From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Health and meatless diet
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:03:54 GMT

In <1992Nov19.072829.5532@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
  oak@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca (Nilesh Oak) posts an article seen for the
  umpteenth time:
>
>HEALTH AND A MEATLESS DIET
>
>Today, with increasing evidence of diet's critical effects on good 
>health and longevity, more and more people are investigating this
>question: Is the human body better suited to a vegetarian diet or
>one that includes meat?

[...]

>Since eating begins with the hands and the mouth, what can the 
>anatomy of these bodily parts tell us?  Human teeth, like those 
>of the herbivorous creatures, are designed for grinding and 
>chewing vegetable matter.

	Wrong.  Human teeth do not resemble those of horses and cattle much
	more than they resemble those of cats.  They are somewhere in
	between...which makes sense, since today's human has evolved as
	an omnivore.

	Human teeth are most like our closest primate relatives, the chim-
	panzee, an acknowledged omnivore.

>Human lack the sharp front teeth for tearing flesh that are characteristic
>of carnivores.

	Humans have both canines and sharp incisors.

>Meat-eating animals generally swallow their food without chewing it and 
>therefore do not require molars or a jaw capable of moving sideways.

	So what?  This would support an argument that humans aren't true
	carnivores, but that's never been in question.

>Also, the human hand, with no sharp claws and with its opposable 
>thumb, is better suited to harvesting fruits and vegetables than 
>to killing prey.

	The human hand is better suited to using tools...which says
	absolutely nothing about suitability for a particular diet.

>Once within the stomach, meat requires digestive juices high in 
>hydrochloric acid.  The stomachs of humans and herbivores produce
>acid less than the one-twentieth the strength of that found in 
>carnivores.

	Again, so what?  No one has ever claimed that humans are carnivores.
	And this assumes that the "one-twentieth" figure is correct.  Besides,
	there is absolutely NO evidence which says that the human digestive
	system is inefficient in the digestion of meat, while in stark
	contrast, there are several components of plants that we cannot
	begin to digest, like cellulose.  Most digestion doesn't occur in
	the high-acid stomach environment anyway; it's done by the pancreatic
	and other secretions in the alkaline environment of the small
	intestine.  This is stuff from any basic physiology book.

>Another crucial difference between the meat-eater and the vegeterian
>is found in the intestinal tract, where the food is further digested
>and nutrients are passed into the blood. A piece of meat is just 
>part of a corpse, and its putrefaction creates poisonous wastes
>within the body.

	Oh, good grief.  Meat in the digestive system doesn't "putrify" for
	crying out loud, its protein is broken into the constituent amino
	acids by enzymes that will digest practically anything.  Some
	pancreatic enzymes are, in fact, remarkably specific to animal
	tissue in the intestinal environment in which they do their work.

>Therefore meat must be quickly eliminated.  For
>this purpose, carnivores possess alimentary canals only three times
>the length of their bodies. Since man, like other non-flesh-eating
>animals, has an alimentary canal twelve times his body length, .......

	On the other hand, something we'd call a "true herbivore", like a
	cow, has a four chambered stomach and a much longer intestine,
	relative to its size.  Once again, it seems as though humans are
	somewhere in between.

>...... rapidly decaying flesh is retained for a much longer time, producing
>a number of undesirable toxic effects.

	Here, at last, is a grain of truth.  Without sufficient fiber, it
	is postulated by some that bacterial action on waste produces 
	mutagenic substances which MIGHT contribute to colon cancer.  On
	the other hand, at least one study indicates that addition of fiber
	to reduce "transit time" to 36 hours or less equalizes colon cancer
	risk regardless of diet.  So it's not the meat, it's the lack
	of fiber.

>One body organ adversely affected by these toxins is the kidney.
>This vital organ, which extracts waste from the blood, is strained
>by the overload of poisons introduced by meat consumption.

	What poisons?  The only thing the kidneys see from that steak you
	just ate are the metabolic remainders of the amino acids which
	made up the steak's protein content.

>Even moderate meat-eaters demand three times more work from their kidneys
>than do vegeterians.

	Three times?  Where on earth does this figure come from?

>The kidneys of a young person may be able to 
>cope with this stress, but as one grows older the risk of kidney
>disease and failure greatly increases.

	No kidding!?  Correlation between old age and renal failure does
	not prove meat to be the causative agent.  In fact, the domestic
	cat, arguably a carnivore, commonly dies of renal failure in old
	age.  Does this mean that cats are poorly adapted to a carnivorous
	diet?

>HEART DISEASE
>The inability of human body to deal with excessive animal fats in 
>the diet is another indication of the unnaturalness of meat-eating.

	No, it's an indication of the unnaturalness of a high-fat, low-fiber
	diet.

>Carnivorous animals can metabolize almost unlimited amounts of 
>cholesterol and fats without any adverse effects.  In experiments 
>with dogs, up to one half pound of butterfat was added to their 
>daily diet over a period of two years, producing absolutely no 
>change in their serum cholesterol level.

	So what?  Humans aren't carnivores.  No argument there.

>On the other hand, the vegeterian species have a very limited 
>ability to deal with any level of cholesterol or saturated fats
>beyond the amount required by the body.

	Rabbits become atherosclerotic if they so much as look at an egg
	yolk.  Once again, it seems that our "natural" diet is somewhere
	between that of dogs and rabbits...or omnivorous.

[...]

>As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association
>stated that ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart disease, the 
>cause of more than one half of the deaths in the united states,
>could be prevented by a vegeterian diet.  These findings are 
>supported by an American Heart Association report that states,
>"In well documented population studies using standard methods of 
>diet and coronary disease assessment... evidence suggests that a 
>high-saturated-fat  diet is an essential factor for a high incidence
>of coronary heart disease."  The National Academy of Sciences also 
>reported recently that the high serum cholesterol level found in 
>most Americans is a major factor in the coronary heart disease 
>"epidemic" in the United States.

	But what these organizations did NOT say was that the mere
	consumption of meat was the problem.  In its statement, the
	AMA said that 97% of heart disease "could be prevented by a
	vegetarian diet," which is NOT the same as saying that, in order
	to prevent 97% of the heart disease in the U. S., a vegetarian
	diet is NECESSARY.

>CANCER
>Further evidence of the unsuitability of the human intestinal tract 
>for digestion of flesh is the relationship, established by numerous 
>studies, between colon cancer and meat-eating.  One reason for the
>incidence of cancer is the high-fat, low-fiber content of the meat
>centered diet.  This results in slow transit time through the colon,
>allowing toxic wastes to do their damage.  States Dr. Sharon Fleming
>of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of 
>California at Berkeley,"Dietary fiber appears to aid in reducing...
>colon and rectal cancer.  [...]

	Precisely.  It's the lack of fiber, not the presence of meat.

>As research continues, evidence linking meat-eating  to other forms
>of cancer is building up at an alarming rate.  The National Academy
>of Sciences reported that"people may be able to prevent many common 
>cancers by eating less more fatty meats and more vegetables and 
>grains."  And in his Notes on the Causation of Cancer, Rollo Russel
>writes,"I have found of twenty-five nations eating flesh largely, 
>nineteen had a high cancer rate and only one had a low rate, and
>that of thirty-five nations eating little or no flesh, none had a 
>high rate."

	Which shows that the Western high-fat, low-fiber diet isn't healthy,
	not that meat in any form or quantity isn't healthy.  Indeed, one
	of the most often-quoted studies used to support vegetarianism
	was performed on the Japanese, who eat meat every day, mostly in
	the form of seafood, as part of their traditional diet.  The problem
	is consumption in excess, not consumption alone.

>Some of the most shocking results in cancer research have come from 
>exploration of the effects of nitrosamines.  Nitrosamines are formed
>when secondary amines, prevalent in beer, wine, tea, and tobacco, 
>for example, react with chemical preservatives in meat.  The Food 
>and Drug Administration has labeled nitrosamines "one of the most
>formidable and versatile groups of carcinogens yet discovered, and
>their role... in the etiology of human cancer has caused growing
>apprehension among experts."

	The FDA has also banned the use of nitrites and nitrates as
	preservatives in most food.  This is now a non-problem.

[...]

>DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN MEAT
>Numerous other potentially hazardous chemicals, of which consumers
>are generally unaware, are present in meat and meat products.

	These are problems with the mass production of meat, not meat
	itself.  To advocate a ban on meat because of these problems is
	equivalent to advocating elimination of the pet industry because
	there are "puppy mills."  You're advocating a mastectomy where a
	"lump-ectomy" would serve, or amputation where a few stitches would
	close the wound.

[...]

>Sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite, chemicals used as preservatives 
>to slow down putrefaction in cured meat and meat products, including
>ham, bacon, bologna, salami, frankfurters, and fish, also endanger 
>health. [...]
>Unfortunately, these chemicals do not distinguish between the blood
>of a corpse and the blood of a living human, and many persons 
>accidentally subjected to excessive amounts have died of poisoning.

	"Excessive amounts" of vitamin A are toxic, too, so what's your
	point?  That too much of something might not be good for you?
	What a concept!

>Even smaller quantities can prove hazardous, especially for young
>children or babies, [...]

	Wait a minute.....let's see, smaller body, smaller toxic dose.....
	.....yes, I think I've got it now.

>DISEASES IN MEAT
>In addition to dangerous chemicals, meat often carries diseases from
>the animals themselves.  Crammed together in unclean conditions, 
>force-fed, and inhumanely treated, animals destined for slaughter 
>contract many more diseases than they ordinarily would.  Meat 
>inspectors attempt to filter out unacceptable meats, but because of 
>pressures from the industry and lack of sufficient time for 
>examination, much of what passes is far less wholesome than the meat
>purchaser realizes.

	How many people die each year from diseased meat?  I'll give you
	a clue, it's not even in the top 15 causes of death in the U. S.,
	in spite of the fact that some 248 million of us eat meat at least
	once a day.

>USDA report lists carcasses that passed inspection after the 
>diseased parts were removed.  Examples included nearly 100,000 cows
>with eye cancer ......

	It's gross, but first, not many eat the eyes, and second, you can't
	get cancer from eating diseased tissue.

>....... and 3,596,302 cases of abscessed liver.

	Of course, we don't know whether these were actually sold, but even
	if they were, subsequent cooking would destroy any pathogens.  It's
	not an appetizing thought, perhaps, but it's probably not dangerous
	either.  This factoid has nothing much to do with whether vegetarian
	diets are healthier.

>The government also permits the sale of chickens with airsacculitis, a
>pneumonialike disease that causes pus-laden mucus to collect in the 
>lungs.

	You eat a lot of chicken lungs?

>In order to meet the federal standards, the chicken's chest 
>cavities are cleaned out with air-suction guns.  But during this 
>process diseased air sacs burst and pus seeps into the meat.
>The USDA has even been found to be lax in enforcing its own low 
>standards.  In its capacity of overseeing federal regulatory
>agencies, the U.S. General Acconting Office cited the USDA for 
>failure to correct various violations by slaughterhouses.  Carcasses
>contaminated with rodent feces, cockroaches, and rust were found in 
>meat-packing companies such as Swift, Armour, and Carnation.

	Isn't this a problem with enforcement of regulations?  It's not
	the meat's fault that it is packed in less than surgical conditions.
	Again, I raise the issue, how much death and disease does all this
	horrible stuff actually cause?  And I suspect that you'll find such
	stuff in a great many commercially processed foods...the FDA has
	standards which outline the allowable amounts, in fact; and the
	standards are written for both animal AND vegetable foods.  I submit
	that aflatoxin on legumes and grains is at least as big an issue.

>Some inspectors rationalize the laxity, explaining that if regulations 
>were enforced, no meat-packers would remain open for business.

	And some doctors graduated in the bottom half of the class, too...
	...the world isn't perfect.  Let's work on replacing the incompetent
	inspectors.

>NUTRITION WITHOUT MEAT

[...]

>Although inadequate amounts of protein will 
>cause loss of strength, excess protein can not utilized by the body;
>rather, it is converted into nitrogenous wastes that burden the 
>kidneys.

	There is no evidence that consumption of protein CAUSES renal
	failure.  There is AMPLE evidence showing that, once renal failure
	has occurred, a low protein diet is beneficial, but that's not the
	same thing, is it?

>The primary energy source for the body is carbohydrates.
>Only as a last resort is the body's protein utilized for energy
>production.

	Actually, under some circumstances, the body will "burn" protein
	before it begins to tap fat resources.

>Too much protein intake actually reduces the body's 
>energy capacity. In a series of comparative endurance tests 
>conducted by Dr. Irving Fisher of Yale, vegetarians performed twice
>as well as meat-eaters.  By reducing the nonvegetarians' protein
>consumption by twenty percent, Dr. Fisher found their efficiency 
>increased by thirty-three percent.  Numerous other studies have 
>shown that a proper vegetarian diet provides more nutritional energy
>than meat.  Furthermore a study by Dr. J. Iotekyo and V. Kipani at 
>Brussels University showed that vegetarians were able to perform 
>physical tests two to three times longer than meat-eaters before 
>exhaustion and were fully recovered from fatigue in one fifth the 
>time needed by meat-eaters.

	Of course, we have to know what is meant by the term "meat-eaters."
	Are we talking about steak at every meal and very little else, or
	are we talking about a two ounce portion of fish once a week?  In
	the case of the former, it would be no surprise that the carbohydrate-
	intensive diet of the vegetarians would result in higher athletic
	performance...this is old news.


COMMENTARY:

	The original posting is nearly pure garbage.  It's sad that there
	seems to be an ethic of "Truth by Repetition" which encourages
	repeated forays into scientific Never-Never Land in a forum in which
	so many have legitimate questions regarding the wisdom of their
	dietary choices.  No one has all the answers, but drivel like
	the original posting is the cruelest form of deception, carrying,
	as it does, just enough truth to lend credibility.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg