not be more obvious than in the 2006 LEAD report by Steinfeld et al, and yet there is a blatant display of treading lightly revealed by the conclusions. The Livestock, Environment, and Development (LEAD) initiative was formed to “address the environmental consequences of livestock production, particularly in light of the rising demand for food products of animal origin and the increasing pressure on natural resources.” The LEAD initiative was supported by the United Nations, the World Bank, the European Union, and numerous other international organizations. As stated in their executive summary: “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” Findings suggest there should be major policy focus dealing with livestock problems “of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.” Knowing now that livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on such an enormous scale, they further conclude: “The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.” The solution does seem pretty obvious: stop eating meat. However, instead of simply advising lessening the demand for livestock by reducing the consumption of animals and animal products, the LEAD authors provide suggestions such as “relocating factory farms away from urban areas,” “finding feed that results in less methane in the animals’ flatulence,” and others that essentially perpetuate the problem, both conceptually and functionally. These authors, who spent so much time and energy uncovering the fact that essentially all aspects of the livestock industry are devastating to our planet, summarize by saying that even though we are losing our planet on many levels due to livestock, let’s keep raising them and eating them—it’s okay to do this as long as we find ways to make the devastation less profound.
We are hitting ourselves in the head with a hammer repeatedly, on the way to killing ourselves, such that scientists who have studied this problem exhaustively suggest we put a Band-Aid over the head wound but keep hitting our head with the hammer. This is the ultimate in “treading lightly,” rather than concluding the obvious: just stop hitting yourself and take the stupid hammer away once and for all.
Another form of treading lightly also can be found with contaminated food outbreaks. Each year there are thousands of reported sicknesses and hundreds of deaths due to food-borne pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella, shigella, and Campylobacter. The outbreaks are always reported in regard to which food source it was associated with. Typically, it is meat products, which is far under-reported or minimized. But there are many cases that involve plant-based foods, such as melons, tomatoes, salad mix, spinach, peanuts, and pistachios. So, how does treading lightly fit in? Well, in 100 percent of the reports by the media over the past twenty years, none revealed the real source and, therefore, the reason for the outbreak. In all these reports, the illnesses were blamed on the specific foods. The vital piece of information that is routinely omitted is that all these pathogens that cause sickness are actually caused by animal sources. For instance, salmonella grows abundantly on chickens and other animals, so when they are killed and eaten for food, there is a high likelihood that salmonella may find its way to humans. This similarly occurs with E. coli, which is found in all animals. It should be no surprise that because it is found in all animals, there is a probability it will show up somewhere down the line if you eat those animals. What is never discussed is that nowhere on any plant-based food can these same pathogens be found naturally. Yet investigators fail to mention this important point.
Then what causes salmonella, E. coli, and other food-borne diseases in vegetables, fruit, nuts, and grain? Plants can only be contaminated by coming into contact with polluted water through irrigation, animal fertilizers, and using animal or human feces. Vegetables and fruit can also become contaminated if placed in close proximity to or mixed with raw poultry, meat, or eggs, and unpasteurized milk, as all of these products have supply bacteria contaminants on them naturally. When E. coli was found in salad mix and spinach, it was never mentioned that it was found in these products because they were irrigated with water that was contaminated from a cattle operation a few miles away. The cattle business allowed its manure to be washed into a water system that eventually made its way to surrounding vegetable farms.
Investigation of a rather large outbreak of salmonella in peanuts recently revealed that the cause was “unsanitary conditions at the plant.”141 FDA inspectors found at two Peanut Corporation of America plants at least four strains of salmonella, all caused by “rodents, bird feathers, and rodent excrement.”142 Again, the strains of E. coli and salmonella that caused these outbreaks occurred due to contamination from animal sources. Animal products used for food have a high propensity for distribution of pathogens, because they are found naturally on and within the animal itself during its life, as well as during the slaughtering process. This applies to all animal products, whether it is from livestock, dairy, or fish. This adds to the list of ways that eating animals creates a depletion of our health—and are examples of treading lightly.
In mid-August 2010, more than a half-billion eggs were recalled from numerous areas in the United States due to a salmonella outbreak. Thousands of illnesses resulted from this contamination, which causes abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever, and sometimes death. While news of the outbreak and recall spread quickly throughout various media sources, there was a consistent omission of providing the public with a fail-safe solution. One example was broadcast on National Public Radio on August 25, 2010, during an interview by correspondent Linda Wertheimer. This particular interview was with Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, who
provided perfect answers to most of Ms. Wertheimer’s initial questions regarding how eggs become contaminated in the first place. He informed listeners that salmonella is found living normally in all hens, primarily within the intestinal tract, and therefore it is common to find this pathogen on hens, on their eggshells, and in the interior of eggs. The difficulty with this interview was in the information given to the listener in terms of solutions. There was ample discussion from Ms. Wertheimer and Dr. Schaffner about the use of eggs derived from free-range chickens, as well as cooking and cleaning techniques and use of pasteurization to kill the pathogens. Nowhere, however, was there mention of simply not eating eggs. Both participants had a perfect opportunity to suggest that we not use eggs—or chickens, for that matter—as a food source. After all, that is a possible solution, isn’t it? And it’s a solution that would actually eliminate the problem entirely as it relates to eggs, and at the same time reduce our inefficient use of resources, such as land, water, and food. It seems easy enough to have posed the question or to have offered it as a solution. Instead, both Ms. Wertheimer and Dr. Schaffner—as well as, perhaps, the writers and editors of this NPR segment—chose to ignore this very obvious choice, essentially treading lightly with this more controversial topic. It is unfortunate that the estimated 21 million NPR listeners were left with half the story and no real resolution.
The “tread lightly” phenomenon is vividly displayed by author Michael Pollan, who is known as “America’s most trusted voice on diet.” While Mr. Pollan has brought some focus and even validity to eating more of a plant-based diet, his primary agenda is to bring attention to the “industrialization” of our food and the ill effects it has on our health. His books are eloquently written, and he presents concepts with intelligent conviction. He has uncovered more than his fair share of facts related to all the detrimental effects of eating any animal products—and the evidence is exhaustive. Whenever he is asked if he eats meat, he repeatedly goes on the record as saying, unequivocally, yes. He also promotes our use of grass-fed livestock and creates the false illusion that it is healthy and fully sustainable. Neither point could be farther from the truth. Providing pasture-fed cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, or any other animal is fully unsustainable and unhealthy for our health and the health of our planet. I believe that Michael Pollan is “treading lightly” so as to not diminish his audience. It is so much easier for us to identify with his message if he says that he still eats meat, like the rest of the world. Perhaps, however, even with all his research, the obvious has not been absorbed. Perhaps Michael Pollan is comfortably unaware.
CHAPTER X
How We Arrived at This Point
Observations, predictions, and solutions
“We are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility of our future”
—George Bernard Shaw
ALTHOUGH GLOBAL DEPLETION has occurred in many areas and in a devastating manner, there is hope—but certain things must change. Addressing complex issues such as our food choices must immediately happen on many levels. There must be enhanced awareness and vision, proper prioritization, subsequent implementation, and dissemination of truth to everyone involved as progress occurs. Before we can chart a better course, we should first examine how we arrived at this point … the path we took to get here.
Collectively, we choose food that is unhealthy for us and for our planet. There are a number of reasons for this unfortunate situation, including:
• Clear suppression of information
• Misplaced trust for guidance
• Misleading food choice education by the USDA and the meat and dairy industries
• Government subsidies for animal products
• Lack of establishment and implementation of an ecotax, reflecting a true price
• Complex combination of psychological, cultural, social, and political interactions
There is very little awareness that your food choices have a profoundly detrimental effect on our planet. However, it should be common knowledge that, much like smoking cigarettes, eating meat is not healthy for you. Strangely, consumption continues, so there must be something missing in this scenario. Let’s look once again at what a few of the major health organizations say about the consumption of meat and dairy products and the effect it has on your health:
• The American Dietetic Association states: “It is the position of the ADA that vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”143
• The American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund call for “a plant-based diet rich in a variety of vegetables, fruits, and legumes and limiting red meat consumption, if red meat is eaten at all.”144 145
• The American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health call for a diet based on a variety of plant foods, including grain products, vegetables, and fruits to reduce risk of major chronic diseases.146
These are all purposeful, visible organizations with a clear message regarding food choices, so this begs the question: Why do people continue to eat meat? My experience has shown that individuals will fall into one of the following categories:
• Burger, Fries, and a Side of Disease: You are quite aware of this information and have made a decision to significantly increase the probability of developing cancer, heart disease, diverticulosis, gallstones, kidney disease, and diabetes, and will spend most of your time in physician offices and hospitals, and buying medications, like the majority of Americans do.
• I am Superman: You are aware of this information and the connection but believe it will never happen to you, even though statistics show it happens to the vast majority of everyone who consumes animal products.
• Need My Protein: You really are completely unaware that there is anything wrong with eating meat and may think it is actually healthy for you. If you are in this group, you are part of a large number of people who are hearing, seeing, and reading only what the various aspects of our culture want you to know, in order to perpetuate the belief that those products are healthy.
This third group exists due to a rather complex intertwining of cultural, political, economic, and media factors that, when combined, does an excellent job of not allowing the average person to become aware of pertinent facts. Even if you had these enlightening facts in hand, there is then difficulty in feeling comfortable with taking the proper course of action, due to certain social and cultural implications. Unfortunately, this is the situation that affects the majority of Americans. And therein lies the problem.
For instance, we respect, almost to the point of reverence, our physicians, dieticians, and hospitals—the keepers of our health. Because of this, we have come to rely solely on them for guidance when we become ill or injured. This is perfectly fine in certain circumstances, but it also places these professionals in a counseling position regarding disease prevention and nutrition. Now, this is where problems occur.
First is the dichotomy of their education and cultural influences, relative to the position of guidance in which we place them. Physicians are trained in medicine; they are medical doctors (MDs). As such, they are trained in diagnosing and treating various disease states, primarily with a pharmacological solution—which drug will manage which condition. The primary focus of their education was not in prevention, nutrition, or diet and exercise counseling, nor was it in ecology issues, to be able to determine what is in the best interest of our planet. Medical schools do not require their students to take nutrition courses beyond one semester—and it is an elective in most schools. It is quite easy to see why most Americans feel it is healthy to eat meat and animal products in general, because their physicians mistakenly think that it is fine.
Today, it is standard procedure for heart surgeons and cardiologists to prescribe medications and perform bypass surgery without mentioning that prevention or treatment could be best managed by switching to a complet
ely plant-based diet. This happens despite current knowledge that supports this recommendation. Similarly, those suffering from colon, rectal, pancreatic, or prostate cancers are treated with extensive, life-changing surgeries, chemotherapy, and radiation. Oncologists and surgeons seldom mandate a plant-based diet. I have witnessed countless patients, immediately following massive surgeries to remove cancer of the colon, who are told they can eat whatever they would like. There is no mention of statistics or current medical knowledge that eating animal products most likely contributed to the development of the cancer; no mention that eating animal products will significantly increase the risk that more cancer will develop. (This applies to many other types of cancer as well.)
Dieticians are equally, if not more, at fault. As hospitals become more occupationally specialized with those in decision-making capacities, dieticians play a much larger role than they did even twenty years ago. Hospital administrative personnel place dieticians in supervisory roles, with meal planning for the entire hospital. Physicians rely on dieticians to formulate meal strategies and guide pre- and post-surgical patients on food choices that are in their best interest. Unfortunately, nearly 100 percent of the dieticians I have come in contact with over the past thirty-five years either have no knowledge of the health benefits of a plant-based diet or are still in denial that meat and animal products are factually unhealthy for anyone to consume.
Comfortably Unaware Page 9
