Doug Di Pasquale - SOTT.net
Translation - Signs of the Time
In 1999, he published a classic Sally Fallon, Nourishing Traditions. It was subtitled as "The Book of Recipes Challenge Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dittocratici" phrase certainly curious, not only because the book is much more than a cookbook, but because it promises to challenge " the power of political correctness. What power could ever mean politically correct?
If we look at political correctness we see that term connotes the idea of \u200b\u200bmaking a effort, through language or action that does not offend anyone. Unfortunately, what usually comes to do is predict what might offend others, self-censorship, typically in the most awkward and obvious in order to draw attention to the effort, helping to increase the discomfort for all . What could be more difficult to have laid bare what another person thinks you might offend, often without any knowledge of what you as an individual, going to act on stereotypes rather simplistic - and even then completely miss the target?
Power politically correct can be considered equally. It is eating in a way that is designed not to offend anyone, particularly those that conform to the traditional and conventional view of what constitutes a healthy diet. It is undeniable that at least some of the responses to the vast majority of chronic health problems that currently plague our population is to radically change and improve your diet, but what changes is usually the subject of heated debate. The politically correct answer is summed up in what we were told by more than half a century - eat less, exercise more, reduce consumption of fats, cholesterol and prevent more and more, eat less meat.
seems that the consensus around the most recommended diet is that eating meat is a bad habit and reduce if not eliminate the consumption of meat is the best thing to do for your health. The meats are slowly making their way toward the narrow apex of the food pyramid, created by the government to recommend a lower number of servings per day. Gone are the days of the 4 basic food groups, where the meat had as much value as fruit and vegetables. If you are consuming a diet politically correct, you should at least be a vegetarian, vegan ideal. The mantra of Michael Polan, dear to the current king of the media and food critics scholars, is an excellent example of the political mantra of nutrition correct: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Increasingly the 'healthy food' is associated with vegetarianism. Often, new treaties are aligned vegetarian concoctions on the shelves of health food stores, while the healthy meat, if ever present, are relegated to the freezer section at the back. The figure of healthy organic butcher who prepares meat free of chemicals, without added hormones and antibiotics, this seems far removed from health food culture. Even among health-conscious fans know that they know enough to avoid processed food, raw food vegan is the default, and not a conscious omnivore. But the question
che bisogna porsi è se questa mossa verso una dieta vegetariana è nel nostro interesse dal punto di vista della salute. Ci sono molti argomenti per il vegetarianismo, ma quanti di loro sopravvivono ad un'inchiesta?
Guardando Indietro
Per rispondere a questa domanda dobbiamo guardare indietro nella storia. Nonostante le affermazioni che si debba, attraverso la scienza e la tecnologia, diventare una popolazione più sana, l'effetto contrario è evidente a chiunque - anche coloro che promuovono le diete 'politically correct'. È vero che i decessi derivanti da malattie infettive sono diminuiti in modo significativo dopo la fine del secolo scorso; (Quando è stata l'ultima volta che avete sentito parlare di qualcuno dying of cholera or typhoid?), almost to the point where these deaths are unknown to date. However, the chronic disease has been steadily rising over the same period of time. The duration of human life may have had an increase in post-industrialization ("may" because this fact is questionable, considering the statistics on child mortality), but these longer lives, frankly, are filled with chronic diseases. Cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis - these are the scourges of modern times and, if they can not kill quickly, they certainly make our new lives filled with much more suffering.
Thus, in order to adequately address the problem of chronic diseases, it seems more logical to look back to the time when these chronic diseases were not present or at least were considered an anomaly rather than the norm. It is here that the work of Weston A. Price becomes invaluable. Weston R. Price, a dentist and nutritionist, in 1939 he traveled the world and had the unique fortune of having studied the diet of many native societies, when they had not yet been reached and treated by the scourge of the modern Western diet. In addition, it was able to compare those of the same gene pool that is fed a diet with a traditional or modern processed foods (often by studying family members or even twins, putting compared to a family member who had stayed in the village eating their traditional diet, to another who moved to the big city, and began to follow a modern diet).
one where Price had come across was nothing short of extraordinary. He discovered, first, that wherever the natives came closer to modern processed foods like sugar and white flour - the main products of Western life - there are cases of degenerative diseases. Price found that the scourges of modern civilization such as muscle fatigue, headaches, tooth decay, narrow mouth, with molars and crowding of teeth, allergies, asthma, and many of the degenerative diseases of the days including tuberculosis, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, were simply absent in people who continued to support themselves with their native diets. However, with the shift to Western food, within a single generation these same cultures have experienced all the problems listed above and more.
But apart from this remarkable achievement, Price was not found among those companies or tribes healthy vegetarian. Although he came in contact with some vegetarian tribes, then inevitably it was a sound nearby and ate some animal products. Cultural anthropology has shown that eating meat in a society is generally dictated by their availability, not religions or beliefs. Traditional societies healthier eating meat and there was therefore no reason for such a company to adopt vegetarianism, especially for health reasons.
In light of this finding, the adoption of vegetarianism in modern times needs to be looked at for what it is - a moral decision. It is not, contrary to what is deemed politically correct, a decision for the protection of health. If Price had found companies that thrive on a vegetarian diet and it made sense for companies to give up animal products, to improve their health, the argument could change direction. But it did not. He found otherwise.
Despite all the vegetarian movement continually tries to circle around the attempt to 'prove' once again that a vegetarian diet is a healthier option. And the propaganda that results from these saccenze is effective, so effective that many are now taking the mantle of the vegetarian movement, or its cousin the 'movement flexetarian', dedicated to reducing the consumption of meat precededendolo though not completely, in so doing for 'health reasons'. Even those who are in the field of holistic health are not immune to the careful propaganda campaign, espousing the health benefits of removing animal products from the diet by providing professional credibility Vegetarian hypothesis. The restaurants are holistic vegetarian restaurants, and restaurants that provide healthy meat are few and far between. Several authors
diets also come to use the work of Price to protect fruits and vegetables at the expense of meat consumption to increase polyunsaturated vegetable oils instead of animal fats. Their connections are meaningless if you take the work of Price in the simplest of terms, ie the transition from a diet transformed into one based on whole foods, but the specifications of the increasing vegetables and vegetable oils sacrificing foods of animal origin is the ' antithesis of the work of Price and the results he achieved. The recommendations were those of Price to eat organic meat, latte crudo e burro, brodo di ossa e gli alimenti vegetali coltivati in terreni fertili. Da nessuna parte si consiglia di tagliare il consumo di carne a favore di verdure o versandovi olio vegetale.
Inserisci l'ipotesi dei lipidi
Parte della forza dell'ipotesi vegetariana si posa sulle spalle dell'ipotesi lipidica. L'ipotesi lipidica propone che l'aumento delle malattie cardiovascolari nel corso dell'ultimo secolo può essere imputata a grassi saturi e di colesterolo nel sangue e che entrambi questi fattori possono essere controllati da un intervento dietetico, cioè mangiare meno prodotti animali. Questa ipotesi ha così invaso la nostra psiche collettiva che è raramente, se mai, messa in discussione. Si è presa come truth that only through abstinence or a severe decrease in consumption of animal fats can be prevented heart disease.
However, epidemiological evidence does not support this theory. Between 1909 and 1999 the consumption of animal fat decreased significantly in Western nations, in parallel with the increasing prevalence of degenerative diseases - the exact opposite of what would be expected if the lipid hypothesis was watertight. The consumption of butter fell by 72.2%, while consumption of margarine (without cholesterol) increased by 800%. The consumption of lard and tallow, has fallen by 50% while consumption of vegetable fat increased by 275% and oil from cooking and salad consumption has increased by 1450%. Meanwhile, the consumption of fruit increased by 29%, the consumption of vegetables increased by 15.6% and consumption of legumes and nuts increased by 37.5%. To be honest, the consumption of beef and chicken has risen significantly (22% and 278% neutral, respectively), but the consumption of eggs fell by 13.5% and the consumption of pork was down 19%. The overall trend was a sharp drop in animal fats with a massive increase in vegetable fats from margarine and hydrogenated fats such as vegetable oils and cooking. While epidemiology can never be taken as evidence effectively, you should carefully consider certain evidence - Cardiovascular diseases have increased, while consumption of animal fat has been replaced by vegetable oil - hydrogenated or not. (Note: the consumption of refined sugar increased by 74.7% over the same period of time, and about 1,600% since 1809. This again proves nothing, but it seems fair assumption that this is one of the key players among the diseases of modernity).
The broad consensus as lipid hypothesis was born in 1954, when Ancel Keys Seven Countries Study published, demonstrating clear links between saturated fat intake and heart disease. The study, however, was seriously flawed in its methodology. While the seven selected countries graphically a clear link between consumption of saturated fats and heart disease, the other 16 countries that Keys had looked at showed no such correlation. Were simply discarded the data from countries that did not conform to his hypothesis. Keys, however, was treated as a hero, and put on the cover of Time magazine in 1961 as 'Man of the Year' and then the lipid hypothesis has dominated modern thought nutrition. It is the diet version of the IPCC Global Warming.
Cholesterol Myths, The Great Wolf Cholesterol, Know Your Fats, the books of 'alternative medicine' and all items with messages from the sidelines saying that the emperor is naked, but the media continues to ignore accueatamente all the scientific evidence while continuing to present the same ancient myth. And the vegetarian case relies heavily on this 'common knowledge' that foods of animal origin cause heart disease. Looking further back
One of the most common vegetarian often led to support the hypothesis that human physiology is more similar to that of an herbivore than to that of a carnivore, and we are therefore meant to be vegan and not for a diet that includes animal products. These arguments are, to put it bluntly, blatantly false. These topics are deliberately misleading or simply wishful thinking (Wishful Thinking), and this is the point - Humans are omnivores and are made as omnivores and any 'evidence' to the contrary are considered fraud.
Rather than enter the debate on the tooth structure and intestinal length (precisely a structure point omnivore), anthropological look elegant hypothesis proposed by Leslie Aiello and Peter Wheeler, which was published in the journal Current Anthropology in 1995. 'The Expensive Tissue Hipothesys' (ETH) has shown, in the words of Dr. Michael R. Eades, "a brilliant experiment of thought that says that our species is not made to eat meat, but has evolved because he ate meat." Let's examine this in the brief summary of Eades.
While some speculate that the brain size of our ancestors evolved in a short period of time, always in evolutionary terms, because of the increased need for complicated strategies of hunting or gathering because of the increasing size of the group and leading to complex social strategies, these explanations seem more the 'why' than 'how' of the evolution of the size of our brain. That of the 'how' is not an easy question to answer because of thermogenics. The brain emits a large amount of heat due to the amount of fuel it consumes. In fact, the brain's metabolic rate is nine times the average for the rest of the body.
However, the overall metabolic rate is determined by the size of the organism. As the mass of an organism grows, so increases the heat released in a linear relationship defined. An animal the size of a mouse gives off less heat of an animal the size of a human being, which gives off less heat of an animal the size of a horse. The formula that determines the metabolic rate by mass is known as Kleiber's law, named Max Kleiber, who discovered it. Because the law Kleiber, the metabolic rate of any animal can be expected, given its mass.
So, as paleontologists have determined the mass of our pre-human ancestors using skeletal remains, Aiello and Wheeler were able to use your metabolic rate as a starting point for their theory using Kleiber's law.
As Dr. Eades said, "Kleiber's law, an Australopithecus weighing 80 pounds would have the same metabolic rate of a man of 80 pounds, despite the difference in brain size between the two. The brain much larger than the human person would have 4 to 5 times the metabolic rate of the brain of an australopithecine, but would have the same overall metabolic rate. "
So, given the metabolic rate constant according to the mass and the fact that the energy balance equation says that the metabolic rate is the sum of all parts that contribute to the metabolism dei vari organi e tessuti, qualcosa deve pur diminuire al fine di adattarsi alle dimensioni dei cervelli che aumentano in massa, e con loro la crescente domanda di energia, al fine di mantenere il tasso metabolico complessivo alla pari.
Mettendo tutto sotto forma di equazione:
BMR (tasso metabolico del corpo) Totale = BMR cervello + BMR cuore + BMR reni + BMR G.I. + BMR fegato + resto dei tessuti del corpo.
Se il BMR totale deve mantenere consistente (e lo deve), ma il BMR del cervello è in aumento, qualcosa nell'equazione dovrà diminuire per mantenere invariato l'equilibrio.
Aiello e Wheeler hanno scoperto che cuore, reni, fegato e il tratto gastro-intestinale (GI) rendono conto della maggioranza del BMR totale, senza considerare il cervello, quindi queste sono le scelte per ciò che potrebbe diminuire rispetto all'aumento per il cervello. A causa della grande quantità di energia consumata da questi organi, data la loro piccola dimensione, gli autori li hanno chiamati "tessuti costosi".
Guardando ai primati, Aiello e Wheeler hanno scoperto che cuore, reni e fegato in un primate di 65 Kg erano simili a quelli di in un essere umano dello stesso peso. Chiaramente, questi organi non possono essere sacrificati per il cervello. Era pertanto il tratto gastro-intestinale (GI) che doveva ridursi di dimensione per compensare alle dimensioni in aumento del cervello dei nostri antenati umani. Infatti, il nostro tratto gastro-intestinal tract is approximately 900 g. (About 2 pounds), less than that of a primate of similar size. As stated by the authors, "the increase of the mass of the human brain seems to be balanced by a [sic] almost identical reduction in the size of the gastro-intestinal tract."
No matter what the reason driving the increase in brain size, however, all correspond to an equal reduction in the size of the intestine. And to be yet able to extract enough nutrients, since the smaller size of the intestine, it needed a major source of quality food - meat. Increasing the amount of the energy source, easily extracted from food source animale, ci ha permesso di mantenere il nostro tasso metabolico totale, e mentre il nostro intestino si rimpiccioliva il nostro cervello cresceva.
Gli antropologi, guardando alle dimensioni del cervello dei primati hanno notato una correlazione tra le dimensioni del cervello e la presenza di cibi animali nella dieta. Prima della ETH, nessuno aveva mai teorizzato prima, che una dieta onnivora era il motivo per un cervello più grande. Altre teorie hanno esplorato la necessità di una motivazione più complicata richiesta nella strategia della raccolta di cibo in una dieta onnivora o la necessità di organizzare meglio le tecniche di foraggiamento su grandi aree. Tuttavia in questi scenari la necessità di un cervello più grande è stata always seen as the driving force rather than what has allowed the evolution, ie a change in diet. Because you need a large intestine to extract enough energy from a plant-based diet, regardless of the need for a larger brain size, if you maintain a vegetarian diet, increase the size of the brain is not possible without going to violate the law of Kleiber.
We can see that compared to humans, chimpanzees and gorillas have big bellies protruding in the gastrointestinal tract that contains a larger. Examining the chest of these primates and comparison with humans, you get the basis for the hypothesis che i nostri antenati primati dal cervello più piccolo avrebbero intestini più grandi e simili ai primati moderni. I primati moderni hanno una gabbia toracica rovesciata a forma di imbuto, (non affusolato nella parte inferiore), per ospitare un grande addome. Gli esseri umani, d'altro canto, hanno gabbie toraciche che si assottigliano a livello più basso, portando ad una vita più stretta. L'Australopithecus afarensis (La specie di Lucy, che si pensa essere il nostro parente più lontano - circa 4,4 milioni anni fa) ha la stessa gabbia toracica rovesciata a forma di imbuto, come i primati moderni, indicando una pancia grande e una dieta di bassa qualità a base vegetale.
Riassumendo il tutto grazie all'utilizzo della legge di Kleiber, sappiamo che i nostri antenati primati avevano un intestino più grande a causa del loro cervello più piccolo (può essere determinato dalla dimensione del cranio). Sappiamo anche che, al crescere delle dimensioni del cervello, diminuiscono le dimensioni dell'intestino. Ciò che permette ad un intestino di ridursi è una più efficiente estrazione di energia dal cibo consumato, val adire un consumo di alimenti animali. Non abbiamo sviluppato un cervello più grande perché avevamo bisogno di svolgere compiti più complessi, abbiamo sviluppato un cervello più grande perché abbiamo mangiato carne.
Lo Studio Cinese
Tornando all'ipotesi vegetariana, nonostante l'evidenza che ci siamo evoluti mangiando carne, alcuni ancora sostengono che non sia salutare. Una delle argomentazioni più popolari è che il consumo di carne porta al cancro. E una delle più grandi armi di riprova nel loro arsenale è "Lo studio Cinese".
T. Colin Campbell è l'autore del libro Lo Studio Cinese (The China Study): Sorprendenti Implicazioni per la Dieta, Perdita di Peso e di Salute a Lungo Termine, uscito nel gennaio 2005. Confusamente, l'autore è stato anche uno dei ricercatori dell'attuale 'China Study', uno studio epidemiologico di massa che ha esaminato le abitudini alimentari e la salute in 65 diverse regioni rurali della Cina. (Nota per il lettore: Andando avanti, i riferimenti al libro Lo Studio Cinese will be in italics, while the study itself will be indicated with quotation marks). The book describes the main points of postgraduate research in Campbell, including participation in The China Study "which led him to become an advocate of the vegan diet. One of the most important lines directly from the book, and one that wraps its argument: "Eating foods that contain cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy." Since all foods of animal origin contain cholesterol, something that plant foods do not have the author's thesis is that eating animal foods is not healthy.
Campbell claimed that "the study of China" shows the vast superiority on a diet of plant foods in comparison to one that also includes small amounts of animal foods, linking almost all the West chronic consumption of animal foods. In the section of the book focuses on 'The study of China', Campbell argues that there is a clear relationship between the habits of a society that consumes flesh and they succumb to modern chronic diseases, especially cancer. As such, the book, Campbell has been the cornerstone of the movement vegetarian / vegan since its publication.
However, even if it was a perfect interpretation of the data analyzed, the Chinese study was never the litmus test to be used as the basis for the argument vegetarian because it focuses on an epidemiological study. Epidemiological studies or observational studies, they are good only to analyze trends in some derivation of hypotheses, but does not imply causation; show interesting correlations, but do not prove anything.
Nevertheless, the vegetarian community considers this book as a Bible. It is understandable, but tells them exactly what they want to hear - that there is a scientific rationale for their highly emotional and moral choice not to drink any and all foods of animal origin. This book took over a former meat-eater in the arms of veganism, at least if you believe the comments left on blogs. The study received little criticism of China, not only for the fact that so many people vogliono che sia vero, ma anche perché 'prova' in conclusione, che l'alimentazione tradizionale politicamente corretta sta alla pastorizia quanto il Seven Countries Study - che mangiare carne è intrinsecamente non salutare.
Entra Denise Minger, una studentessa inglese con un interesse personale per la nutrizione e un debole per le statistiche. Nel maggio del 2010, cinque anni dopo la pubblicazione originale dello Studio Cinese, Minger è tornata ai dati grezzi dello studio e ha iniziato a macinare numeri, pubblicando quello che poi si vedrà nel suo blog RawFoodSOS, tutti disposti ordinatamente assieme a un po' di irritanti grafici che visualizzano i dati. Alla fine, Minger mettere insieme tutti i dati in una vasta analisi di 36 pagine The study entitled China: a formal analysis and a response that includes responses to comments by Campbell also on his analysis.
Vistana amplitude, space limitations prevent a detailed summary here, but what Minger has found is that the data from 'The China Study' do not match the conclusions of Campbell's book, not one of them. Simply, the data do not show that Campbell says is shown. Finally, Minger has unearthed data from 'The China Study' which were not included in the book when Campbell did not support his conclusions. The inhabitants of the county of Tuol, for example, they eat twice as much animal protein per day than the average American, and consume 45% of the fat in their diet were in good health and with a very low rate of cancer and heart disease, and this is never mentioned. How Minger says in his conclusion:
"A theory presumed as universal as Campbell would, by definition, add the various forms of health health and disease of global cultures without generating frequent faults. Called the products of animal origin as the source of the evils West, Campbell has created a hypothesis is valid only in specific circumstances - those who can not explain other epidemiological trends and other recent case studies. This is a symptom of a weak theory, with only partial truths about the broader mechanisms diet / disease ...
"While he [Campbell] has cleverly identified the importance of whole foods and not processed to achieve and maintain health, its focus on the combination of products of animal origin with the disease came at the expense of exploration - or even recognition - the presence of other models of diet-disease that may be more decisive, more relevant and ultimately more essential to public health and nutritional research. "
Study Chinese is 'Seven Countries Study' rewritten. Chris Masterjohn, in a post on his blog on the analysis of Minger, cited as the death blow to Study Chinese in fact comes from a study Campbell himself:
"The only scientific data strictly controlled experimental Campbell mentions that [the book] in favor of his hypothesis that foods of animal origin, particularly animal protein, are particularly harmful to our health, are his experiments on rats show that casein [milk protein], but no wheat or soy protein [vegetable protein], promote cancer in laboratory animals ... When I wrote my review in the spring of 2005, I pointed out that Campbell was jumping stake in Frascati drawing conclusions about other animal protein as well as all the "nutrients from food of animal origin", when they had only studied the casein powder without going over. Denise Minger, however, did a search on the original study and used it to blow up a death knell for the argument of Dr. Campbell's ... When the amino acid lysine has been made in the diet, the wheat protein had the same effect of casein! Research has shown conclusively that the only reason why whey protein does not promote the cancer was a complete protein because it is not! "
While the actual study provides excellent data for epidemiological analysis, the findings of Campbell as presented in his book, have been completely removed - either by his own data from the myriad of studies that have revealed its falsity. Questo non ha fermato molti nella comunità vegan dal correre in difesa di Campbell e spesso attaccando Minger, Masterjohn e qualsiasi blogger salutista che postasse critiche verso Campbell o il suo libro. In entrambe le critiche come nelle risposte di Campbell stesso sull'analisi di Minger, le domande scientifiche raramente vengono contestate, e tuttavia, visto che l'argomento si concentra di solito sulla mancanza di credenziali e critiche sul metodo da parte dell'autore (lo stesso metodo impiegato da Campbell medesimo, niente meno).
Forse la lezione che si trae da tutto questo è quella di essere sempre diffidenti di chi incolpa i disturbi di comportamento del 20° secolo a cui siamo stati attaccati per millenni. Nel corso della storia evolutiva, covering hundreds of thousands of years, humans have eaten meat and saturated fat of animal origin. If these behaviors were unhealthy, as has been suggested, the human race would never have survived to the present.
The spiritual question
Another common myth vegetarian deals with issues less concrete than scientific or academic treatises can explain. This is the question of the spirit and the widespread belief that eating meat is less of a spiritual vegetarian diet. Perhaps a quick look at the many world religions can help shed light on this line of reasoning.
Hindus are vegetarians. Some Sikhs are vegetarians and some are not. Some are Buddhists, and others are not (in fact the Buddha condemned eating meat in a paper and gives the OK in another). Jews and Muslims are not vegetarian, although they adhere to dietary restrictions. Among the thousands of different Christian sects all over the world, some are vegetarians, but most are not. In ancient Indian Ayurvedic medical practice and spiritual, in some constitutional writings are told to eat meat and others are told to abstain. Native American tribes from centuries past lived a spiritual life every minute of every day, it could be argued, but still ate meat (and smoking tobacco!). In other words, the question of whether the consumption of meat is congruent with a path spiritual is not clearly resolved in the religious world. Any statement, then, that eating meat is less spiritual than being vegan is nothing but a giant assumptions - such as the reflections of an individual is not enlightened about what it means to be enlightened.
Such assumptions also fail to perceive the place of humanity on this planet. All life on earth is a power supply system, in which every being is fed through feeding of another. Life eats life on this planet and we are inextricably linked to this system. Although there is a sect of New Agers who claims to be able to survive with only the light of the sun or air, the rest of us need to eat. It should be noted that a vegan diet does not remove a finding by this process. Many animals, insects, birds, microbes, and of course the plants themselves, must give their lives in service to man its plants. The worldwide expansion of agriculture has destroyed many ecosystems, devastated wetlands and caused the extinction of many. Death is an integral part of every morsel of food that sustains us.
is understandable that the spiritually inclined do not like this. No reasonable person in possession of a conscience will do harm to another living being. We are not inclined to think that when we sit down to eat our meals, because the thought makes us uncomfortable. This could essere la radice di uno dei problemi nella nostra catena alimentare. Il nostro evitare di riconoscere che è davvero la vita che è stata data al fine di alimentarci che può essere il fattore che ci ha portato fare questo agli animali, (e anche le piante, si potrebbe argomentare), cioè l'essere trattati in modo deplorevole all'interno di fabbriche agricole, con pratiche che sono di fatto terribili. Abbiamo ceduto ad un volere cieco, girando le spalle alla catena alimentare, una politica del 'non chiedere' e 'non dire' che ci nasconde verità scomode sul nostro sostentamento. Mentre una gran quantità di sofferenza viene consumata dietro le quinte, ci troviamo di fronte sottili pacchettini di polistirolo - privi de segni di quella vita that once flowed through the muscles that have become food.
We can not justify the flagrant abuse of respect and dignity that occur in intensive farming prevailing in the West. There is no doubt that the system of meat production in the West is absolutely deplorable. Eating what can be called an animal 'commercial breeders', than those raised with antibiotics, steroids and feed burdened with toxic poisons, mold and fungus and other additives, can not simply be justified. Nor can the unspeakable torture that animals in factory farms are forced to endure throughout his life be considered acceptable in any way. Not what
with which our Paleolithic ancestors evolved eating. This certainly does not give us a bigger brain. On the contrary, we should count ourselves fortunate if we escape avventuradoci in diet such as this without damage to the brain. This is the exact opposite of what Weston A. Price has seen among traditional cultures flourishing in their isolated communities. Eating animals raised in such unnatural and fed a diet completely unnatural can only lead to a diseased population like the animals on which it feeds. This can safely call anti-spiritual food. Encumbered by toxicity, pain and karmic load, eating this way is like a path of travel entropy and death.
But here is where the argument of the vegetarian movement often reveals its most fundamental mistake - to assimilate all the omnivore with a stake in the food chain without conscience. Is there a middle ground between veganism and ethical practices of factory farming killer, and this middle ground is what men think and feel the spiritual struggle to find food in the environment today.
The right way to eat meat
Is there a way to eat meat as part of the daily diet, without having to limit the consumption of every other day or only on weekends as Graham Hill, founder of treehugger.com recommends. Agriculture, when done in a way that sees the company as a single body - every part, including plants, animals and even the farmer, are all vital components to assist each other symbiotically to development - must not cause environment or to people that draw sustenance from it.
Animals do not naturally eat grains and soybeans, should not be part of their diet. The cows are eating grass pastures and then return nutrients in the form of fertilizer to rejuvenate the soil. Unlike problems relating to storage operations on the ground where they are pompatae huge amounts of waste from sick animals in the environment circostante causando problemi di inquinamento, i rifiuti di origine animale sani provenienti da una fattoria equilibrata sono invece un mezzo per nutrire il terreno. La salute del suolo è il modo migliore per misurare la salute della fattoria, tra cui piante e animali.
L'agricoltura presa come una pratica spirituale, intrisa di una conoscenza oggettiva, che riconosce la complessa interrelazione di tutta la vita e di come i cicli di una specie sono intimamente legati a quelli di tutti gli altri in favore dell'ambiente, è l'agricoltura del futuro. Questa è l'essenza dell'agricoltura biodinamica, ed è l'unica speranza per salvare il pianeta. Eliminando gli animali da questo delicato equilibrio sarebbe assimilabile ad eliminare un organo dal corpo.
La vista politicamente corretta dice che l'aumento di carne fa male all'ambiente, consuma terreno e risorse preziose ed è tossica per il pianeta nel suo complesso. Questo, di nuovo, confonde le operazioni da parte degli allevamenti industriali portate avanti dai Big Agro-business, con il semplice processo di produzione di carne della piccola fattoria a conduzione familiare. Questi due fattori non sono la stessa cosa. In primis il gigante agro-business uccide la fattoria famigliare - la centralizzazione di monopoli della carne in aree centralizzate va a danno dell'ambiente, degli animali e degli esseri umani che si nutrono di loro – quando la fattoria a conduzione familiare ha mantenuto un rapporto olistico con l'ambiente. Questo può yet to be realized.
Everything has been said here should not be confused with an attack on vegetarianism. Eating animal products or not, as any decision to lifestyle based on a subjective view of morality is a personal decision that should be considered carefully. What is contested is the increasingly popular hypothesis that a vegetarian diet, or as close as you can get to it, is the diet of 'law' for all, a healthy diet and diet better for the environment. Political correctness, a blight on the social interaction and relations between different groups, which seem out of place is in discussions about nutrition. May not be politically correct to eat animals, but it is nutritionally correct. Indeed, this is the path that gave us the opportunity to start talking about it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment