Background Report: The Merits of Meat

_{Alpha and Omega Present…}

_{A Presentation Assured to ROCK YOUR WORLD:}

_{THE MERITS OF MEAT}

_{Or, A Reasonable Approach to the Eating Meat in the 21st Century}

_{(Formatted in timeless Comic Sans MS for your viewing pleasure)
---}

_Rhetoric

_{Why is feasting on flesh such to some people--even taking hold of their identities as times--while others can’t be bothered by a pork chop gracing their plate for years at a time?  Who knows, but one thing can’t be doubted:  this question and this question alone seems to raise more hoopla than any other in the field of food.  It seems especially perplexing considering (as Pollan pointed out) the thousands upon thousands of species which humans may consume and draw energy from.  With animals making up on a small part of this collective, why is it such a big deal that we must eat them?  Take this into account with the actions of such extremist groups as PETA and the message becomes clear:  few questions in the world of the connoisseur raise such a stink as one’s choice to or to not eat meat.}                            

_{...Ever have to fill out one of those cards citing indicating your meal preferences before a conference, really fun leadership workshop, or wedding?  Do they ask you whether or not you want vegetables with your meal?  “Of course not—don’t be absurd!”  Exactly.  But one option that’s almost always offered is that of “vegetarian” (or, as is increasingly common, “vegan”).  In this way it can be seen that meat holds a very special place in the heart and stomachs of the human species (some societies more than others, but you get the point)—it exists as a complex, continually intertwining relationship between the hunter and the hunted where, as Pollan expounds on, the predator comes to resemble the prey more than anyone would have thought possible.  If we take all this into perspective, we can see the rhetoric in which people speak about eating food, specifically meat, pertains to many areas of life: health, biology, culture, and morality (and then some).}

_{Beef or fish?  You mean I can’t have both?}

_Health

_{Although it’s certainly not a challenge to find a study linking vegetarianism to a longer life span, decreased incidences of heart disease and cancer in comparison to meat-eaters, in this common assertion lies a dilemma:  is it the presence of less meat, more vegetables, or a synergistic of both which makes vegetarians healthier people?  Can it be that, by and large, vegetarians (seeing as how they can afford to buy more produce, and because produce is expensive, are therefore assumed to have more moo-lah) can just afford better health care?  Honestly, it’s hard to tell (although science will never admit how much they pretend).}

_Biology

_{The scientist in us (or if you’re the touchy/feeling/“back to nature” type, the scientist in others) recently discovered something which may help paint a fuller picture of why we crave the cow (not surprisingly, it’s something many non-American cultures have been aware of for centuries):  a taste bud completely devoted to meat.  It’s called umami.1  Whether you consider it to be the “scientific term to describe the taste of glutamates and nucleotides” or “a loanword from the Japanese umami meaning ‘pleasant savory taste.’”  Diving a bit into the topic of umami could be considered a science war in and of itself—although umami clearly “represents the taste of the amino acid L-glutamate and 5’-ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP),” it  Once again proving the dividing—rather than the uniting—characteristics of meat in our modern-day society.  One last note:  there’s also morphological evidence to suggest that our ancestors developed bigger brains thanks to containing (maybe consuming?) animal flesh.  Kind of a foot-in-the-mouth situation to tell a vegetarian that he/she wouldn’t possess the mental faculty to make the choice not to eat meat if his/her ancestors wouldn’t have, huh?}

_Culture

_{Of course, what would the ethical/biological dilemma of eating meat be without culture contributing its fair share?  When you picture (a much younger) Arnold Schwarzenegger sitting down to a post-workout meal, do you imagine a heaping pile of greens or a giant steak?  While the case may be a rib eye for the Governator, five-time Mr. Universe Bill Pearl is a proud lacto-ovo vegetarian, and has been since 1969.2  So why did you picture a steak?  While you certainly can’t discredit the fame of Arnold Schwarzenegger (I mean, whoever heard of Bill Pearl?), the main culprit seems to be a fostered association of meat with manliness.  To many, the thought of slaying a beast and taking relish in the victory by feasting on its flesh evokes images of brawny, uni-browed cave people (enter Arnold).  Let’s face it:  no one wants to be the 98 pound weakling getting sand kicked in his face, even if you don’t have to eat half a cow to grow big and strong.  Is this indicative of something larger in our culture, of the rigid gender stereotypes which have been implanted since our mother first wrapped us in a blue or pink towel?  Absolutely—it’s just sad that something as primary as what we eat and how we eat it has to play a role in shaping how we’re perceived by our self and others.}

_{Who’s more of a man?}

_Morality

_{While some point to religious doctrine as a means with which to justify their not eating animals (or not eating them in certain combinations, as is the case with kosher law), some people, like Joel Salatin, who owns and runs Polyface Farm, actually use it to legitimize their acts.  Keep in mind, not every farmer considers slaughtering their pigs a religious experience—then again, not every farm has the goal of “emotionally, economically and environmentally enhancing agriculture.”3 Indeed, Salatin views his role as a “responsibility to honor the animals as creatures that reflect God’s creative and abiding love, and believes his method is to honor that of God.”3   When asked by Pollan in Omnivore’s Dilemma how he can justify killing living beings while maintaining his faith, Salatin quips that "people have a soul, animals don't” (331).  Perhaps in this sense, religion and its accompanying texts could be seen as means to an end—a way for people to feel secure in their decision to or not to partake in the process of animal consumption.  Indeed, whether or not we consume meat there are some realities of meat that we should all be aware of, like the difference between corn fed versus grass fed beef, and if eating grass fed is a possible way to crave our meat and eat it too.}

_Science

_{The scientific effects of corn fed beef have raised concerns in nutritional academia and with many environmentalist agencies. Corn fed beef has been scientifically linked to deficits in nutritional values, and an increased risk of consumers getting sick from specific strands of E. Coli. Besides the effects corn fed beef has on humans, the corn fed diet of the livestock also has been scientifically proven to be unnatural for cows and is linked to health problems in the cows themselves. The decrease in health of corn fed cows has caused an increase in antibiotics administered to corn fed cows, which can further erode their health and cause further complications. Environmental agencies have expressed concern that the carbon footprint of corn fed cows is larger and more detrimental to the environment than that of grass fed cows due to the increased levels of greenhouse gases emitted by corn fed cows.}

   _{Cows are ruminants, which is a classification of animals that have unique digestive systems that specifically break down plant material which would include grass or hay (EPA.gov, 2007). This means that a diet of mainly corn or soy products is quite alien to the digestive system of a cow. Unfortunately, this is exactly what most commercial livestock is fed. When a cow is fed a diet of corn or soy, there are significant alterations and deficiencies that are a result. According to James B. Russell of the US Department of Agriculture, cows that are fed grains digest the grain faster, and the grain ferments faster which gives the cow the nutrition from the grains faster, prompting more rapid growth of the cows. However, Russell claims the grain diet results in a deficiency in the absorption of fermentation acids in the rumen of the cow’s stomach which can cause medical problems for the cow, most notably ulcers in the stomach (Sciencedaily.com, 2001).}

   _{A grain fed cow also can have significant effects on the environment, which is specifically because of the massive amount of energy needed to harvest large amounts of grain for livestock. According to an article on GreenBlizzard.com, it takes roughly 248 gallons of oil to produce grain for the diet of one cow (GreenBlizzard.com, 2011). Because grains such as corn and soy are in high demand for livestock feed, the crops are commercially grown and harvested. In the process of growing the crops there are many pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers used which can be harmful to the environment, and require significant amounts of fossil fuels for production. Grass fed cattle can be better for the environment mainly because farmers normally care for the land, practicing proper grazing techniques and sparing the land of pesticides or fertilizers (SierraClub.org). The lack of fertilizers used is because there is a natural process of fertilization by the cows, and there is little to no fossil fuels used to harvest the grass because it is the cows themselves that harvest it (EatWild.com). Manure management on grass feeding farms is also superior because, according to EatWild.com, the cows naturally spread manure which can benefit the grass. This is unlike commercial grain feeding farms where feces build up in the confines of barns and sheds, which can produce harmful ammonia fumes that can sicken cows and workers (EatWild.com). However, despite evidence of environmental degradation by grain fed livestock, there has been opposing evidence that in fact it is grass fed livestock that actually has the larger carbon footprint. According to Matthias Schulz of the University of New South Wales Research Center, a grain based diet “can be digested better by the animals, so that reduces the enteric methane production by the animals” (Discovery.com, 2010). In the same article posted on the news blog of Discovery.com, it is reported that the research done by Schulz and his team found that grass fed cows emitted 20 percent more greenhouse gases than grain fed cows. They also concluded that although emissions were collectively higher on grain fed feedlots, the cows plump up faster and are therefore slaughtered faster, which means each cow actually emits less gas overall on feedlots (Discovery.com, 2010).}

   _{Regardless of environmental issues, there has been evidence that grain fed livestock results in significantly less healthy meat for humans. The processes of commercial livestock grain feeding are meant to grow the cows quickly, and to “plump” up the cows before slaughter. Grain fed cows yield beef that has the potential of containing higher levels of harmful bacteria and disease that can cause health problems in humans. This poses an even bigger concern considering the ubiquitous use of corn fed beef in America, specifically in fast food restaurants across the nation. In a study that was spearheaded by geobiologist, Hope Jahren, of the University of Hawaii, researchers targeted beef used by these fast food chains, and tested the beef for a specific type of carbon (13 C) that is found in higher levels in corn. The result was that “93 percent of the tissue that comprised the meat was derived from corn.” However, in the same article that this study was published Scientific American claims that although corn fed beef is undoubtedly widely consumed there has been no specific health effects in humans from eating corn fed meat (ScientificAmerican.com, 2008).}

   _{Unlike the article by Scientific America, there has been scientific evidence circulated that has shown noticeable nutritional deficiencies of grain fed beef. One of the most important deficiencies that exists in the meat is the lower Omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered “good” fats for humans. Grain fed beef also is lower in CLA (conjugated linoleic acid), which helps fight cardiovascular disease and cancer (SustainableTable.org). Grass fed beef on the other hand does not share the same deficiencies, and also has some benefits that grain fed beef does not have. Grass fed beef has been known to have higher levels of Omega-3 fatty acids, along with lower levels of Omega-6 fatty acids than grain fed beef; Omega-6 fatty acids are considered bad for human health, and can be attributed to obesity in America (OrganicGrassFedBeefInfo.com).}

   _{A final danger of grain fed beef is the higher risk for humans of contracting illness from the E. Coli strain  E. coli O157:H7. According to an article on the Cornell Chronicle website, both animals and humans naturally have E. Coli in their digestive systems, however strains like E. coli O157:H7 can cause serious health problems in humans. This strain is present in grain fed cows because they break down the starch poorly, and some undigested grain reaches the colon and ferments. Upon fermentation, E. Coli strains like O157:H7 are produced which are acid resistant – these strains can survive the acid shock of the human digestion system and cause bloody diarrhea and other complications in humans (Cornell.edu, 1998).}

_{Such large consumption of resources and materials mutates meat into something other than a food; it’s a political pawn, a resource, a commodity.  Not exactly what Hippocrates had in mind when he advised his patients to let “food be they medicine and let thy medicine be food.”}

_Politics

_{Politics is a big component of the meat eating hybrid. This is a topic that can extend into an endless discussion. However, three major players are inevitably crucial to the politics of grass fed beef: the consumer, the farmers, and the providers (conventional food systems).}

_{These players, however, could have not become so entangled in this issue without the catalyzing event of corn subsidization. World war two is a significant time period. Corn began to be subsidized right after the war; corn farmers were given economic incentive to grow and sell as much corn for whatever price they could forage. Corn became so heavily subsidized that it could be purchased for 50 cents lower than what it cost farmers to raise the corn crops. The political players who established corn subsidies must have forgotten that nothing in the world is free. Everything comes at a price. This includes the seemingly-cheaper costs of corn fed beef. Between 1995 and 2006, the U.S. government spent more than $177 billion in taxpayer dollars on agricultural subsidies. Hidden costs, called externality costs, range from $5.7 billion to $16.9 billion a year in the United States (International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2005).}    

_{Nevertheless, the economic boom in the post-war era boosted the average household income, raising consumer demand for beef. Naturally, cattle farmers responded by seeking the most cost-effective method of raising cows. Corn was not only cheap, but overflowing in supply; they needed to be consumed somehow. Timing was perfect; more cows needed to be fed, corn needed to be consumed; corn had met its match and so was the concept of corn fed cattle born. Today, the 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population.}  

_{The context of the post-war era supported the development of industrial-scale institutions. Efficiency and profit maximization reigned supreme in America, and was largely credited for America’s success in the war. There was a trend towards the industrialization of everything: including farming methods and grocery shopping. Livestock farmers seized the opportunity of industrialization by creating the corn fed cattle. Like the tightly-packed, highly ordered, and compartmentalized factories, cows were labeled, grouped, and restricted to a specific domain. Feeding efficiency (aka fattening up phase) was maximized by designing a high-calorie corn-based diet fed in a period of 4 to 6 months while limiting the cow’s energy expenditure by confining them to a cubicle-like space. This allowed cattle to be brought to market in less than 15 months. The growing availability of meat raised the need for a sufficient mediator to be able to deliver the product to consumer. So was born the conventional food system web and the supersized supermarkets. These too were based on the economy of scale to maximize efficiency. These underlying similarities between the grocery and cattle business led to a natural collaboration between the two. Their alliance holds strong today, and perpetuates the cycle which keeps beef prices low, enticing the financially-savvy consumer.}           

_{The topic of the consumer in politics of beef consumption brings culture into play. Meat eating was no longer only a tasty experience, but it became a manifestation of class and manliness in the post-war era. Today’s popular concept of “Real men eat meat” stems from military pamphlets during the war: “meat … is needed to build muscles for hardy men who fight at sea.” This type of campaigning certainly had implications for driving up the consumer demand of meat. Although there is truth in the fact that animal protein helps build muscle, Americans are currently overdosing on animal protein: the average American male gets 154% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein, 67% of this from animal meat, double the amount consumed in other developed countries (34%).}

_{Industrialization contributed to the consumption of meat, no matter the preference. Just as the desire of industrialization fueled production of meats, movements against industrialization and a desire to revert back to the “natural” state of being equally favored beef eating. Rousseau would be proud of the birth of the Paleo diet and its recent boost in popularity. This lifestyle aims at reverting back to our ancestors’ (cavemen) way of eating and emphasizes heavily on the belief that men were meant to be carnivores.}  

_{The politics of meat eating is multi-faceted and depends largely on what context we choose to view the issue in. If causality follows the events, as Latour claims, these events and players: corn subsidization, industrialization, farmers, groceries, and consumer cultures from the industrial post-war era; leads to the current cause for grass fed meat needed in the context of today’s circumstances.}

_---

_{Resources
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/umami
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Pearl
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyface_Farms
4 - http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/consumption.htm
5 - http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/D/20024844.html
6 - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100726221737.htm
7 - http://www.letsmove.gov/about
8 - http://www.preventobesity.net/connect/leaders?issue=All&state=MN
9 - http://www.hfhl.umn.edu/AboutHFHL/index.htm}