Livestock products are also more susceptible to pathogens than other food products and have a capacity to transmit diseases from animals to humans. The World Organization for Animal Health estimates that 60 percent of human pathogens and 75 percent of recent emerging diseases are zoonotic—living on or in animals. Many human disease have their origins in animals (such as common influenza and smallpox) and others—such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and many internal parasitic diseases such as those caused by tapeworm, threadworm, and others—are transmitted through the consumption of animal products. Avian flu, Nipah virus, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (“mad cow”), bovine encephalitis, E. coli, salmonella, shigella, Campylobacter, and H1N1 (swine flu) are all associated with handling and consumption of animal products for food.
The wide overuse of antibiotics in animals has caused many bacteria that now affect humans to become antibiotic-resistant. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health report that 96 percent of Tyson chicken flesh (Tyson is the largest producer of chickens in the world) is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter bacteria.129 USDA studies have found that 66 percent of all beef samples were contaminated with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.130 Toxic levels of arsenic are commonly found in chicken flesh.131 Fish have been found to have levels of PCBs and mercury, thousands of times higher than those in the water in which they live.132
USDA inspection reports reveal that on average, one out of eight turkeys served on Thanksgiving is infected with salmonella, and Campylobacter causes the second most commonly reported food-related illness.133 Reports also showed that more than 50 percent of samples of meat from pigs (pork products) were contaminated with Staphylococcus.134
Dairy products contain a wide variety of contaminants, including chemicals and hormones. Milk contains natural hormones and growth factors that are produced within a cow’s body and also synthetic hormones, such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) or insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1).135 Additional contaminants found in milk samples and other dairy products include antibiotics, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins. When consumed, any of these toxins can build to levels that eventually may harm the immune, reproductive, and other systems, as well as leading to the development of cancer.
A word must be said here about the H1N1 (swine flu) virus and epidemic. On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization escalated the alert to a level four (out of a possible five), due to worldwide concern for a possible pandemic. Many people died, numerous others were infected, and it spread quickly throughout a number of countries. As it should have been, news of the outbreak and what was being done about it was front and center on every conceivable media format. This is a wonderful example of timeliness and how well information on an important topic can be disseminated in a very short fashion. It is also a perfect example of just which information is really told to us. For instance, with a story of this magnitude, we know of the first few people who died from swine flu in the small town of La Gloria in Oaxaca, Mexico. We know of the generally rapid response of readiness and formal statements by the United Nations, WHO, President Obama, and other world leaders. We have been reassured of the stockpiling of a proper amount of vaccinations, and we even know of certain organizations’ desire to change the name of the virus. I find it interesting that we have not been told how and why the virus exists, which conditions help foster the development of these types of viruses, and what we should do to remedy the situation. Regardless of what becomes the official statement by investigators regarding the cause, it will most likely be a clouded version of the fact that it all began in overcrowded pig farms in that area of Mexico, which is run by a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world.136
Pigs are highly susceptible to both avian and human influenza A viruses; they are commonly referred to as “mixing vessels,” in which viruses commingle, swapping genes along the way; then new strains emerge. It is thought that pigs have been the intermediate hosts responsible for the last two flu pandemics, in 1957 and 1968.137 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to one-half of pigs on modern farms have evidence of the H1N1 virus.138 Thousands of pigs are crowded and confined in sheds, stacked to the point where the animals are continuously inhaling and recirculating airborne fecal matter, methane, ammonia, and pathogens. Antibiotics are commonly given to treat and prevent devastating outbreaks within feedlots, but influenza viruses are resistant to antibiotics. Once a pathogen like the swine flu virus emerges, it is then spread by farm workers and by the transport of pigs to other locations.
In the United States alone, over 320,000 pigs are slaughtered for food every day, which drives the continual operation of congested livestock farm lots.139 In the Mexico town near the Veracruz Mountains, where this recent outbreak began, more than 450 residents had complained of severe respiratory and flu symptoms weeks before the outbreak and confirmed swine flu virus strain, which affected and eventually killed a four-year-old boy there.140 The focus of all our attention, therefore, should not be on which schools to close, when to wear masks, who should be vaccinated, who should be allowed to travel Mexico, or what to call the virus. The majority of our efforts should be on divulging the real reason behind this epidemic, which is the factory farming of massive amounts of pigs in filthy, confined conditions that promote the development of viruses that can cause infectious diseases in humans. And the reason this happened is because of our demand for meat products. Those pigs are here, living in those conditions and developing viruses, only because people want to eat them. Therefore, I find it incongruous that there has been such a movement to remove the name “swine,” and major efforts have been made to assure the public that this virus has nothing to do with pork products and that they are entirely safe to continue eating. Well, the virus has everything to do with pork products. The movement to remove the name swine is propelled by the USDA and world pork producers, and although it is true that the H1N1 virus may not be contracted directly by eating pork, the production of pork is precisely the ultimate reason that the swine flu virus exists. So while the pork industry is encouraging people to continue eating pigs, it is the eating of pigs that is the problem—this is exactly what the public needs to be told so that the problem can be resolved.
This completes the portrait of what I consider to be global depletion of our own health. Food choices are implicated, and you have the ability to change that.
CHAPTER IX
Tread Lightly
Entering the no-wake zone
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.”
—Daniel J. Boorstin
GLOBAL DEPLETION IN SOME FORM will occur simply because the earth can only support so many people doing so many things over so long of a period of time. The gross number of humans on our planet is not as much of an issue as what they are all doing to the planet in a short period of time. To make matters worse, individuals and institutions that are in a position to expose myths, enlighten the public, and change the direction of public opinion clearly are not doing so. There are two primary reasons for this: first, lack of adequate knowledge, although they purport to have it; and second, they are unable to express the truth due to various constraints—political, cultural, social, legal, business, etc. Although these entities may be accomplished in some particular field, it essentially has provided them an avenue to influence us in other areas. They may not be in these elevated positions because they are any more brilliant than the rest of us or have any special skills that others do not have. While we must respect that talent or knowledge play a role in the attainment of an elevated status, they also have access to a platform for a variety of other reasons, with an accompanying form of media that allows them to express their opinions and influence their large audience. Sometimes this is a good thing, but more times than not, there is lack of full disclosure, even an ulterior motive. This is one of the reasons that full enlightenment of a
n important subject frequently does not occur. There are many examples of this, but some that immediately come to mind are with newscasters, best-selling book authors, actors, and especially hosts of gossip shows, politicians, and organizations/occupations that we hold in such high esteem, such as doctors and dieticians, specific businesses, and institutions. Unfortunately then, this can compose up to 99 percent of our current mode of information. Some talk show hosts, such as Oprah Winfrey, are placed in such high reverence that we will support anything they recommend, whether it is a new book, movie, or presidential candidate. There is one caveat, however—whatever these people with platforms have to say, it cannot be alarmingly controversial, especially as it relates to food. If any comments are made that would negatively impact the meat, dairy, or fishing industries or our current cultural dependence on these, a career could be jeopardized. Therefore, these high-profile people must tread lightly and not create waves.
Over the past forty years, certain individuals have enlightened themselves by researching the general topic of the detrimental effects of eating animals and have essentially arrived at similar findings—that our demand for consumption of animals for food is not healthy or sustainable. Most of them have arrived at this conclusion by close examination of one aspect of the problem, either human health, pollution, land use, crop and feed use, water supply, animal rights, or something similar. For instance, thirty years before the American Dietetic Association even acknowledged the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, Nathan Pritikin and others wrote about epidemiologic studies that exposed the clear relationship between eating animals and the development of numerous Western diseases. Twenty-five years before the United Nations published a paper regarding our current unsustainable use of livestock, many researchers and authors, such as Jeremy Rifkin in his book Beyond Beef, explained the many problems that the cattle industry has caused. These individuals did not tread so lightly.
So if this information has been available, why haven’t you heard about it? And why isn’t anything being done now to move people in the right direction of choosing foods that will not kill us or our planet? The reason lies on three levels:
1. Individuals who know this information are not given an adequate platform to get the message out. Essentially, the information never goes anywhere.
2. There is a disparity and absence of knowledge with highly visible individuals who have been afforded speaking platforms and otherwise have the ability to inform and influence the public. Here, the information could certainly be disseminated, but these public speakers, celebrities, or “experts” are unaware and do not have all the correct information about food choices. The public is essentially influenced by inadequate or incomplete data and misinterpretation provided for them.
3. People who are aware and are in various positions to get the message out so that it could make a difference do not speak about it. (These individuals are usually in the media, such as news commentators, prominent actors, or talk show hosts.) Why? They may be afraid of the potential repercussions in providing information that is controversial and which might be difficult for our culture to accept. These individuals also may be policy-makers, such as legislators, who come across this information somewhere but would feel uncomfortable taking the appropriate action. Although it would save millions of lives, reduce health-care costs, and save our planet, and even though they really may want to inform the masses and make a change, they realize it might be a bad move for their job security—numerous powerful businesses and industries would have difficulty with this knowledge becoming commonplace.
Nowhere is the “tread lightly” concept more evident than with Oprah Winfrey. On April 16, 1996, Oprah allowed a discussion on her show that divulged accurate accounts of unsafe feeding of livestock and subsequent disease outbreaks, as well as eventual illnesses and deaths of consumers. When Oprah declared she would “stop eating hamburgers because of fear of mad cow disease,” the powerful National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) retaliated by taking her to court. This caused difficulty for her, as she had to move her show to Texas while she was caught in the defense of her case. Since then, there has been no discussion of any topic that could even remotely be considered negative regarding the meat and/or dairy industry. She now says only what is politically appropriate for continued viewer support.
It is interesting to note that this topic of contracting food-borne illness from eating beef, which created such a furor to the NCBA, was simply one of many topics that could have and should have been discussed to enlighten the public. There is so much more room for talk show hosts to allow elucidation on the negative impact our demand to eat animals has on the environment, our health, health-care costs, or a variety of other related subjects. I consider it fortunate for the NCBA that Oprah exposed to her audience only one small fraction of the multitude of serious problems for which the meat industry is directly responsible.
A classic example of misuse of a media platform with regard to eating meat was seen on The O’Reilly Factor, hosted by Bill O’Reilly. On Thursday, January 29, 2009, O’Reilly had an ideal opportunity to educate his audience to a better understanding of the negative aspects of eating meat during the segment titled “Is Meat a Good Idea?” Rather than doing his homework on the subject, however, and choosing appropriate guests and allowing obviously important but previously suppressed issues to be discussed intelligently, Mr. O’Reilly allowed continued misperceptions on the topic to grow. Somehow, the segment “Is Meat a Good Idea?” was turned into a unilateral and scientifically unsupported discussion about erectile dysfunction. This had almost nothing to do with the topic title. Then, equally off target, the discussion turned to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and ended with O’Reilly stating, “I eat meat and resent being told by PETA that I’m some kind of savage for doing it.” In actuality, Mr. O’Reilly may not be a “savage,” but he is quite uninformed and in a state of denial regarding his continued unhealthy choice of foods and the misuse of the informational platform he commands. This could have been a wonderful opportunity to reveal facts to the viewing audience and to increase their understanding of the ill effects of eating meat on their own health and that of our planet.
In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore enlightens readers with information on global warming and suggestions for lessening our carbon footprint. This was a wonderful thing, and it earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. As you now know, however, Gore discussed only part of the story. The much larger story is that of the livestock industry’s role in producing more global warming than all our cars, trucks, planes, and other vehicles used in transportation combined. What is interesting to me is that Gore epitomizes the “tread lightly” issue, as he was quite aware of this information. He chose to seek the path of least resistance, the path to tell essentially the convenient truth and mention, in an obscure area at the back of his book, that we should “modify [our] diet to include less meat.”
His An Inconvenient Truth is filled with examples of how the earth is changing as a result of global warming, but it does not provide a connection for the reader to the real culprit. He addresses the theme of logging, stating, “The way we treat forests is a political issue.” He fails to mention, however, that the reason for deforestation, or “logging,” is because what we choose to eat accounts for over 70 percent of all forest lost in the Amazon region. He had ample opportunity to provide readers with accurate reasons, but he chose to call it “logging.”
I can only speculate on the real reason for Al Gore’s nondisclosure, which I suspect are his own ties to the current livestock industry. He owns a farm and has cultural and perhaps political affiliations with that industry, and it would be a controversial and risky move for him to give too much attention to the adverse affects of that industry. I appreciate his efforts and accomplishments with one aspect of awareness to global warming, but he did not appropriately use the public platform he was provided to present the correct message, one that would be the most effective to promote change f
or a healthier planet.
As we saw earlier, the Kyoto Protocol was agreed in December 1997, although it finally took effect on February 16, 2005. While all countries that joined under the Convention are “encouraged” to stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions, certain nations who are signatories to the Protocol are legally committed to an average reduction of 5 percent of 1990 emission levels. These reductions must occur between 2008 and 2012. As of late 2009, 187 parties had ratified the Protocol, but there was no replacement framework to follow from the year 2012. Because of this, a fifteenth session was held in December 2009, the Copenhagen Accord, with the intent to create a framework as a follow-up of the Kyoto Protocol to “define methods of reducing emissions and how to offset what we cannot” (UNFCCC, 2010). Results were that “pledges were communicated by 75 parties to cut or limit emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020.” Pledges are a step—although clearly a baby step. Because again, nowhere in the reports of the UNFCCC is there specific wording that addresses the fact that the livestock industry is a major cause of global warming, that it is driven by our demand to eat animals, and that strategies, therefore, need to be developed to reduce and eventually eliminate this factor.
I know of one solution that perfectly fits both categories of strategies; that is, how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and how to create offsets: simply stop raising livestock. This is, of course, a large step, but it is the right step. And doing so would substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time, major offsets would be created by the concomitant restoration of forests and other terrestrial, as well as oceanic natural habitats.
Mark Bittman’s book Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating, also had the opportunity to provide enlightening information and dietary solutions related to meat and its large carbon imprint. Instead, Bittman used it as a twist to sell another book. Although on the back cover, he uses phrases such as “help stop global warming” and “requires no sacrifice,” he still advocates eating meat and animal products throughout his book—warm bacon dressing, squid or shrimp, turkey thighs, pork or lamb shoulder, beef chuck, Italian sausage, bone-in pork chop, comfit duck legs, and the dish he “craves all the time … Thai beef salad with flank steak.” How does eating these foods help to stop global warming? How does eating these foods “reduce your risk of chronic disease” and require “no sacrifice,” as he emphasizes in bold red letters on the back cover of his best-selling book? In fact, eating the foods he advocates has exactly the opposite effect. Those foods increase your risk of many chronic disease states, increase global warming, add greatly to global depletion, and certainly require a heavy sacrifice of resources used, as well as the animal itself that you are eating.
Comfortably Unaware Page 8