From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Can Reason And Information Stop Meat Eating
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:50:44 GMT

Ted Altar writes:
>>The priorities are empiricially incorrect.   Food additives and pesticides
>>only accounts for less than 1% of all cancer deaths, but diet accounts
>>for 35% of cancer deaths.

Tim Miley points out:
>Something you should also point out is that the concentration of pesticide
>residues in meat are generally much higher in animals, since the cows, pigs,
>and chickens eat large amounts of pesticide-laden foods which tend to
>concentrate in animal fat.

Tim, you're right and that is good point.  I too don't exactly
care to be accumulating pesticide residues in my body and if
given a choice I think it most prudent to limit such residues as
much as possible, such as by becoming a vegetarian.  :-)

It is certainly true that by eating meat one simply is eating
higher on the food chain, plus given the kinds of contaminated
conditions and feed for livestock, it is not surprising that
there are more pesticides in meat than in vegetables, legumes and
fruits combined.  In fact, in terms of the average omnivore's
total dietary sources of pesticides, he or she is getting about
10 times more pesticides from meat than even from fruits!  (see
"Pesticide residues in total diet samples" in Pesticides
Monitoring Journal, 1972, 5:313-30)

Similarly, Lewis Regenstein in his "HOW TO SURVIVE IN AMERICA THE
POISONED", 1982, points out that:

    "Meat contains approx. 14 times more pesticides than do plant
    foods; dairy products 5 1/2 times more.  Thus, by eating
    foods of animal origin, one ingests greatly concentrated
    amounts of hazardous chemicals.
        (based upon "Pesticide residues in total diet samples"
        PESTICIDES MONITORING JOURNAL, 1972, 5:313-30

Orville Schell's book, "Modern Meat", 1985, also documents this
kind of chemical contamination in modern meat, and he at that time
was still a meat eater.  Whether he still eats meat or not after
writing his book, I don't know, but it  wouldn't be surprised if
he has stopped.

Having said that, I am still impressed by the best research
estimate of the National Cancer Institute that pesticides in the
general food supply doesn't account for that much of the variance
regarding cancer.  Far more is accounted for by the consumption
of fats as such.  Of course, why fat intakes increase cancer is
an ongoing research question and maybe pesticides are part of the
story, at least with respect to meat-eaters having higher cancer
rates than vegetarians.  But it is certainly not all the of story
and the much larger chapter pertains to other factors besides
pesticide residues in meat.

That is why, if as a meat-eater one is truly interested in
reducing one's risk for cancer and heart disease -- whether it be
the concern for pesticides or fat -- one should give serious
thought to the option of becoming a vegetarian.

I guess one reason why more concern in the public mind pertains
to pesticides rather than the consumption of too much fat is that
the latter is at least within individual control while the former
is not.  I think there is a case to be made for some greater
emphasize upon government action to reduce those risk factors
that our not within our control.  Still, while may even more
emphasis or public awareness should be developed on the pesticide
problem, a far greater awareness needs to be developed on the 
more easily remedied dietary problems at home, especially when
this accounts for the greater proportion of the actual unncessary
health hazards being assumed by the general population.  
What do you think?

                            ted


Newsgroups: rec.food.veg