Eating Meat?

[DJDannyUhOh]

luckily there are wonderful things called vegetables that allowed herbivores to survive until now and would have allowed us to do so too

Unfortunately, WE did not evolve to be herbivores and if WE had the the attitude of "starving rather than eating me", WE would not be here, as I originally stated.

we were talking about a theoretic case to better explain what my motivations were

That's exactly what I am doing. All of us have different motives. What makes my opinions of lesser value?

i'm not sure what you mean by "Necessity is driven by instinct"

I guess it can go both ways depending on how you look at it, however, the bottom line is that one would not have existed without the other.

anyway, necessity or instinct to eat something, not to eat meat a nice fruit is appetizing without preparation
a corpse is only appetizing after cooking it, putting salt or spices and a lot of cultural conditioning

Of course we ate fruit. At the beginning of our sociocultural evolution we were a nomadic, hunter and gatherer society. We constantly looked for food and necessity forced us to turn to meat. Long before we developed cultural conditioning and discovering ways to prepare the meat differently, we had already been eating it for quite some time.

except that after putting penicillin aside as inefficient in 1928 when he saw the results on rabbits (who don't react to it as humans do) and not studying it for a decade, it's by sheer luck that he tried it again on mice instead of guinea pigs (mice being less expensive to work with)

Wow is that wrong. Penicillin was put aside for a decade leading up to WWII because nobody could effectively mass produce it and it wasn't until WWII, which brought on the desperate need for it, that we put forth the effort into doing so.

penicillin is lethal for guinea pigs and fleming would have recognized penicillin as a dangerous drug
you could as well give drugs randomly to humans if they kill some animals and cure others and you still don't know what the result will be on humans.

First of all, microbiology was still in it's infancy and there was no way to tell how penicillin was going to react to anything and there was no choice but to use animals for testing. Randomly injecting drugs into humans isn't exactly the smartest thing to do, especially if you yourself are a human. Now I'm not talking about cosmetics and other needless products that could be done with other methods, but when you are on the brink of discovering one of the greatest drugs of all time, the animals will not have been used in vain. When you emotionally hijack a subject, it becomes difficult for us to see the bigger picture.

actually, i know why it's so. people care about water, etc. because they'll be the direct victims if there's a lack of it
their compassion only awakens when humans are concerned, not other species

Water is essential to ALL life. If it goes, we ALL go.

The truth is that most people do not see how dependent we are on animals. Even when you go to a doctor and get blood testing done you're depending on the product of an animal. Common titers and other antibody screens use animal derived proteins and reagents used in determining the test results.

 

[vegan]

Unfortunately, WE did not evolve to be herbivores and if WE had the the attitude of "starving rather than eating me", WE would not be here, as I originally stated.

we, DJDannyUhOh and vegan, wouldn't be here
but other human like beings would be here
i gave in the lounge thread examples of pre-human populations who had vegetarian diets
a prehistoric population could very well have evolved in a vegetarian friendly environment to a modern herbivorous version of humans
imagine the horror, the alternative "we" would be arguing about the last trends in rice cooking instead

That's exactly what I am doing. All of us have different motives. What makes my opinions of lesser value?

our opinions have the same value, but you misinterpreted what i said
if i give a theoretic case, it's not by changing the conditions of this case that you'll prove wrong what i said in these conditions

the bottom line is that one would not have existed without the other

well, it could have been necessity and reasoning instead of necessity and instinct

We constantly looked for food and necessity forced us to turn to meat

isn't that exactly what i was saying?
your words : "necessity forced us to turn to meat"
my post that you first wanted to disprove in this post : it probably first was a necessity rather than an instinct

Wow is that wrong. Penicillin was put aside for a decade leading up to WWII because nobody could effectively mass produce it

well, that's what i've read before and keep finding when i type "penicillin, fleming, animal experimentation, etc." in google
it may be wrong, you'll find everything and it's opposite on the internet, but prove me guilty before i have to spend time proving myself innocent
In 1928, Sir Alexander Fleming observed that colonies of the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus could be destroyed by the mold Penicillium notatum, proving that there was an antibacterial agent there in principle. This principle later lead to medicines that could kill certain types of disease-causing bacteria inside the body. At the time, however, the importance of Alexander Fleming's discovery was not known. Use of penicillin did not begin until the 1940s when Howard Florey and Ernst Chain isolated the active ingredient and developed a powdery form of the medicine.

there was no choice but to use animals for testing. Randomly injecting drugs into humans isn't exactly the smartest thing to do

neither is injecting a drug into humans after having tested them on animals
test some cyanide on sheep, conclude that they stay healthy, give if to humans, enjoy the result
test some morphine on cats or mice, conclude that it's an excitant, don't give it to humans. bravo

When you emotionally hijack a subject, it becomes difficult for us to see the bigger picture

if emotions don't have their place in the biggest picture of medicine, why don't you propose to test on humans instead then?
they're the ones who're going to use the results
they actually have the same metabolism as other humans (not really the case of a mouse)
and they "will not have been used in vain" 8(

Water is essential to ALL life. If it goes, we ALL go.

but why do humans care? because they go, not because mice or roses go
if water was only essential to mice, few would care about wasting it

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

we, DJDannyUhOh and vegan, wouldn't be here

In my original statement I had said if everybody had this attitude. WE meaning humans.

it's not by changing the conditions of this case that you'll prove wrong what i said in these conditions

You happen to be doing the same thing with my theoretic instances. 8(

well, it could have been necessity and reasoning instead of necessity and instinct

Once again I must point out. We were eating meat long before we had the reasoning that we have today. Our only reasoning was simple and it only involved what we needed to survive and procreate.

well, that's what i've read before and keep finding when i type "penicillin, fleming, animal experimentation, etc." in google

I am not a real advocate of referencing the internet when it comes to medicine. I suggest taking a simple microbiology class if you want the honest facts that will be looked at with a "value free" assessment. If you really need a scientific link, nobelprize.org has one.

http://nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/penicillin/readmore.html

To acquire enough penicillin for the treatment of even a few mice, technical inventions were needed. Up to this point, trays, tins and bottles were used in growing the mould for the production of penicillin. But Norman Heatley, a member of the team, made several technical inventions that made it possible to produce penicillin on a larger scale. Heatley made important contributions to the understanding of the purification process, and experimented with different methods of growing mould in various containers. After many tests, Heatley discovered that ordinary bedpans, which were borrowed from the Radcliff Infirmary, were the most efficient containers for growing penicillin!

The problem was production. You can say it was unstable, but that was only because of the rough techniques of the time.

The mice experiment had undoubtedly been a great success, but to treat a human being, the amount of penicillin needed was about 3,000 times greater. England was at war, and even though Florey was the head of an important institution at Oxford, the team's financial resources were quite limited. Therefore, the team had to be very creative in producing all the needed penicillin. Heatley designed a container resembling a bedpan out of ceramic, which was more suited to their needs. 400 stackable containers were made where penicillin was grown.

if emotions don't have their place in the biggest picture of medicine, why don't you propose to test on humans instead then?

You quoted my of saying "emotionally hijacking a subject". I said nothing about emotions having no place in the bigger picture of medicine. This particular "subject" happens to be animal testing, in which the word "suffering" can be thrown around wantonly.....and justifiably so, but it does get in the way of what we are trying to explain and accomplish. When you can get the government to approve widespread human testing, then we'll have this discussion. Until then, we're still fighting to get stems cells approved. Hey! There's something that would do away with tons and tons of animal testing.

 

[chucky]

I'm a vegan and I'll be the first to say that eating meat is one of the most natural things in the world.

Personally, if I were living as a tribal or something, I would surely be out hunting and eating animals. In fact, I would enjoy doing it, not in the sense that i would enjoy causing suffering or killing, but I would enjoy going out to hunt in an enviroment where its all a big game, I could even be preyed on myself.. Exciting stuff if you ask me..


But, the reason I am vegan is because of the industry as a whole. Theres way to many negatice aspects to bother listing them. But basically, there is some VERY wrong stuff going on. Especially when living things are considered as a commodity rather than a being.

Also, I am far more against the dairy industry than I am the meat industry. Whilst, as i stated, i believe eating meat is a good idea and a very natural thing to do, dairy is not natural, it is weird, it only seems normal cause most people are only ever involved with the end product. I dont think there would be many people willing to suck on a cow's teet... An animals milk is for their children people, not for you.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

dairy is not natural, it is weird, it only seems normal cause most people are only ever involved with the end product. I dont think there would be many people willing to suck on a cow's teet... An animals milk is for their children people, not for you.

This is very true. Humans are the only animals that not only drink milk beyond our developing years, but we drink it from another animal. Nowadays it's especially unhealthy because of the hormone treatments given to dairy animals. Bovine growth hormone is virtually homologous to our own human growth hormone and it slightly alters our endocrine system. There was an article in JAMA that addressed that issue and it related to why children are starting to look older at younger ages. I have for the most part been switching over to rice milk as an alternative, but being Italian, I love my cheeses and will most likely never give them up entirely. My mother was an off-the-boat Italian when she was little and a big part of our family diet, as you can imagine, was dairy and meats. And if I had kids, I would probably not emphasize dairy into their diet as heavily it was for me when I was growing up.

 

[Dhampira]

"To go on two legs is very hard. Perhaps four is better, anyway." - Sayer of the Law (H.G. Wells)

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

Chucky, Good post. It's great to see a balanced outlook on this volatile issue. I feel the same and have had the experience of living in a tribe off the land and it was very exciting and felt very natural. We had a deep respect for the plants and animals we had to kill for our existence.

On the dairy issue. There are some old cultures that lived on milk and or yogurt for a large part of their diet. Weird maybe but then so is Soy sauce and pickles if you think about it.

The modern meat and dairy industry are the problem. And it's enough of a problem that I honor anyone that will not support it. It shows character and compassion and a willingness to sacrifice for the wellbeing of others. Good on ya.

 

[vegan]

In my original statement I had said if everybody had this attitude. WE meaning humans

i thought it was obvious that by "DJDannyUhOh and vegan" i didn't mean just you and me. it was an euphemism for "the individuals living today"
there would be other individuals, but they would be here

You happen to be doing the same thing with my theoretic instances

no, you don't understand my posts, which is different

Our only reasoning was simple and it only involved what we needed to survive and procreate.

like understanding that even if raw meat wasn't appetizing it was edible?

If you really need a scientific link, nobelprize.org has one.

you may have noticed that the link you gave gives the same chronology i gave in my post, and not the reason you gave

i said except that after putting penicillin aside as inefficient in 1928 when he saw the results on rabbits (who don't react to it as humans do) and not studying it for a decade
to which you answered "Wow is that wrong. Penicillin was put aside for a decade leading up to WWII because nobody could effectively mass produce it and it wasn't until WWII, which brought on the desperate need for it, that we put forth the effort into doing so"

the link you gave says : In 1928 [...]Fleming named the substance "Penicillin" [...]and did not really realize its potential for treatment against infections [...]This was probably one of the factors that sparked the interest of a brilliant chemist, Ernest Chain, some ten years later

i don't see how this makes what i first said "wow wrong"
penicillin was not studied for a decade because "its potential for treatment was not know", not because "nobody could effectively mass produce it"
it's only after it was studied again that mass production became a preoccupation

and above all, it doesn't change what was the point of my post : that it's by luck that mice were used instead of guinea pigs
the guinea pigs would have died and penicillin would have been considered dangerous
different animals have different metabolism and you can't guess which ones will react as humans

You quoted my of saying "emotionally hijacking a subject". I said nothing about emotions having no place in the bigger picture of medicine. This particular "subject" happens to be animal testing

animal testing is just a part of medicine
if emotions have their place in medicine, they have their place in animal testing

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

no, you don't understand my posts, which is different

Every time you express your opinion, be it theoretical or not, I am accused on not understanding your post. Yet when I express my point of view, I am then accused of "changing the conditions" a rather than you not understanding.

and above all, it doesn't change what was the point of my post : that it's by luck that mice were used instead of guinea pigs
the guinea pigs would have died and penicillin would have been considered dangerous different animals have different metabolism and you can't guess which ones will react as humans

What about people that are allergic to penicillin? Giving it to only humans would have certainly killed those with allergies. If it wasn't for the variety of animals we tested it on, the benefits would not have been recognized. You would take greater pleasure in seeing fellow humans die?

You're straying from the overall importance of animal testing when it came to discoveries like that. You can't rewrite history by injecting a vegan bias and essentially "change the conditions" of what happened. Is this not an example of the same thing you accused me of doing?

if emotions have their place in medicine, they have their place in animal testing

I never said emotions didn't have a place in animal testing. I said they can be used to cloud judgement in situations where breakthroughs and benefits can be realized. If it wasn't for the sacrifice of the animals we used in science, we would not be as knowledgable and medically advanced as we are today.

The easiest thing is to stand back and point out the flaws of our humans existence without offering the solutions. We all strive for a perfect world, a world without pain or suffering, however there is always going to be conflict. The truth is that humans have evolved to depend on animals in many ways and although there are definitely ways in which we can improve our relationship with other animals, we will never become totally independent of them, as we have been ever since the dawn of our existence.

 

[hh_sonic]

i can't believe it is so necessary to dispute the choice to be vegan/vegetarian as far more humane and responsible. meat and cheese eaters, no one is twisting your arm to give up your favorite food, everyone understands that for some it's a hard thing to do... everyone does what they can. i choose to give up all meat and dairy.. i choose to ride a bike and public transit instead of driving a car... i'm doing something that's easy for me to do. it's the least i can, considering a sad state humanity got our planet in. if you can't, that's fine.

what i don't really understand is all the talk of being entitled to meat by {god, nature, evolution, etc.}. ..please!!! instead of preaching the meat sermon, why is it so hard to admit that veg[etari]anism is so much less selfish... you love meat too much to give it up. good! what is there to polemicize with so many rationalizations?

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

To you they might be rationalizations. To some they are just reasons. Although I agree about entitlement issues; those just don't make sense. It is ususlly when one side is attacking the other that these "debates" arise and people feel need to defend a position. Still if you believe in what you do you shouldn't need to defend much.

As I have said often enough. It's the way we treat animals that is at the core of the problem for me. The problem is just not about meat vs vegatables IMO. It's about how we choose to live on this planet. With greed and fear or with gratitude, love and respect.

I applaud your lifestyle choices. I choose to do many of the same and it is also quite easy for me.

 

[hh_sonic]

/\ /\ /\

right on man!!! so happy to see the goodness spreading. every day, there's more of us!! yay!

To some they are just reasons

ha, ha, ever ask anyone, if they need a *reason* to eat their favorite food? what do you think the *honest* answer will be? "i lluvit cause i've been spoilt with it since the day i was borne and that's the only way for me!!"

to me, that's nothing but a way to avoid identifying it (that favorite food) as a living breathing being with a heartbeat (and eyelashes too, sometimes) that deserves some happinessin their lifetime!! ( honestly, there's NO happiness in factory farms: http://www.themeatrix.com)

this just goes to show the way man treats the world. without a bit of consideration. look at our zoos and how animals are contained in them just for the mere pleasure of little rich white brats of having something to gawk at. is that fair? and what's the deal with the stupid circus? hello, it's 2005!! it IS slavery, *abolish* it already!!

i read an article a little while ago about a circus somewhere in the CIS (former soviet union). i think this happened in belarus. director of this circus decided to run off one day, sabotaging their funding. obviously when the funding's run dry, there is no more money, which means there is no food to feed the animals... every animal died. now imagine living in filth and being whipped, daily by drunken assholes your whole life, and then dying amid the pile of corpses of your inmates. just like that, with not a single person lifting a finger to help you. confined, tortured, chained, miserable, cold, ravished by parasites and diseases, and finally dead. but, wait a minute, is that not the life of a farm factory animal in north america?

sorry for sharing this upsetting story. to be honest, *people* are probably dying from starvation in that corner of the world in great numbers, too. but somehow, animals are just so completely defenseless in the face of the human evil. think about it: we are the human race. we enslave everything we can get our hands on, we milk it (pun intended) for all its' worth, we take no responsibility, and then, should something backfire, we conveniently look the other way.

does anyone honestly believe this is a good way to use reason?

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

this just goes to show the way man treats the world. without a bit of consideration. look at our zoos and how animals are contained in them just for the mere pleasure of little rich white brats of having something to gawk at. is that fair? and what's the deal with the stupid circus? hello, it's 2005!! it IS slavery, *abolish* it already!!

Right on! Just shows we're not as civilized as we like to tell ourselves.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

why is it so hard to admit that veg[etari]anism is so much less selfish

I can't think of anything closer to selfishness than preaching a "holier than thou" stance above everyone else and making sure that people are told that they're being irresponsible. I have made a vast amount of changes in my life (some that I have clearly posted) that are for not only for the better of my health, but for the creatures around me. Nobody here is perfect and nobody here should be judging. Just because I acknowledge that science has benefitted greatly by tests on animals in the past doesn't mean that I get off seeing such things done and it's a crying shame that I have to waste time defending my positions. I'd rather see stem cell research.

I'm sure the people here would not take the side of government not being able to tell what we can and can't put in our mouths, right? But the difference is suffering. I know that. I've acknowledged that. And believe me, I have made changes in my life to improve on that. But because I occasionally go to a barbeque and have a cheeseburger is no reason to get on a soap box and preach the ways of nature to me. This is life and I will enjoy it.

I wouldn't have half the problem with discussions like this if it wasn't for the simple fact that every single vegan I've ever met (including the ones on this board) have specifically taken the time to make sure that they tell me that I'm contributing to the suffering of poor innocent animals and helping to to make the planet shitty. Nobody on here knows half of the things I've changed in my life since my childhood habits, yet I'm made to feel like I'm driving down the road with a huge SUV with baby seal seat covers sucking down 96oz steak burgers.

Be a vegan for your health. Be a vegan for the love of animals. Because the more you tell people that they cause suffering and they make negative contributions to the environment, the more they get turned off by the whole concept.

 

[vegan]

Every time you express your opinion, be it theoretical or not, I am accused on not understanding your post. Yet when I express my point of view, I am then accused of "changing the conditions" a rather than you not understanding.

read the exchange again :

- me : i'd rather starve than kill animals to eat them
- you : If that was the case and every one of us transcendental humans had that point of view, you would not be here. In fact, none of us would be here to experience this joyfull debate
- me : so instead of a selfish and violent race, our ancestors would have evolved into a peaceful species and we would be arguing about art instead!
- you : Umm, we wouldn't have evolved at all. In response to your statement that you'd rather starve than eat meat. Your blood line simply wouldn't continue if that were the case. If we all (and our ancestors) had this attitude, we would all die out
- me : we were talking about a theoretic case to better explain what my motivations were
- you : That's exactly what I am doing. All of us have different motives. What makes my opinions of lesser value?
- me : our opinions have the same value, but you misinterpreted what i said
if i give a theoretic case, it's not by changing the conditions of this case that you'll prove wrong what i said in these conditions
- you : You happen to be doing the same thing with my theoretic instances

i gave a theoretical example to explain my position and you tried to use it as an anti-argument by giving a wrong interpretation of what its generalization would have implied

if "everyone had that point of view", mankind could still have evolved, into a slightly different (vegetarian) species
and even if your hypothesis was true, it wouldn't make the ethical arguments less valid but would just raise another problem

What about people that are allergic to penicillin? Giving it to only humans would have certainly killed those with allergies. If it wasn't for the variety of animals we tested it on, the benefits would not have been recognized

why do you find it more useful to test on guinea pigs that will die and mice that will survive than on allergic humans that will die and non-allergic humans that will survive?

what more do the tests on animals tell you than the tests on humans?

by definition, you will know if a product is largely beneficial to humans if it cures most of the population and if those suffering from allergies are small minority

if a big amount of the population is killed by the medicine, better to look for another one

the effects on a species can't help guessing the effects on another one, so why sacrifice them?

You would take greater pleasure in seeing fellow humans die?

8)
i want humans neither to die, nor to live by killing others
i don't advocate testing on humans either. i just mention it to show the hypocrisy of testing on another species to benefit your own
i advocate substitutive methods

 

[sexyanon2]

vegan -

how could we evolve into a more vegetarian species?

don't we need the protein from the meat to power ourselves? namely power our brain?

we didn't have the technology back then to compensate for being vegetarian only.

 

[vegan]

protein is the last think you have to worry about when you're vegetarian
for some reason there is this protein myth that refuses to disappear, but protein are easily available in vegetables

just think of an elephant, a bull or a gorilla. obviously they're full of protein
and they get it from plants

also, our metabolism can adapt to our needs or contraints
if we stopped eating meat, our metabolism probably would lose its properties allowing it to digest meat and would perfects itself as a herbivorous metabolism

 

[sexyanon2]

just think of an elephant, a bull or a gorilla. obviously they're full of protein
and they get it from plants

But they don't need as much.. power or energy, as we do, or namely our minds.

My question is: Would the mind still be as functional and efficient without meat?

We've naturally wanted and eaten meat, I'd think that fact alone suggests something, although does not prove anything.

 

[killarava2day]

Processed meat consumption results in 6700% increase in pancreatic cancer risk, says new research

Consuming processed meats increases the risk of pancreatic cancer, says new research conducted at the University of Hawaii that followed nearly 200,000 men and women for seven years. According to lead study author Ute Nothlings, people who consumed the most processed meats (hot dogs and sausage) showed a 6700% increased risk of pancreatic cancer over those who consumed little or no meat products.

But researchers failed to accurately identify the culprit responsible for this increased risk of pancreatic cancer, says one author. The true cause of the heightened cancer risk is the widespread use of a carcinogenic precursor ingredient known as sodium nitrite by food processing companies, says nutritionist Mike Adams, author of the just-published Grocery Warning manual at: http://www.TruthPublishing.com/GroceryWarning.html

Nearly all processed meats are made with sodium nitrite: breakfast sausage, hot dogs, jerkies, bacon, lunch meat, and even meats in canned soup products. Yet this ingredient is a precursor to highly carcinogenic nitrosamines -- potent cancer-causing chemicals that accelerate the formation and growth of cancer cells throughout the body. When consumers eat sodium nitrite in popular meat products, nitrosamines are formed in the body where they promote the growth of various cancers, including colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer, says Adams.

"Sodium nitrite is a dangerous, cancer-causing ingredient that has no place in the human food supply," he explains. The USDA actually tried to ban sodium nitrite in the 1970's, but was preempted by the meat processing industry, which relies on the ingredient as a color fixer to make foods look more visually appealing. "The meat industry uses sodium nitrite to sell more meat products at the expense of public health," says Adams. "And this new research clearly demonstrates the link between the consumption of processed meats and cancer."

Pancreatic cancer isn't the only negative side effect of consuming processed meats such as hot dogs. Leukemia also skyrockets by 700% following the consumption of hot dogs. (Preston-Martin, S. et al. "N-nitroso compounds and childhood brain tumors: A case-control study." Cancer Res. 1982; 42:5240-5.) Other links between processed meats and disease are covered in detail in the Grocery Warning manual.

Adams wrote Grocery Warning to warn consumers about the toxic, disease-causing ingredients found in everyday foods and groceries (see related ebook on groceries). "There are certain ingredients found in common grocery products that directly promote cancer, diabetes, heart disease, depression, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis and even behavioral disorders," Adams explains. His Grocery Warning manual covers them all, teaching readers how to prevent and even help reverse chronic diseases by avoiding the foods and food ingredients that cause disease.

According to Adams, consumers can help reduce the cancer-causing effects of sodium nitrite by consuming protective antioxidants before meals, such as vitamin C and vitamin E. But no vitamin offers 100% protection. The only safe strategy is to avoid sodium nitrite completely.

Adams especially warns expectant mothers to avoid consuming sodium nitrite due to the greatly heightened risk of brain tumors in infants. Parents are also warned to avoid feeding their children products that contain sodium nitrite, including all popular hot dogs, bacon, jerkies, breakfast sausages and pizzas made with pepperoni or other processed meats. "Sodium nitrite is especially dangerous to fetuses, infants and children," says Adams.

Sadly, nearly all school lunch programs currently serve schoolchildren meat products containing sodium nitrite. Hospital cafeterias also serve this cancer-causing ingredient to patients. Sodium nitrite is found in literally thousands of different menu items at fast food restaurants and dining establishments. "The use of this ingredient is widespread," says Adams, and it's part of the reason we're seeing skyrocketing rates of cancer in every society that consumes large quantities of processed meats."

Some companies are now offering nitrite-free and nitrate-free meat products, which are far healthier alternatives, but those products are difficult to find and are typically available only at health food stores or natural grocers. Consumers can look for "Nitrite-free" or "Nitrate-free" labels when shopping for meat products. They can also purchase fresh meats, which are almost never prepared with sodium nitrite.

The new research on processed meats points to a chemical toxin as the cause of the increased cancer risk. A heightened cancer risk of 6700% is "gigantic," warns Adams. "This is clearly not due to macronutrient differences. This is the kind of risk increase you only see with ingredient toxicity. Something in these processed meats is poisoning people, and the evidence points straight to sodium nitrite."

http://www.newstarget.com/007024.html

 

[sexyanon2]

^^^

Is that talking about the fast food meats? Or the meats from the natural grocery stores that are "all natural" as well?

Although that's another reason to stay clear of meat now a days. However, is the subject of this thread about current meat? or meat in general?