Gary Yourofsky on Animal Cruelty and the Human Diet

[Invader]

I wanted to open discussion about the following video. Here, activist Gary Yourofsky gives a lecture about the human/animal condition relative to the food we eat and our stance towards the treatment of animals used in industrial agriculture. This one stood out enough that I felt compelled to send it along to others, and felt it appropriate to put up here for anyone interested in watching. For those that do give it a chance, I urge you to watch through to the end. I also encourage open questions and the presentation of any data that coincides with or contradicts what this man says, and the sources of said data. I hope you find the talk as stimulating as I have.

[Xei]

Got kinda bored after 30 minutes. I wanted to hear facts and not images or rhetoric, but I only just started getting them and they're not right. Saying eating animals is a causal factor behind cancer, or saying that humans aren't meat eaters because we can't catch squirrels (is the term 'agricultural revolution' a total unknown to this guy? For by far the majority of human history we have relied on meat, the current state of affairs is an anomaly)... I have an open mind but also a critical one, so if I'm going to be swayed it'll be with facts please.

[Invader]

Saying eating animals is a causal factor behind cancer You might find the following few examples of interest. It's already been established that cooking meat produces carcinogenic compounds. Chemicals in Meat Cooked at High Temperatures and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine, a Carcinogen in High- Temperature-Cooked Meat, and Breast Cancer Risk The Prostate: A Target for Carcinogenicity of 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) Derived from Cooked Foods Quantification of heterocyclic amine carcinogens in cooked meats using isotope dilution liquid chromatography/atmospheric pressure chemical ionization tandem mass spectrometry - Holder - 1998 - Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry - Wiley Online or saying that humans aren't meat eaters because we can't catch squirrels (is the term 'agricultural revolution' a total unknown to this guy? For by far the majority of human history we have relied on meat, the current state of affairs is an anomaly)... I think he says that we were not physically designed to. Every one of our physical characteristics makes us look like an herbivore (length of intestinal tract, production of acid in the stomach for digestion, types of enzymes produced in our mouth, mechanics of our jaws, our teeth, etc). Even the canines are present on a lot of herbivores (gorillas included). His argument is that we eat meat because it's delicious (and it is) and convenient, but that we are not, biologically speaking, carnivorous. He makes an interesting claim that, as one of the largest consumers of dairy in the world (the companies that claim that their calcium gives you strong, healthy bones), the U.S. has a high incidence of osteoporosis. Maybe there are other causes, I still need to look for articles that relate acidic blood to loss of calcium. I have an open mind but also a critical one, so if I'm going to be swayed it'll be with facts please. As well you should. I sent Gary a request for any scientific articles he had to back his claims, as I'm sure he must if he's actually done his research. I'll keep you updated when I come across anything else relevant.

[DrunkenArse]

He makes an interesting claim that, as one of the largest consumers of dairy in the world (the companies that claim that their calcium gives you strong, healthy bones), the U.S. has a high incidence of osteoporosis. Maybe there are other causes, I still need to look for articles that relate acidic blood to loss of calcium. I don't have the research now and am not really in the mood to find it but I remember coming across the belief that the calcium in milk is not really absorbed by humans and that cruciforms like broccoli are a better source of calcium. I don't really have an opinion on it so I must not have been that convinced at the time but that might be something to look at. Also, the people that are into the paleolithic diet are huge into maintaining an alkaline blood chemistry so you will probably be able to find arguments concerning acidity of the blood and calcium by looking at their stuff.

[Xei]

You might find the following few examples of interest. It's already been established that cooking meat produces carcinogenic compounds. Chemicals in Meat Cooked at High Temperatures and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine, a Carcinogen in High- Temperature-Cooked Meat, and Breast Cancer Risk The Prostate: A Target for Carcinogenicity of 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) Derived from Cooked Foods Quantification of heterocyclic amine carcinogens in cooked meats using isotope dilution liquid chromatography/atmospheric pressure chemical ionization tandem mass spectrometry - Holder - 1998 - Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry - Wiley Online Sunlight also causes cancer, but if you stay out of the sun your entire life, you'll have vitamin D deficiency and will get rickets among other symptoms: it's a problem of quantity. The main problem with high energy foods such as meat is that people eat too much of them and don't exercise enough. This will definitely give you heart problems and also gives you cancer. In moderation and with a healthy lifestyle though, you're not damaging yourself. I think he says that we were not physically designed to. Every one of our physical characteristics makes us look like an herbivore (length of intestinal tract, production of acid in the stomach for digestion, types of enzymes produced in our mouth, mechanics of our jaws, our teeth, etc). Even the canines are present on a lot of herbivores (gorillas included). His argument is that we eat meat because it's delicious (and it is) and convenient, but that we are not, biologically speaking, carnivorous. He needs to take a look inside human skulls. The ecological niche of humans is not in physical strength; it is in our intelligence, which lets us work in teams, and use traps and weapons. There is no argument about the fact that before the agricultural revolution (as in, between around 2 million years ago and 15,000 years ago, the vast majority of human history), humans were hunter gatherers.

[Spartiate]

Regarding humans being "herbivores", I thought it was quite well established that humans are omnivores. Yes we share some herbivore traits, but also some carnivore traits, we're "meant" to eat almost anything. If meat tastes good, it's because our brain has evolved a reward mechanism for consuming useful nutrition. There is a lot of plant material that humans can't digest (hence why high-fibre food makes you poop), so we make pretty terrible pure-herbivores. Also as Xei mentioned, humans aren't as physically developed as carnivores because our strength lies in our intelligence and creativity. I may not be able to physically catch a squirrel as well as a cat, but with a combination of traps and hunting weapons, I'm probably more likely to end up with the squirrel than any other animal in the world.

[Invader]

Alright, Mr. Yourofsky responded with the following: The China Study by Cornell U. 1000s of articles on pcrm.org any research by following doctors: Caldwell Esselstyn (Clevelan Clinic), Dean Ornish (UCSF), William Castelli (Frmaingham Heart Study) go to my adaptt.org site, click ALL ABOUT VEGANISM, click DAIRY/HONEY, and PROTEIN I can't find all of the sources that pcrm.org uses. I'll put up a few quotes from his website for convenience of viewing, though you're encouraged to check these out for yourselves to determine whether or not these are credible sources. I also have yet to look at the doctors. "More than ten years ago, the Harvard University Nurses' Health Study, with over 120,000 subjects, found that the consumption of milk and other dairy products does not protect against the bone fractures of osteoporosis (the bone-thinning disease that the dairy industry wants you to believe is related to too little milk in your diet). In fact, those in the study who drank three or more servings of milk a day actually had a slightly higher rate of fractures than women who drank little or no milk (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87 (1997), pp. 992-997)." "Statistics show that death rates due to breast cancer are considerably higher in areas with a high dairy consumption (British Journal of Cancer 24, 633-43). And a 2004 study showed that for every glass of milk a woman consumes each day her risk of dying from ovarian cancer goes up by 20 percent (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2004). Countries that have low milk consumption have much, much lower rates of these and other hormone-related cancers, including prostate cancer (American Journal of Epidemiology, 2007; 166: 1259-1279)." "If you think milk builds strong bones, why do Americans—the largest consumer of dairy products worldwide—have astounding rates of osteoporosis and bone fractures (and cancers)?" "Epidemiological evidence proves that people who consume the least amount of animal protein, always have the lowest rates of osteoporosis, bone fractures and cancers (and other diseases)." The last needs a source. And osteoporosis is a big deal in a country (I'm talking about the U.S. specifically since I'm familiar with what's advertised here) that consumes a tremendous amount of dairy products (and has a high availability of calcium supplements). I'd like to dig up more information on this or whether or not any links between dairy/animal protein consumption exist, but I'm having a terrible time finding studies. If anyone has a better way of finding scientific articles, please show me. Google Scholar apparently is not fond of my selection of keywords. =/ There's another curious bit of laws that exist in the U.S. that deter organizations from publishing information that can be interpreted as damaging to the meat and dairy industry. These are called called Agricultural Disparagement Statutes. From what I've gathered so far they are inclusive of opinions and there's the issue that they infringe on 1st amendment rights. Why we'd need something on top of the already existing libel laws is beyond me, but like I said, these do what libel laws don't do in that they include negative opinion. Spoiler for Agricultural Disparagement Statutes: "The stated legislative purpose of the [agricultural] disparagement statutes is virtually identical in all thirteen states. The language used reflects a general concern on the part of each legislature to protect the agricultural and aquacultural economy of its state. In order to protect the perishable food economy, the legislatures created a cause of action for damages from disparaging statements or dissemination of false information about the safety of the consumption of food products. In eight of the thirteen statutes, the purpose is repeated nearly verbatim: 'to protect the agricultural and aquacultural economy... by providing a cause of action for producers to recover damages for the disparagement of any perishable product or commodity.' Two of the remaining five limit the purpose to the protection of agricultural products only. The Texas and North Dakota statutes do not expressly state their purpose. The party given a cause of action is the same in all but three of the states. 'Producers,' generally defined as 'the person who actually grows or produces perishable agricultural food products,' are the only parties allowed to file an action for disparagement of agricultural food products. In the other states, however, the laws are much more liberal. On its face, the Alabama legislation limits eligible parties to producers, but then defines 'producers' as 'any person who produces, markets or sells a perishable food product.' Likewise, Georgia grants a cause of action to any party in the 'entire chain from grower to consumer.' Arizona expands the list of parties to include any 'producer, shipper, or an association that represents producers or shippers,' which is broadly defined to encompass any person who ships, transports, sells or markets a perishable food product. The Ohio and North Dakota statutes feature provisions that allow class actions by groups of aggrieved producers." 1998 - David J. Bederman, JD, PhD I don't have the research now and am not really in the mood to find it but I remember coming across the belief that the calcium in milk is not really absorbed by humans and that cruciforms like broccoli are a better source of calcium. I don't really have an opinion on it so I must not have been that convinced at the time but that might be something to look at. Also, the people that are into the paleolithic diet are huge into maintaining an alkaline blood chemistry so you will probably be able to find arguments concerning acidity of the blood and calcium by looking at their stuff. Right, I'd first heard about the pH of blood and it's alleged links to disease (or how it effects the body's ability to heal) through my sister, who's been on a raw diet for the past six months or so now. That's the only reason I've been introduced to this material, but I haven't put much time into looking into it until just recently. I'd also just heard of the high amount of calcium that broccoli has as well. Never would have figured that. Flesh decays. Thats what it does. Rotting flesh taking 8 to 12 hours to pass through your digestive system will have some negative affects to say the least. ... And as far as meat causing cancer I find that a little hard to digest... One of the claims of non-meat eaters is that meat putrefies in the intestine, which is why it's believed carnivores have much shorter intestines. Again though, I need to find sources that tell me specifically that undigested meat decays while in the intestinal tract. There are far more articles that report that meat causes or is correlated to cancer. Sunlight also causes cancer, but if you stay out of the sun your entire life, you'll have vitamin D deficiency and will get rickets among other symptoms: it's a problem of quantity. The main problem with high energy foods such as meat is that people eat too much of them and don't exercise enough. This will definitely give you heart problems and also gives you cancer. In moderation and with a healthy lifestyle though, you're not damaging yourself. That's the side I'm leaning to as well. As far as sunlight causing cancer goes, we don't know if risk of skin cancer is increased because of other factors, or if there'd be a high incidence of it if we removed ____ from our lifestyles. If, for instance, there is something physically damaging about animal products that effects us slowly over time, we could say there'd be a correlation between eating said products and skin cancer from sun exposure. I don't know. It may also be that we just need more fruits or vegetables or what have you on top of the meat diet. It may be none of these too. There seems to be a consensus that vegetarians and vegans are at much lower risk of cancers, but likely for the reasons you gave (less energy-dense foods). I do have a question.. Is it possible or likely that we can become accustomed to a high intake of particular nutrients such that when we decrease the levels of said nutrients to what would be a "normal" level, the body reacts as if it's experiencing a deficit? I ask because I used to wonder years ago how humans were able to survive at all being that I felt like I had to eat a lot of food every day to keep from feeling hungry. I didn't think it made sense that anyone could have access to enough food out in the wild like that in the days of the Neanderthal, with their particular toolset. He needs to take a look inside human skulls. The ecological niche of humans is not in physical strength; it is in our intelligence, which lets us work in teams, and use traps and weapons. There is no argument about the fact that before the agricultural revolution (as in, between around 2 million years ago and 15,000 years ago, the vast majority of human history), humans were hunter gatherers. Right, yes. But is there a difference to developing an ability to catch animals as a byproduct of mental capacity to create and use tools vs developing the physical parts to catch and consume them? I mean obviously there's a difference, what I mean is how might the digestive systems of two such creatures differ considering the type of development they'd have to undergo to catch an animal? Regarding humans being "herbivores", I thought it was quite well established that humans are omnivores. Yes we share some herbivore traits, but also some carnivore traits, we're "meant" to eat almost anything. If meat tastes good, it's because our brain has evolved a reward mechanism for consuming useful nutrition. There is a lot of plant material that humans can't digest (hence why high-fibre food makes you poop), so we make pretty terrible pure-herbivores. Yep, that's along what I'm thinking. I figure that most of the current problems that are coming from meat and dairy consumption deal with the high intake of those products (as Xei pointed out) on top of little exercise. If anything there may be a relationship to the hormones put into the animals, or the high amounts of stress and other hormones an animal will produce in very poor living conditions and a state of constant suffering, once the meat is eaten. Too bad I can't just have a goat to milk. Wouldn't that be nice. --- Anyways, check out the links Yourofsky sent to me and see if they're of any significance to you. You'll probably find things I wont, and you can point out anything good if you like.

[stormcrow]

I pretty sure if there is not enough magnesium to absorb the calcium it is flushed through our kidneys and pissed out. And yes our intestines are pocketed and grooved to digest slowly for sustained energy as opposed to typical carnivores like cats and dogs. Flesh decays. Thats what it does. Rotting flesh taking 8 to 12 hours to pass through your digestive system will have some negative affects to say the least. And as far as meat causing cancer I find that a little hard to digest (pun intended) considering I have always believed cancer to be an umbrella term for "disease caused by man-made chemicals and toxic environmental conditions" but I'm not an expert on cancer, I could be wrong, I just always thought cancer was a man-made disease.

[Invader]

I thought the only meat they ate was that of other enemy chimps. But yes, they'd be the best example to support the human-omnivore position methinks. Thanks for pointing that out. They eat bugs too when they can, right? Although... I suppose their use of hunting tools would give them an edge over other animals. Spoiler for predatory chimps:

[DrunkenArse]

I almost feel like this deserves its own thread but here you go: Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution | Reuters