Plant-based meat is not healthy since it is highly processed, and manufacturers use many modifiers to make it taste like meat. However, meat is also a dangerous product that leads to type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain types of cancer, increased blood pressure, and other cardiovascular diseases (Battaglia Richi et al., 2015). Meat used in hamburgers and other fast food dishes is also heavily processed, which means that it hardly differs from plant-based meat in terms of impact on physical health. The only real difference is that plant-based meat has considerably more sodium (Gelsomin, 2019). However, it is worth noting that plant-based meat is a relatively new product, and its quality can improve in the long run. At the same time, future research may reveal other dangers of vegan meat. Therefore, from health’s perspective, it is best to stay away from both from real processed meat and plant-based meat.
However, judging from the environmental perspective, it is best to favor vegetarian meat since it does less harm to the planet. According to Swain, Blomqvist, McNamara, and Ripple (2018), livestock production takes almost one-third of all land. This fact means that the majority of forests are destroyed to feed the population with meat. Moreover, cattle breeding is associated with 14% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction in consumption of meat can lead to a decreased use of land and water, which will positively influence the environmental situation on Earth. Therefore, it becomes clear that the possibility to decrease the harm to the planet outweighs the potentially harmful ingredients in plant-based meat, especially considering that it is equally dangerous as the processed meat. However, ideally, it is best to stay away from both processed meat and vegan substitutes, as well as reduce the consumption of animal-based foods.
References
Battaglia Richi, E., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., & Keller, U. (2015). Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies. International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research, 85(1-2), 70-78.
Gelsomin, E. (2019). Impossible and beyond: How healthy are these meatless burgers? Web.
Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., McNamara, J., & Ripple, W. J. (2018). Reducing the environmental impact of global diets. Science of The Total Environment, 610-611, 1207–1209.
Antibiotics are a powerful type of medication that either kills or hinders the process of bacterial growth thereby treating infections resulting from bacteria. Bacteria are tiny organisms that are not visible without the help of a microscope, which causes illness in humans and animals alike. Farmers sometimes administer antibiotics such as tetracycline and penicillin to healthy livestock to spur growth. Farmers discovered that giving antibiotics to young farm animals such as weaning pigs helps them to put on weight quickly and grow faster in readiness for the consumer market. This means that farmers and ranchers use antibiotics to speed up the growth of pigs, chickens, cattle, and turkeys to manage a steady flow of supply to the market. The unsanitary conditions and poor diets in factory farms also make it necessary to give antibiotics to healthy livestock to keep diseases at bay. Animals living in close quarters such as factory farms get antibiotics regardless of their health status to prevent the outbreak of diseases. This is because once one animal falls sick, an outbreak is most likely to erupt leading to the entire herd succumbing to the disease (Rusell, 2009).
Administering antibiotics to healthy animals is a move to ensure that livestock stays healthy but it does not guarantee the perfect health of humans. Food harvested from this livestock such as pork has been tested and found to be contaminated with E. coli that is resistant to antibiotics. Eating such foods, therefore, transfers the genes responsible for the E. coli antibiotic resistance to other bacteria species in humans through a process known as horizontal gene transfer. These other species of bacteria also develop resistance to antibiotics because of the new gene leading to sickness with symptoms such as urinary tract infections, bloody diarrhea, or severe anemia. The treatment process requires the use of antibiotics but it is not applicable because the strain of bacteria is antibiotic-resistant making an otherwise common infection difficult to treat or even fatal therefore leading to death (CDC, 2010).
Antibiotic-resistant pathogens in people caused by antibiotics in meat are evidenced by the presence of salmonella and Campylobacter which are resistant to antibiotics in humans. These pathogens can be transferred to humans through the consumption of infected meat. Symptoms of infection include loss of appetite, diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain which suggest that the consumer is infected with salmonella enteritis or E. coli enteritis- enteritis is an infection that attacks the small intestines and causes inflammation. Studies show that the bacteria from the meat and humans are both resistant to tetracycline which proves that antibiotics in meat are the major source of antibiotic resistance in humans. Moreover, researchers from Iowa also reported that a type of staphylococcus which is resistant to antibiotics is present in pig farmers who use antibiotics on the pigs thereby further proving the point that antibiotics in meat are a major source of antibiotic resistance in humans (Adams, 2012).
It would be fair to farmers and consumers alike to outlaw the use of antibiotics in perfectly healthy livestock because the practice poses great threats. Consumers infected with pathogens resistant to antibiotics suffer serious infections and higher chances of treatment failures. This means that the consumers get sick for a prolonged period and are frequently hospitalized at expensive costs. The ultimate healthcare for the consumer is expensive because the cost of antibiotics that can kill resistant pathogens is higher. Moreover, these powerful antibiotics are more toxic and can pose dangerous side effects to the ill consumer. It is therefore wise for the consumer to embrace the expensive costs of antibiotic-free meat than pay much higher trying to treat an infection later. In the same breath, farmers should also embrace the outlaw of antibiotic use in livestock because they are also affected. Studies show that farmers who regularly use tetracycline on their chicken start excreting E.coli bacteria that is resistant to tetracycline within six months. The farmers are therefore just as susceptible to the dangers posed by these antibiotic-resistant pathogens as the consumers leading to the need for banning the use of antibiotics in healthy livestock. Moreover, it would not be logical for the farmers to sell their meat products cheaply while they pay more expensively to attend to their health issues (Silbergeld, 2008).
Antibiotics are powerful medication that is useful in treating infections caused by bacteria. Farmers have however resorted to using them as a preventive measure against diseases and as growth boosters for their livestock. This practice is however not healthy for humans because consuming meat products from such animals leads to the transfer of genes which causes resistance to antibiotics in a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Moreover, studies show that the bacteria from the meat and humans are both resistant to tetracycline which proves that antibiotics in meat are the major source of antibiotic resistance in humans. Finally, it is fair to outlaw the practice of herd-wide application of antibiotics even if it means that meat prices would be more expensive. This is because it is wise for the consumer to embrace the expensive costs of antibiotic-free meat than pay much higher trying to treat an infection later.
References
Adams, J. U. (2012, January 9). FDA Changing Course on Antibiotics in Livestock. Los Angeles Times , 15, 1-4.
CDC. (2010). About Antimicrobial Resistance: A Brief Overview. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , 34-69.
Rusell, P. J. (2009). Biology: Exploring the Diversity of Life. Toronto: Nelson Education.
Silbergeld, G. (2008). Antimicrobial Resistance and Human Health. New York: Pearson Education.
The modern culture of food consumption is very diverse, and there are many recommendations and prohibitions from different social groups. Sometimes food intake becomes part of a large-scale and widespread subculture, distinguished by a particular worldview. One of the most essential regulators of eating meat was religion. Now religion is not able to control most of the society and their food addictions. Sometimes the refusal to eat meat is due to some medical factors, for example, a previous surgery. Meat is heavy food, and it is vital to cook it the right way, using steam, and not fat and oil. Modern society provides a variety of reasons for grass-eaters to stick to their position. The noticeable difference between grass-eaters and meat-eaters is in the diet and sometimes in the way of life. In addition, these people have different medical conditions and often have different medical histories and risks.
Grass-eaters do not eat meat, no matter how it is cooked. Sometimes they consume dairy products or eggs, especially if they understand that their bodies will weaken without animal fats. The severity of the herb-eater’s diet can vary based on health, lifestyle, age. Some grass-eaters fit their dietary habits into their lifestyle and eventually give up wearing leather and silk clothing. It is a strict option in which the grass-eater must adhere to a clear ideology (de Boer et al., 2017). In turn, if meat eaters have bans on consuming specific meat (Muslims do not eat pork for religious reasons), then the prohibitions are due to personal reasons and choice. Taste, associations, unpleasant smell of a particular type of meat can affect the refusal to eat. Sometimes, meat-eaters refuse to wear leather clothing for ethical or aesthetic reasons. They are guided by the principle that brand, fashion, and aesthetics in clothing are not sufficient grounds for killing and experimenting with animals.
Many people are confronted with the myth that the health of grass-eaters is better than the health of meat-eaters. The herb-eaters’ diet forces them to be attentive to their bodies and often visit doctors. For this reason, they may appear to be the healthiest, but this is not true. Like many conscious people, grass-eaters try to be attentive to themselves. Many herb-eaters additionally purchase nutritional supplements and vitamins, and they need medical advice to make the right choice. Meat-eaters are not attentive to their health; they neglect vitamins and rarely go to the doctor without listening to their body.
The average grass-eater usually has less fat and cholesterol than the meat-eater. It allows doctors to say that people on such a diet have a lower risk of heart diseases, such as coronary artery disease or hypertension. Grass eaters are generally less likely to develop type II diabetes (de Boer et al., 2017). However, this is not strictly related to eating or avoiding meat. Cooking habits play an essential role, and sometimes food for herb-eaters is prepared in a very unhealthy way. Meat eaters can eat any meat, but avoid oil, deep fat, and a lot of hot spices. So they will maintain their body mass index and protect the body from irritants and overload. For both the meat-eating and grass-eating diets, it is recommended not to overeat.
The first and noticeable difference between meat-eaters and grass eaters is the daily diet in which the latter lack animal meat and animal fat. Grass eaters also do not eat eggs and animal milk, replacing it with coconut or almond milk. This is the case for people with lactose intolerance who do not adhere to such a diet. Sometimes grass-eaters refuse to wear clothes made of leather, but this requires a rejection of meat in the diet and a formed view of meat consumption, an ideology. The diet of grass-eaters requires medical attention, so they add vitamins to their diet, having received recommendations from the clinic. It is usually not done by meat-eaters, neglecting food additives. Statistically, the average grass-eater has less cholesterol, lowering the risk of certain diseases. Their body mass index is usually lower than that of meat-eaters.
Reference
de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2017). Towards a reduced meat diet: Mindset and motivation of young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters. Appetite, 113, 387–397. Web.
Meat is among the most delicious foods known to man. It has been known as the source of important nutrients such as proteins, vitamins, and mineral salts throughout human history. For a long time, people have been consuming meat with disregard to the effects on the animal species that supply it. People also disregarded the health hazards posed by meat. The extinction of some animal species and continued technological research have made people aware of the negative effects of consuming meat. Various researchers have proved that meat perpetrates some cancers and other diseases such as diabetes. These concerns have led numerous health organizations such as the French National Cancer Institute (FNCI) to discourage people from eating meat. Although it has a higher protein value than most plant products, eating it does more harm than good to both the consumers and meat animals.
Issues Associated with consuming Meat
Endangerment of Animal Species
The consumption of meat is a habit that causes a great reduction in the population of animals at a rate higher than that at which they reproduce. More than 150 billion animals have been slaughtered annually for consumption worldwide (ADAPTT 1). The percentage number of animals slaughtered increased by about 4.6% in 2015 and 2016. This situation reduced the total population of the slaughtered species by 1.4% (ADAPTT 1). This rate is critical and calls for actions such as a reduction or a complete boycott of meat consumption and other animal products such as eggs. If the animal populations continue to reduce at this alarming rate due to meat-eating, many animal species will become extinct in the near future.
Examples of animals whose species are on the verge of extinction due to over-slaughtering include the southern Bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii), and the blue whale (Baleonoptera musculus). If the current slaughter rate continues, such animals will be extinct, just like the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes moratorium), which was over-slaughtered to extinction in the 20th century. These animals are very important in the aquatic ecosystem because they bring equilibrium by reducing the population of other species such as krill, crustaceans, and planktons. Other animals that are slaughtered every day also have important roles to play in their respective niches.
The call to stop eating meat not only helps to protect the animals from extinction but also enables the animals to live their lives to the fullest. These animals serve as pets and are beautiful to have around. Having them around gives scientists a chance to conduct studies and solve different mysteries such as diseases and feeding habits, thereby improvising ways of improving their health. This undertaking will help in conserving the animal species for future generations. Apart from the need to safeguard the lives of animals, the call to stop eating meat also arises from the concerns about how these animals are handled and slaughtered. All animals have senses, including the feeling of pain, just like humans. Many methods of slaughtering animals for consumption are barbaric and painful and go against animal rights. Most of the commonly used methods, such as harpooning of whales and cutting animal throats, are painful and humiliating. Although the animals do not complain, their colleagues that witness the ordeal are greatly affected.
Health Concerns brought by Meat-Eating
Cancer
Meat is the leading foodstuff that causes diet-related cancer, which affects 30% of the population in developed countries and 20% in developing nations (Physician Committee for Responsible Medicine p1). Studies show that meat is likely to increase cancer risk by more than 40% (PCRM 1). According to the same study, meat-eaters are three times likely to develop colon cancer than vegetarians. Meat contains several harmful contents that can perpetuate or cause cancer. Carcinogenic compounds present in meat include polyaromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons are produced when organic foodstuff is burnt, such as grilling and barbecuing of meat. Heterocyclic amines are produced when meat is cooked at high temperatures. These two classes of compounds are highly carcinogenic (PCRM 1). Gradual exposure to these chemicals from meat can eventually lead to cancer. Meat also contains high levels of fats, which lead to high rates of hormone production. This situation advances the risk of developing malignancies related to hormones such as prostate and breast cancers, which can be perpetrated by a continuous upsurge of estrogen and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) as a result of eating fat-rich meat.
Breast Cancer
Meat consumption increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Fats from meat are among the biggest causes of cancer. Studies conducted on the relationship between meat and breast cancer have indicated that women who eat meat are about 9 times likely to develop breast cancer than those who do not eat (PRCM 1). One proposal for the breast cancer risk associated with meat is the fat in it, which increases the levels of hormones to a limit where cancer develops. A better plant alternative to meat is the soya, which is rich in proteins and has been found to guard against premenopausal breast cancer if consumed from adolescence to adulthood (PRCM 1).
Colorectal Cancer
Studies have shown that frequent consumption of large quantities of meat (including processed meat) is likely to cause colorectal cancer (Corpet 310). The risk of contracting cancer as a consequence of eating meat is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. Although this percentage seems small, it is alarming. As a result, organizations such as the French National Cancer Institute (FNCI) have been prompted to recommend a reduction in meat consumption to less than 500 grams in a week (Corpet 311). The consumption of both red and processed meat is associated with increasing the risk of developing colorectal cancer as a result of the surplus protein, iron, and mutagenic elements induced by heat.
Gout
Grassi et al. refer to gout as a painful illness caused by swellings on the joints as a result of the accumulation of uric acid (2432). The condition arises when the level of uric acid rises above normal, sometimes due to a problem with the excretory system, and more commonly, due to over-production of uric acid (Grassi et al. 2433). Urate crystals build up and accumulate in the joints to form swellings. The biggest contributor to uric acid in the body is meat. It is known to be the biggest supplier of harmful purines that are broken down to uric acid. A lot of health complications such as diabetes and hyperactivity syndrome worsen with increasing meat diets.
Benefits of Eating Meat
Although meat consumption is associated with numerous health hazards and violations of animal rights, meat is a source of important nutrients such as proteins, mineral salts, fats, and vitamins. While plants are alternative sources of these nutrients, meat has been shown to contain the highest value of proteins per gram of foodstuff (Cao et al. 400). It has a higher protein reward value than plant proteins. This situation makes it more suitable for physically active people as compared to plant proteins. Plant proteins cannot match the great taste of meat. According to Cao et al., the occurrence of the health risks associated with meat also depends on other factors such as genetics, which largely determines the development of diseases such as cancer and diabetes (401).
Conclusion
Meat consumption has many undesirable effects on the global ecosystem. It has led to the extinction of many amazing animal species in human history. It is still putting many other animal species on the extinction vortex. It is important to conserve these animals not only for the benefit of future generations but also for the conservation of their ecosystems. They play an important role in the food chain and can help scientists solve problems related to their habitats. Although meat contains high protein levels and is a source of fats, it poses many adverse health effects such as some cancers and diabetes to human beings. There are good protein substitutes from plants that can supply the same proteins and other nutrients supplied by meat. Due to these concerns, many health organizations have been prompted to advise consumers to minimize or stop consuming meat.
Works Cited
ADAPTT. More Than 150 Billion Animals Slaughtered Every Year, 2012, Web.
Cao, Jay J., et al. “Calcium homeostasis and bone metabolic responses to high-protein diets during energy deficit in healthy young adults: a randomized controlled trial.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 99.2 (2014): 400-407.
Corpet, Denis. “Red meat and colon cancer: should we become vegetarians, or can we make meat safer?” Meat Science 89.3 (2011): 310-316.
Grassi, Davide, et al. “Chronic hyperuricemia, uric acid deposit and cardiovascular risk.” Current Pharmaceutical Design 19.13 (2013): 2432-2438.
PCRM. Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk, 2016, Web.
Muslims make up 25% of the world population and according to their religion, Islam; their diet is restricted. The Quran outlines specific regulations regarding halal meat. Muslims follow strictly the requirement that all meat meant for their consumption must be halal. The market trends in the world need to understand halal meat in order to increase sales in areas occupied by Muslims.
Muslims are not allowed to buy meat which is not halal as this also contravenes the teachings of the Quran. Whenever a consumer who is a Muslim visits a supermarket, the first thing he or she checks in the meat products is whether the products have the halal mark or not. This paper describes the methods used to verify halal products and the process followed to ensure meat is halal. The paper also seeks to establish why the Muslim religion and culture insists on the consumption of halal meat by its members.
Introduction
The religion of Muslims guides them through rules known as Shariah laws. Islamic law is outlined in the Holy Quran and Hadith which is the practice recommended by Prophet Muhammad. Eating for Muslims is considered as part of worship and every Muslim is required by the Shariah law to eat halal meat.
The general guidelines for halal were adopted by a subsidiary body of Food and Agricultural Organization and World Health Organization known as Codex Alimentarius Commission. Its purpose was to protect consumers’ health and ensure global food trade was done fairly especially in reference to the requirements for halal.All halal meat has to be labeled as so.
The economic worth of the Halal food market
Muslims and non-Muslims consider halal food to be an important part of their diet. There exists a great business opportunity for non-Muslims to supply halal meat in order for them to familiarize themselves with demand and supply chains of halal meat.
Globally, Muslims are estimated to be over 1.5 billion. Their population is expected to grow at a rate of 3% annually. Halal meat is also consumed by Non-Muslims. For example, Mieder & Alan, (1994), reported that in the UK, there are 2 million Muslims yet there are 6 million consumers of halal meat.
Consumption of halal meat has increased over the years mainly due to increased income of Muslims globally. Many Muslims have immigrated into non-Muslim countries and due to their increased awareness of halal meat; the consumption of halal meat is expected to grow significantly over the years. Businessmen who sell all types of food products should understand halal meat’s requirements.
The requirements for halal meat production is specified in the Holy Quran in which Muslims are informed of the type of food which is prohibited and are thus instructed to eat only halal food. All land animals are apart from those belonging to the cat family like lions, cheeteahs and pigs are considered halal.
Animals with tusks and claws are considered as haram and must not be eaten. Haram animals according to the Hanafi School include but are not limited to;- wolf,hyena,cat,monkey,scorpion,leopard,tiger,cheetah,lion,leopard,bear,swine or pig, squirrel, hedgehog, snake, tortoise turtle, dog, crab ,jackal, donkey, lizard, fox, crocodile, weasel, elephant ,falcon, hawk, kite,bat,vulture,mouse,rat,all insects like mosquitoes, fly, wasp, spider and beetle.
Muslims are allowed to eat meat from the following animals:-Camel, goat, sheep, buffalo, stag (deer),rabbit, cow (including mountain cow),fish (of all types, including prawns according to those who consider prawns to be a form of fish).
Other animals that are considered halal include the nightingale, quail, parrot, francolin,locust,partridge (heavy-bodied small-winged South American game bird),lark (North American yellow-breasted songbirds)sparrow,goose,ostrich,dove,pigeon,stork,rooster/chicken,peacock and starling. Slaughtering of land animals must be carried out as detailed out in the Shariah law.
An animal must be alive before it is slaughtered. This act should be done by a Muslim who is sane and also above 18 years of age. The activity should be executed by cutting the esophagus in one cut while saying the words “Bismillah, Allahu Akbar” which means are words that praise God for providing food.
For poultry, scalding should be done only after confirming that the animal is dead and when there is no more bleeding. This idea also applies during the dressing of carcass for ruminants. This action also applies to all the tools used for slaughter. In case there is need to change an abattoir from “non-halal” to halal, a special cleansing ceremony should be performed.
This ritual is known as dibagh.For dibagh to be seen as completed, the equipment used for slaughter should be washed seven times using pure water mixed with soil so that is devoid of any impurities. This includes transportation, packaging and even display. These rules should be followed as outlined in the Shariah law.
The casings for halal products must be made from collagen, cellulose and intestines from halal animals that have been slaughtered according to the Shariah law. The package for halal meat should be non-hazardous to health and each container should be marked legibly to show that it is a halal product whose quality has been checked.
The ingredients used in the processing of halal meat must be halal. All ingredients derived from forbidden sources like animals which are not slaughtered according to Shariah law are not halal. This fact also applies to blood and blood related ingredients. Many food ingredients have been declared as haram (prohibited) by Islamic authorities and these include bacon or natural bacon flavor.
Gelatin is considered as edible in respect to EEC’s Codex Alimentarius and is an animal product. Food products that are made from pork fat which are described as haram comprise sodium stearoyl lactylate, mono and diglycerides and lard.
Enzymes derived from haram animals, grain or plant based ingredients with pig based carrier such as beta carotene (pig Gelatin) and butylated hydroxyl anisole or butylated hydroxyl toulene (pig based carrier), alcohol, blood plasma and blood plasma enzymes should not be eaten according to Ezquerro, A. (2010).
Certain ingredients such as yeast’s extract from brewer’s yeast and cochineal or carmine color have been classified as doubtful by Islamic authorities. Avoiding them is highly encouraged. Prophet Muhammad in a hadith narrated by Bukhari advised the believers to avoid doubtful things. “Both halal and haram things are clear but in between them there are doubtful (suspicious) things and most of the people have no knowledge about them.
Halal Certification
Due to the upsurge in Muslim populations around the world, the Muslim Consumer Group has emerged. It verifies food products to ensure they meet dhabiha standards.
They certify by labeling the halal consumer products using the H-MCG symbol. Halal certification confirms that the contents and methods of processing have been tested and found to be fit for human consumption by a certifying body. Companies which export products to countries inhabited by Muslims are permitted by a Halal certifier. An example of a halal certifier is Islamic Services of America.
Principle of quality assurance
There is risk of contamination of halal meat within the meat chain. A good example of this contamination is when halal meat comes in contact with pork, which is haram. It is difficult for the consumer to verify the status of halal meat before purchase.
To safeguard against this potential risk, there was need for quality assurance hence the establishment of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP).This the body mandated to ensure maintenance of quality assurance within the meat chain. This body is governed by seven principles as listed below:
HCP1: Halal Animal
HCP2: Animal Welfare Slaughter Process
HCP3: Stunning
HCP4: Knife
HCP5: Slaughter Person
HCP6: Slaughter Method
HCP7: Invocation
Gilbert, P. (2009), suggested a HACCP approach with a good number of halal control points considered to be critical at the time of slaughtering the animal by ensuring that the animal is halal. Gilbert, P. (2009), suggested that the entire meat chain should be controlled and should not just dwell at the abattoir only.
It should also focus on risks associated with the origin of the animal at the farm where it was kept and also the mode of transportation to the slaughterhouse to ensure that there is no contamination whatsoever with haram animals. The following are the halal critical control points (HCPs).
Halal breeding – HCP1
The species of the animal must be acceptable. Haram species cannot become halal just because they have been slaughtered using halal principles. In the Hadith, according to Abu-Dawud, it is recorded that “Allah does not allow eating any animal, which eats filthy food and drinks its own milk animals that feed on meat or animal protein are not to be eaten”. Halal and haram meat should not come into contact with each other at all stages of the halal meat chain.
Animal welfare – HCP2
According to Islam, animals must be handled in a humane manner not only during slaughter but even before the slaughter; they should be fed and given water. The knife should not be sharpened in view of the animal. Slaughtering one animal should be done in the absence of other animals. To quote the Hadith Shaddid b. Aus said: ‘‘when you slaughter an animal, do so in a humane way” (Ezquerro, 2010).
Stunning – HCP3
According to Corey, M.S et al. (2010), the Shariah law allows stunning; so long as stunning does not kill the animal, Muslims are discouraged from consuming blood and carcasses.They are encouraged to handle animals in a humane manner before, during and after slaughter.
Knife – HCP4
The knife to be used for slaughtering any animal should have the appropriate levels of sharpness to prevent the animal from excessive and painful bleeding before it dies. The size of the knife should be of the same size to that of animal’s neck.
Slaughter person – HCP5
The individual meant to conduct the actual the act of slaughtering the animal must be a person who is considered forthright and of sound mind. The individual can either be a Muslim or a Christian. Muslims differ on the interpretation of this law. One class of Muslims believes that the meat which is slaughtered by them is not allowed unless they mention the name of God during the slaughtering.
Certain other Muslims believe that the meat slaughtered by Jews or Christians, halal is fit for human consumption since it is allowed by the Quran. They also believe that the prophet Muhammad used to eat meat prepared by Jews or Christians but while eating such meat, Muslims must mention the name of God.
Slaughter method – HCP6
The activity of slaughtering the animal is conducted by cutting the front side of the neck. The animal should face Mecca before slaughtering. Ruminants and poultry should be slaughtered by hand. It has become common in Western countries to perform machine slaughter and this practice has gained acceptance by Muslims around the world.
Invocation – HCP7
During slaughter, the name of Allah must be invoked. The usual formula is ‘‘In the name of Allah; Allah is the greatest’’. This is done for the following reasons:-1.To remind the slaughterer to observe the prescribed requirements and to show that the animal is being dedicated to God (Blanton & Jaccard, 2008). 2. To confirm that the animal is being slaughtered for food and not for leisure.
Packaging and labeling – HCP8
A reputable supervisory body ought to supervise the packaging and labeling of all halal meat. The body therefore becomes an independent control to ensure adherence to quality assurance. The certification should be done for each meat product.
Retailing – HCP9
To prevent contamination of halal meat with haram meat, proper care must be exercised from the abattoir to the retail location. The Muslim religion and culture is thus seen to be elaborative and clear on what is halal and haram given the review of the two subjects in the paper.
References
Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2008). Unconscious Racism: A Concept in Pursuit of a Measure. Annual Review of Sociology. Texas, USA: Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University.
Corey, M.S et al. (2010). Groups: Process and Practice (8th ed Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Ezquerro, A. (2010). Cohesion and coherency in group analysis. Group Analysis, 43, Connecticut, USA: Cengage Learning.
Gilbert, P. (2009). Compassion-focused therapy: distinctive features.CBT Distinctive Features Series. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hastings, A. (1997).The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion, and Nationalism, Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Mieder, W, & Alan, D. (1994).The wisdom of many: essays on the proverb. (Originally published in 1981 by Garland. Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Press.
Pryor, F., & Britain, B. (1998).Life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans by Francis. Oxford, United Kingdom: Harper Perennial.
It is very difficult to say whether all human beings should be vegetarians or non vegetarians. However there is no strong case to conclusively prove either of the beliefs. Most studies have so far suggested that humans are primarily omnivorous, meaning that humans tend to eat what ever is available. As vegetarians humans can only eat fruits and certain varieties of leaves but not everything that grows. The human intestine is not designed to digest so many of the different plants. On the contrary a human being if left to fend for himself in remote areas such as jungles and mountains will be able to survive by eating meat, but will not be able to survive on plants as it would be difficult to identify as which is fit for human consumption. Non vegetarians argue that we as humans have the traces of canine teeth which none of the herbivorous living beings have. All animals that only eat plants are known to have stomachs that allow them to ruminate while humans do not have this facility thus indicating that we were made to become non vegetarians. It is thus clear that there is no authentic opinion about either of the eating habits and ultimately the choice boils down to individual preferences which are primarily guided by health and social concerns.
Main body
Although I never make attempts to canvas in support of vegetarianism but I have been fully convinced that in the world that we live in today, and in keeping with our body adaptability as related to our lifestyle, it is better to adopt vegetarianism as the primary dietary habit. With me it is not that I am a strict vegetarian and that I will not touch meat, but as a lifestyle choice I prefer to remain a vegetarian as far as possible. I have made the decision in favor of vegetarianism due to the large number of advantages that result from eating such food especially in view of the dormant physical environment that we live in today. I also supplement my vegetarian eating habits with a routing that is physically active and includes regular exercise and work outs.
Vegetarianism has distinct advantages in regard to nutrition, spirituality and morality. Nutrition does not result effectively amongst meat eaters since the digestive system is not able to substantially break down the acids and cholesterol as present in non vegetarian food. Medical experts have proved that the incidence of colon cancer amongst meat eaters is much higher since there is lower evacuation and slower putrefaction of the remnants of meat in the colon. Vegetarians are known to be totally free from such illnesses. Once an animal is killed its oils and flesh become unhealthy in terms of getting putrefied. Contrary to the belief that meat is a great source of proteins, the quality of the protein in meat products is considered to be very poor since there is lack of proper combination of amino acids which are the main elements in building proteins. It has been amply proved that more and better quality of proteins is found in Soya beans and tofu than in meat products.
It is well known that meat takes a longer time to digest and can remain in the intestines for up to four days, the effect of which can be seen if we leave a piece of meat in the sun for four days. During the time the meat is in the intestines it waits for a passage while it continues to cause harm to the digestive system by way of the uric acid that it contains and the constant fermentation that results within the intestine which is extremely harmful in the long run. This is the main cause of colon related illnesses.
The presence of meat in the intestines provides ground for the breeding of several undesired orgasms which cannot be overcome by the friendly bacteria which are supposed to cater to the development needs of a healthy body. Meat products provide a much greater amount of proteins than required by the human body and it is common medical knowledge that excess presence of proteins in the body will prove to be dangerous by way of the uric acid attacking the kidneys and destroying its cells called nephrons, thus resulting in the disease nephritis which ultimately renders the kidneys to become function less.
In contrast, vegetarians feel much lighter and better after they eat since there is lesser formation of protein digestive substances (keytones) when vegetarian proteins are digested. With the eating of excessive meat, more of ketones are formed which makes the person to have a nauseating feeling that reduces the desire to eat further until the adverse effect is diminished. Further complications result in the occurrence of acidosis which is the high level of acidic blood in the body resulting from higher levels of blood ketone in the system.
Lions and tigers eat meat and it serves them well because their digestive systems are acid based in having intestines that are only five feet in length and which are straight unlike the human intestines which are twenty feet long and are twisted and turned in layers within a small compact area. Such an intestine design does not facilitate proper digestion of meat in the human body. More disturbing is the fact that the meat of animals is sometimes found to have some cancerous growth which is just removed by the butchers and the remaining parts are sent to be sold for human consumptions. There is possibly no check to stop such practices thus proving to be health risks that meat eaters run in consuming such meat.
Meat is much costlier than vegetables and upon removing it from one’s diet a whole new world of eating habits is opened up. In fact lesser time is taken in cooking vegetarian food; it costs almost half as compared to meat and there is a wide array of continental, Spanish, French, Indian and Chinese styles of vegetarian food to choose from which are more nutritious than non vegetarian food. Meat products do not allow one to have a wide variety of foods as compared to vegetarian food and one need to be creative and to have the knack to enjoy the vast variety of seeds, nuts, wheat, legumes and beans to realize the utility of this variety. There is a choice in having cereals, vegetables, lentils and several other roots and beans to supplement the vegetarian diets which prove to be of better vitality to the human body. Cooking vegetarian food does not require any special technique as required in most non vegetarian food items which take a longer time and do not prove to be as nutritious.
It is known that more vegetarians are spiritually inclined which caters very well for human existence. Spirituality entails that we move away from meat eating habits towards vegetarianism so that one is led towards higher levels of self. Vegetarianism ensures a cool temperament, and reduces aggressive attitudes which are believed to be the prime reason for an unfulfilled life. Animal instincts are known to become stronger every time a person eats meat. When an animal is being killed to be consumed as meat it undergoes intense fear which is engulfed within its cells and which in turn is consumed by humans as meat. This invariably has adverse impact on the human psyche in bringing about some effect in behavior. Spiritual people are known to have an aura around them, the course for which is set by of the vegetarian diet that forms their life style and food habits. Conversely the animal aura is adopted when one consumes meat products.
There is a moral aspect attached to eating meat in that one must consider the moral responsibility and the karma associated with the killing of animals. This is irrespective of the fact that every body has his or her own concepts in life as far as food habits are concerned; at the same time one must consider the impact that is being created on the body, mind and soul in consuming what we consume. The body and mind are essentially made by what we eat, which further makes way for our thinking pattern and attitudes, which further make us to behave in our own specific styles. Our actions and behavior decide the results that we get in life which determine the levels of happiness that we have. Hence there is a strong linkage between eating habits and happiness. It does appear to be far fetched, but then all the good things in life come only upon making constructive changes within ourselves.
Conclusion
Vegetarianism can solve the world food crisis because almost half the world production of corn is fed to animals in order that they grow healthy to be ultimately butchered to be eaten as good quality meat by humans. Given that about forty thousand people die every day due to starvation, it would do well for the same corn and other agricultural produce to be fed to the children and others that die of food shortage. Although appearing to be almost impossible, there would be an end to the adverse situation if people become vegetarians and transfer these resources for human consumption. There would be an improvement in environmental conditions since more land is used in rearing animals for human consumption than what is used for agriculture. It is also known that nitrogen emitted by animal manure causes acid rain in many parts of the world thus polluting drinking water used by humans. The lesser the animals, the lesser will be the incidents of such rain.
Food is the most basic need of man and all people have to eat in order to live. Obtaining something to eat is therefore an integral activity of the human experience. Naturally, human beings can live on meat and vegetables since they are omnivores. Eating meat and vegetables provides the required nutrition for a healthy body.
However, it is possible to obtain all the required nutrition from a diet that does not consist of animal or fish flesh. People who abstain from eating animal or fish flesh are known as vegetarians and they practice vegetarianism. On the other hand, people who supplement their vegetable diet with meat products are called meat-eaters. Majority of the human beings on earth are meat-eaters. In the past few decades, there has been a move towards the promotion of vegetarianism.
This move has been prompted by the alleged benefits of a vegetarian diet. This paper will set out to argue that being a vegetarian is more beneficial for the individual and the environment and as such, more people should adopt this practice. To reinforce this claim, the paper will highlight the many advantages attributed to vegetarianism and contrast them with the negative effects of meat eating.
A Case for Vegetarianism
Adopting a vegetarian diet will help a person avoid some diseases caused or promoted by meat consumption. Diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease can be caused or exacerbated by meat consumption. Researchers reveal that while genetic factors contribute to the contraction of these diseases, the dietary habits of a person increase or decrease an individual’s risk of developing the diseases (Hart 64).
People who eat mean are more likely to develop obesity and heart disease than those who practice vegetarianism. In addition to this, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves the body’s blood circulation and actively prevents cardiac diseases. Vegetarians are therefore less likely to suffer from heart diseases compared to meat eaters. Practicing a meat-free diet will therefore improve the health outcomes of the individual.
A vegetarian diet offers protection from the numerous public health risks associated with meat eating. Meat consumption exposes a person to many risks due to the diseases and medication offered to animals. Modern food manufacturing undermines the healthiness of meat. Unlike in the past where livestock was reared in a natural manner, farmers today engage in the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and food supplements to their farm animals.
Henning explains that farmers engage in this practice in x order to reduce the susceptibility of their animals to diseases and promote growth (1086). While these practices achieve these desirable results, they do so at a major cost to meat eaters. Consuming the meat of animals that have been pumped full of antibiotics increases antibiotic-resistant human bacterial illnesses therefore creating a significant public health threat.
A person can avoid these risks associated with meat consumption by becoming a vegetarian. A vegetarian diet is associated with greater longevity. Studies indicate that a meat-free diet significantly decreases the risk of death leading to longer life for the individual who practices vegetarianism. This relationship between vegetarianism and long life is due to a number of reasons.
Singh and Sabate highlight that a vegetarian diet assists in the maintenance of a healthy weight and this contributes to long life by preventing the person from developing lifestyle diseases that lead to early deaths (265). A vegetarian diet also keeps a person safe from the many toxic components present in meat products. Singh and Sabate warn that animals reared for meat ingest large quantities of commercial feedlot additives (266).
In addition to this, the meat contains saturated fat and consuming this is a risk factor for fatal diseases. Meat eaters are therefore likely to die earlier due to complications caused by their dietary practices. A vegetarian diet can help mitigate the adverse environmental impacts caused by meat eating. Meat consumption in the world has increased exponentially in the last 6 decades.
Due to the improved economic wellbeing of most people, the demand for meat has grown in countries all over the world. Animal product producers have therefore increased their scale of production in order to satisfy this demand. The environment has been significantly affected as cattle ranches have expanded. Henning illustrates that cattle ranching has led to widespread deforestation and it has contributed to “soil erosion, degradation of stream habitat, and desertification” (1087).
Animal production has also contributed to the unsustainable use of water resources. Huge water reserves have to be dedicated to animal production leading to the depletion of water resources. In addition to this, animals produce vast amounts of waste and in most cases, this effluent is allowed to leak into the environment thus polluting water reservoirs and degrading the environment. A vegetarian diet would ensure that this negative environmental impacts attributed to animal production are alleviated.
A vegetarian diet can help increase the global food security. At the moment, the food production is able to satisfy the food demands of the human population. However, the high rate of population increase is raising concerns about the ability of the Earth to produce enough food for the entire human population. Because of meat consumption, high pressure is being put on the global food supply (McCarthy 122).
Meat production requires large areas of land to be dedicated to livestock rearing. This puts a strain on the limited land resources of the world. A lot of water is also needed to sustain the high level of meat production required by the modern world. Animals reared for food also consume products that can be eaten by human beings. Brown reveals that farm animals consume more cereal products that human beings do (28).
If the current rate of meat-consumption is pursued, the world will not be able to produce enough food for everyone. A vegetarian diet is more sustainable since it does not over-stretch the available land and water resources. In addition to this, vegetarianism will lead to higher cereal production since farm animals will not be fed on cereals that can be used to feed people.
This will promote sustainable production and consumption of food products leading to global food security. A vegetarian diet is more cost-effective than meat eating. A person uses less money to maintain a vegetarian diet than to engage in a meat-based diet. Even through the cost of meat has reduced significantly over the decades, meat is still more expensive than non-meat products.
Lusk and Norwood confirm that “it is significantly more expensive to produce a pound of meat (or milk) than a pound of commodity crops” (112). McCarthy documents that the low cost of meat can be attributed to heavy government subsidization to meat producers (132). The final cost of these subsidies is incurred by citizens through taxation. Vegetarianism also helps a person to save money by promoting health.
The meat-eater is forced to incur recurring medical expenses due to the numerous health issues promoted by meat consumption. Meat eating also leads to income reduction as the productivity of the meat-eater is reduced due to illness. These negative economic impacts can be overcome by adopting a vegetarian diet. This diet will ensure that the harmful effects of meat eating on an individual’s health are avoided.
Arguments Supporting Meat Eating
Meat plays a role in social events as people in a group setting enjoy it. People are able to celebrate and develop relationships as they consume meat communally. This unique role of meat in social events occurs because meat fulfills a deeper role than just providing the necessary nutrition and satisfying hunger among human beings. Meat has traditionally held a central position in global food culture.
Holm asserts that meat is “the most highly prices, the most sacred and powerful” food in many cultures (277). The cultural significance of meat makes it a special meal that plays a crucial role in interactions among people. There is no disputing the fact that meat holds a dominant position in our culture. However, culture is not static and it is constantly changing to suit the circumstances of the time.
The modern society does not have to perpetuate the dietary patterns utilized in the past. People can therefore take action to override the dominant meat-eating culture. Meat eating is a sign of affluence in many societies. While the price of meat has significantly reduced over the decades, it is still higher than the price of most vegetable products.
In a typical meal, meat produce are the minor component while the major components of the meal is vegetables. The association between mean-eating and prosperity results in meat being considered a food above all others. By consuming meat, humankind is able to demonstrate power and dominance over the rest of the natural world.
Fiddes explains that historically, meat has always been the favored food of the wealthy and powerful elites in society (277). Meat therefore acts as a luxury good that human beings are motivated to acquire. While it is true that meat eating is seen as a sign of affluence, a vegetarian diet can also demonstrate affluence. In the western world, the vegetarian diet is mostly practiced by the well-educated and elite members of the society.
On the other hand, meat is consumed by most people since it is widely available. Meat plays an integral role in human development by providing some essential nutrients to the consumer. Singh and Sabate document that meat is the most important source of the essential proteins required by the human body (266). A study by a team of nutritional experts revealed that meat consumption ensures that a person gets the recommended level of essential minerals (EBLEX par. 3).
Meat eating therefore ensures that the person’s immune system is boosted since essential minerals are acquired through the consumption of meat products. Critics of vegetarianism declare that meat is “an important source of high-quality protein and essential micronutrients” (EBLEX para. 4). Meat is a rich source of iron, key vitamins, and minerals such as potassium, selenium, and zinc, which contribute to long-term health.
While meat is a rich source of essential minerals and vitamins, it also results in many adverse effects to the human body. Meat consumers are negatively predisposed to diseases such as diabetes and obesity. On the other hand, is a person obtains all the necessary minerals and vitamins from non-meat products, he/she will achieve overall health without the health risks associated with meat consumption.
Conclusion
This paper set out to argue that a vegetarian diet is preferable to meat eating. The paper began by defining vegetarianism and showing that this practice has gained prominence in the recent years. The paper then highlighted that vegetarianism can help prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity and heart disease. A vegetarian diet will also contribute to the reduction in the environmental damages caused by meat eating and increase global food security.
The paper has also provided some of the arguments in support of meat eating. It has shown that meat eating has some social and cultural attachments and contributes to the developing of society. Meat eating plays a role in social events and it is also associated with affluence. In addition to this, meat consumption contributes to overall health by providing the body with essential vitamins and minerals.
In spite of these positive attributes of meat, the evidence presented in this paper suggests that meat eating is detrimental to the well being of the individual and the society. Considering the numerous merits associated with vegetarianism, all development-minded citizens should take steps to adopt a vegetarian diet and encourage the abolishment of the meat-eating culture.
Works Cited
Brown, Lester. “How to feed 8 billion people.” The Futurist 44.1 (2010): 28-33.
EBLEX. ‘Seven ages’ study shows red meat benefits. Mar. 2013. Web.
Fiddes, Nick. Social aspects of meat eating. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 53.1 (2001): 271-280.
Hart, Jane. “The Health Benefits of a Vegetarian Diet.” Alternative and Complementary Therapies 15.2 (2009): 64-68.
Henning, Brian. “Standing in Livestock’s ‘Long Shadow’ The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet.” Ethics & The Environment 16.2 (2011): 1085-1133.
Holm, Leo. “The role of meat in everyday food culture: an analysis of an interview study in Copenhagen.” Appetite 34.1 (2000): 277-283.
Lusk, Jayson and Norwood Bailey. “Some Economic Benefits and Costs of Vegetarianism.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38.2 (2009): 109–124.
McCarthy, Kerry. Plant-Based Diets: A solution to our public health crisis. Washington: World Progressive Foundation, 2010. Print.
Singh, Pramil and Sabate Joan. “Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?” Am J Clin Nutr 78.3 (2003): 265-325.
The following paper analyzes the coverage of lab manufactured meat in eleven different articles from a selection of online and traditional media as well as academic journals.
The articles range in date from 2005 through to 2011 and cover various elements of the issues surrounding lab manufactured or in vitro meat, including the ethical concerns, the economic ramifications, the scientific viability of lab manufactured meat and the perceived environmental benefits of this technology.
The report found that the portrayal of lab manufactured meat in the media spent the balance of coverage on the so-called ‘yuck’ factor, namely, that lab manufactured meat does not come from a real animal, but from a laboratory; this coverage skewed the reader unfavourably toward the environmental and ethical benefits of lab manufactured meat.
Introduction/Background
The purpose of this research is threefold: one, the research seeks to ascertain how lab manufactured meat is portrayed in the media, specifically in regard to its environmental benefits, and how these perceived benefits measure up against the palatability of in vitro meat to the current meat eating consumer.
Two, the research seeks to uncover the facts about lab manufactured meat – what is it, how is it made and what are the pros and cons associated with this burgeoning food industry. Thirdly, this report aims to identify the viability of lab manufactured meat as a replacement for mass meat or factory farming, with an eye to cost effectiveness, ethical elements, the impact to labour worldwide and effective management of the finite resources associated with the mass meat farming techniques, particularly water, grazing areas and reduction of green house gas production.
The technology associated with lab manufactured meat has been around since the 1980s. Essentially lab manufactured meat takes ‘stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal, or a piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal, and [places] them in a three-dimensional growth medium – a sort of scaffolding made of proteins.
Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and minerals, the stem cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, which eventually form muscle fibres. Those fibres are then harvested for a minced-meat product’ (Raizel, 2005, p.76).
Lab manufactured meat is created within a piece of equipment called a ‘bioreactor, a fancy name for something as small as a Petri dish or as large as an industrial 10,000 litre vessel. Producing the tissue takes between four and five weeks, whether or not you are making one kilogram or one tonne’ (Lee, 2010, p.6).
The science around lab manufactured meat is still in its infancy; lab manufactured is expensive to produce and currently a means to mass produce lab manufactured meat does not exist. ‘One kilogram (2.2 pounds) of in vitro meat costs thousands of dollars to grow, with much of that money spent on the broth’s ingredients. [Scientists] …predict that the expenses will come down in about 10 years and that in vitro meat could sell for as little as $1 per kilogram’ (Jozefowicz, 2007, p. 7).
Lab manufactured meat offers a real alternative to factory farming, and herein lies the issue at the heart of the research. According to Specter (2009) ‘part of the motivation for growing meat in laboratories is animal welfare: billions of cows, chickens and pigs would no longer spend their lives force-fed grain and antibiotics or cooped up in factory farms’ (Specter, 2009, n.p.).
The mass meat farming industry generates billions of dollars per year and employs millions of individuals all over the globe. According to Steinfeld et al (2006) ‘the livestock sector…accounts for 40 per cent of agricultural gross domestic product…it employs 1.3 billion people and creates livelihoods for one billion of the world’s poor. Livestock products [also] provide one third of humanity’s protein intake’ (Steinfeld et al, 2006, p. 22).
Globally, the mass meat or factory farming industries utilize vast amounts of natural resources. According to Steinfeld et al (2006), the aggregate area of land allotted to grazing is ‘equivalent to 26 per cent of the ice free terrestrial surface of the planet.
In addition, the total area dedicated to feed crop production amounts to 33 per cent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 per cent of all agricultural land’ (Steinfeld et al, 2006, p. 23). As the human population increases, the vast usage of resources will only continue to climb, causing more environmental damage in its wake.
Steinfeld et al (2006) state that ‘70 per cent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures and feed crops [cover] a large part of the remainder’ (Steinfeld et al, 2006, p. 23). All of this points to the fact that meat consumption has become problematic. According to Specter (2011) ‘the global livestock industry is responsible for nearly twenty per cent of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
Cattle consume nearly ten per cent of the world’s freshwater resources, and eighty per cent of all farmland is devoted to the production of meat. The consequences of eating meat, and our increasing reliance on factory farms, are almost as disturbing for human health’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32).
As an organization, the mass meat farming lobby gives voice to the millions of people who depend on this way of farming for their livelihoods – the farmers themselves, the grocery stores that sell the meat to the consumer, the people that manufacture the farming equipment – the list goes on (Miller, 2008, p.8).
Taken in global context the mass meat farming industry affects billions the world over; the mass meat farming industry is a ‘structure based on collective and communal relationships…complex team structures…that eschew hierarchy in favour of flat organizational forms and structures that cross boundaries of time and space’ (Miller, 2008, p.10).
In this sense, the mass meat farming lobby can be thought of a more complex organization; the traditional way of mass meat farming that the meat industry supports has a social and political presence that lab manufactured meat would have a significant destabilizing effect upon. While it is true that lab manufactured meat can be produced ‘by placing a few cells in a nutrient mixture that helps them proliferate…which could, in theory, be sold, cooked, and consumed like any processed meat,’ there are many other cultural, social and economic factors that this technology touches upon (Specter, 2011, p. 32).
Lab manufactured meat offers an opportunity for many of the more harmful elements of meats such as saturated fat to be chemically altered so that they are reduced or do not exist at all, which offers real benefit to the millions of people worldwide who suffer from obesity, heart disease and high blood pressure.
International patents have been issued for the development of this technology, and stakeholders from Europe and the U.S., ‘propelled by an unlikely combination of stem-cell biologists, tissue engineers, animal-rights activists, and environmentalists, [have] emerged in support of scientific teams working at universities all over the globe’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32).
Lab manufactured meat triggers powerful discussions that reach far beyond the confines of the food industry, and affect ‘what most people see as the boundaries of nature and the basic definitions of life’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32). The goal of lab manufactured meat, according to biologist Mark Post, is ‘to create the volume previously provided by a million animals’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32).
Scientific goals aside, the moral and ethical debate growing around the implementation of lab manufactured meat may ‘ultimately prove…intractable’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32).
Lab manufactured meat therefore is an issue with far reaching tentacles; the mass meat industry is truly a global organization. A change in the current factory farming practices would reverberate around the world and would affect labour and economic markets around the world (Miller, 2008, p.260)
Literature Review
Postdoctoral research fellow Jennifer Jacquet of the University of British Columbia states that ‘eating less meat would relieve a bit of pressure on our sullied atmosphere by lightening the methane load…by roughly 10 kilowatt hours per day—more than double what you’d save by changing lights to fluorescents’ (Jacquet 2009, n.p.).
However, environmental benefits aside, Jacquet (2009) finds that in vitro meat misses the point that eating meat itself is not only bad for the planet but bad for the human species. In Jacquet’s (2009) words, ‘in-vitro meat does nothing to address the deeper, systemic issues of food production—we should be getting more intimate with our food by growing gardens, eating locally, and getting healthy.
The Frankenmeat solution is one-dimensional. It addresses a symptom, but not the problem: We eat too much meat’ (Jacquet 2009, n.p.).
A number of articles in the review see lab manufactured meat as a way to end the cruelty associated with current modes of factory farming which are inherently harmful and destructive to animals, and encourage a view of animals that is exploitative, inhumane and dismissive of their sentient status. According to NPR.org (2011), ‘there is something inherently creepy about…growing meat in labs…but there is something more inherently creepy about the way we deal with the animals that we eat….
They live a horrible life, and they often die quite cruelly. So the idea of being able to eliminate some of that is extremely exciting for a lot of people’ (NPR.org, 2011, n.p.). Similarly, Lee (2010) points out that ‘in vitro meat would…be free from hormones and antibiotics as well as contaminates such as salmonella and campylobacter.
Its fat content could be tightly controlled and, because you could have a bioreactor anywhere in the world, meat production could become more dispersed’ (Lee, 2010, p.7).
Several of the articles observed in this report go beyond the scientific and socio economic ramifications lab manufactured meat to draw attention to the wide spread cultural changes that this technology would exact if and when it is implemented fully.
Of particular concern for several publications is the whole scale change that lab manufactured meat would render between the fate of the farm, the farmer and the domestic animal. According to the New York Times (2008), ‘there is every reason to change the way meat is produced, to make it more ethical, more humane.
But the result of the technology that PETA hopes to reward could be the end of domesticated farm animals. This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer’ (New York Times, 2008, p. 20).
Aside from this rather extreme editorial stance, the New York Times (2008) goes on to advocate ‘a more measured approach. Ensure the least possible cruelty to animals…raise them in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound. But also treasure the cultural and historical bond between humans and domesticated animals.
Historically speaking, they exist only because of the uses we have found for them, and preserving their existence means…preserving the uses we have made for them. It will be a barren world if the herds and flocks disappear in favour of meat grown in a laboratory tank’ (New York Times, 2008, p. 20).
Similarly, other articles broach the topic of the revolutionary changes that lab manufactured meat would engender in the food industry as whole. Culturally, the meat industry represents an ancient organization that holds ancient ‘attitudes, beliefs, behaviours…and cultural consciousness’ about the nature of civilization itself (Miller, 2008, p. 261). According to Lee (2010):
‘In vitro meat bears no resemblance to food production as we know it – it doesn’t involve a farmer, land, or even a real animal. At the same time, when considered next to the factory farms exposed in films like Food Inc. or Pig Business – it is cruelty-free, low carbon and potentially environmentally-friendly.
What we would stand to lose with cultured meat is the whole idea of provenance the local, well-reared, skilfully butchered cut of meat. And with it, the kinds of small, family farms and communities that support it’ (Lee, 2010, p. 7).
There are of course economic and labour ramifications for workers who rely on the traditional forms of farming: these include small to medium sized farms that rear meat, workers the world over involved in managing and herding grazing herds and the meat industry itself. According to Lee (2010), the lab manufactured meat lobby group is not popular with the farmers, and the ‘supporters of small farms are sceptical.
Soil Association spokesperson Clio Turton says, we haven’t seen any evidence that [lab manufactured meat] this is safe for human consumption. There may be unforeseen consequences of growing meat this way. Growing meat in a Petri dish is odd. We can’t imagine it would replace meat production in the UK’ (Lee, 2010, p. 7).
Researchers appear divided not only on the viability of this technology, but also on its overall purpose.
According to Jacquet (2009), ‘laboratory-made meat…might relieve the guilt of the scientifically minded and environmentally aware, but beyond that, its advantages are as-yet unclear: because let’s face it, a centralized, high-tech model of food production is not likely to solve wholesale hunger issues, nor is it likely to appeal to the “down home cookin’” contingent. In-vitro meat won’t cure obesity. And it won’t change people’s nutritional needs’ (Jacquet 2009, n.p.).
Research Questions
Once the eleven articles had been chosen and assembled, the research questions were organized as follows:
How do the online, traditional and academic media portray lab manufactured or in vitro meat?
How do the online, traditional and academic media portray science?
How do the online, traditional and academic media portray the meat industry?
What are the implications of these media’s portrayal of lab manufactured meat on public perception of this burgeoning food technology?
What are the possible cultural and socioeconomic ramifications of lab manufactured meat?
Methods
When conducting the research around in vitro meat, the researcher gave each article two close readings. The first reading sought to discover and detail the psychological and emotional impact that the articles had upon the researcher, and by extension, the media consumer, using the research questions as a guide.
In order to achieve this, the researcher had to act from an uninformed place, having no prior knowledge of the topic. The researcher also needed to relate to the subject matter emotionally and psychologically open and neutral, with no stake in the information being purveyed by the articles and lacking an agenda to confront the subject matter, i.e. not as a scientist, animal rights activist or meat farmer.
The second close reading undertaken by the researcher looked at the cultural and social biases implicit in the articles themselves. The articles on the whole share a point of view toward the science around in vitro meat or lab manufactured meat, and this point of view heavily favours the continuation of “natural” – i.e.: farmed livestock – which speaks to a larger cultural bias that will be covered later on in the paper (Miller, 2008, p.81).
It is unclear from the readings whether or not the authors of the articles are aware of this bias, however the articles on the whole create contentiousness between science and consumers on the basis of taste – how lab manufactured meat will taste specifically, when compared to “real” meat. The media largely portray the scientific community as being unconcerned about how the lab manufactured meat will taste and focused instead on its environmental benefits.
An example of this occurs in Fox (2009): ‘enthusiasts are persuaded by [lab manufactured meat’s] ‘green’ credentials. My main concern is environmental, says Stig Omholt of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences in As. If meat consumption doubles by 2050, many forests will go and the calculations are very grim’ (Fox, 2009, p. 873).
In the second close reading the researcher also looked at the impetus behind in vitro meat, specifically, why does this technology warrant coverage? Why are scientists pursuing this line of research?
The answer lies in a host of problems facing the human species which centre largely on population control and the realization that the current food production paradigm remains unsustainable; there is simply not enough land and water to support it. The large network of people and livelihoods involved in the current food production paradigm, i.e. food grown in international destinations and shipped globally, will need to find ways to adapt to this reality.
Findings
The observations gleaned from the close reading given these eleven sources can be grouped into four headings: headlines, tone, treatment of science and article layout. Each of these findings generated a specific psychological impact upon the researcher which encouraged a feeling of revulsion toward lab manufactured or in vitro meat, regardless of the numerous benefits that this technology would bring to the environment, not to mention the ethical treatment of animals that this technology would support.
Headlines
Seven out of the eleven articles reviewed for this report contained a headline which evoked a negative response to the science as well as the concept of lab manufactured meat itself. The placement of these headlines, at the article’s outset, effectively swayed the researcher’s point of view toward the negative and effectively coloured the experience of reading the article.
Examples of this phenomenon from each article are as follows: ‘Test tube meat on the menu’ (Fox, 2009, p. 873); ‘Test-Tube Meat: Coming Soon to a Plate Near You’ (Huffington Post, 2011, n.p.); ‘Pass the In Vitro Loaf’(Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2005, p. 66); ‘Mystery Meat’ (Jozefowicz, 2007, p. 6); ‘Burgers from a Lab’ (NPR.org, 2011, n.p.); ‘Test Tube Burgers’ (Specter, 2011, p. 32), and ‘Would you Eat Lab Engineered Meat?’ (Zimmer, 2011, n.p.).
Seven out of the eleven articles researched began with a negative connotation that sustained itself throughout the article.
Tone
Of the eleven articles profiled in this report, each contained an acerbic tone in its coverage of the both the concept of lab manufactured meat and the science behind it, and actively promoted dividedness between the scientific community and consumers. Fox (2009) states that ‘the mere mention of lab-grown meat – an assortment of projects to produce beef, pork or chicken proteins in industrial-scale cell cultures – evokes enthusiasm at one end of the spectrum and caustic criticism at the other.
I wonder if you can get people to eat that stuff, says Michael Hansen of Consumers Union in Yonkers, New York. There are safety questions, technical problems and a very huge yuck factor to deal with, he says’ (Fox, 2009, p. 873).
In an article with the headline Test-Tube Meat: Coming Soon To A Plate Near You, the lead states ‘it sounds improbable – and more than a little creepy – to eat meat produced in a lab’ (Huffington Post, 2011, n.p.). Similarly, in an article published by the Institute of Industrial Engineers (2009), lab manufactured meat ‘experiments with fish tissue have created small amounts of in vitro meat in NASA experiments researching potential food products for long-term space travel, where storage is a problem.
To grow meat on a large scale, cells from several different kinds of tissue, including muscle and fat, would be needed to give meat the texture to appeal to the human palate, say scientists’ (Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2009, p. 66).
Treatment of Science
Within the literature surveyed, the science behind lab manufactured meat often receives a slightly biased approach, specifically in linking scientists with so called special interest groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Nylander, 2011, n.p.).
Since special interest groups by definition are invested in the outcome of the research, these media create a certain lack of objectivity in the science surrounding lab manufactured meat by association. Also, a certain quack science feel infiltrated some of the articles through their depiction of scientists. An example of this exists in Nylander (2011), who profiled biologist Vladimir Mironov:
‘About 10 years ago, Mironov’s research dream to grow “cultured meat” became reality when he was awarded a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for cardiovascular tissue engineering. He landed the grant with the help of Dr. Helen Lane, a top NASA food expert that Mironov invited to a workshop he hosted.
But the research is no longer funded by NASA, and Mironov said he was told that NASA was moving towards researching transgenic plants as a source of protein. Now Mironov, along with Genovese, are funded by a three-year grant from the animal rights activists People of Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.).
The fact that the biologist’s work was dropped by NASA effectively erodes some of the credibility from Mironov’s work; whether or not this is conscious on the part of the author remains unclear, however the effect distanced the researcher from the content, and would likely have the same effect on the reader.
Furthermore, in a latter part of the article utilizes the heading “Yuck factor” and goes on to delineate (Nylander, 2011, n.p.): ‘A tissue engineer by trade, [Mironov] has taken embryonic muscle cells called myoblasts, which turn into muscle, from turkey, bathed them in a bovine serum and then grown animal muscle tissue. We are working on very small scale using NASA synthecon bioreactor and porous edible chitosan spheres seeded with myoblasts from edible animals.
The cultured meat choice confronting tomorrow’s shoppers will be similar to today’s options in the meat department’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). Although the information shared in this section is useful and vital to an understanding of lab manufactured meat, the section heading – yuck factor – potentially undercuts the value of the information to the reader. Similarly, when the article uses other opinions to react to Mironov’s work, they are written in a forceful style that sticks with the reader, through the effective use of quotes.
For example, Nylander (2011) quotes a certain Mr. Sam Bowen, a bar manager in Columbia, South Carolina, as saying that ‘one of the biggest things that people enjoy as a comfort thing is food…and until people grow up with the idea of artificial meat, it’s going to be hard to convince people otherwise’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.).
Mironov does not receive a similarly effective or forceful quote within the article; instead, he is largely paraphrased, appearing in a direct quote in the following example, ‘[Mironov] says cultured meat will be functional, natural, designed food, arguing that modified food is already common practice, and not harmful’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.).
The weakness of the quotes used to introduce the biologist to the reader in effect further undercuts the viability of his research. According to Nylander (2011), the biologist Mironov is part of ‘a team of researchers who have been invited to a European Science Foundation workshop on in-vitro meat in Gothenburg, Sweden in August to discuss the obstacles they all share.
Funding is one of the biggest hurdles. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, among other organizations like NASA, won’t fund the research’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.). Again, the proximity of Mironov’s work being refused by funding bodies renders the message of his work diminished.
Article Layout
A number of the articles researched chose a specific location within the text to imbed the negative portrayal of lab manufactured or in vitro meat – the end of the text. This so called “last word” placement of the negative portrayal of lab manufactured meat successfully lingered in the mind of the researcher, as it was the last word, and by definition the strongest and most readily recalled element of the articles.
For example, in the article published by the Institute of Industrial Engineers (2009), the last line of the article states that scientists ‘also concede that it might take some work to convince consumers to eat cultured muscle meat,’ effectively nullifying the information shared in the earlier parts of the article (Institute of Industrial Engineers, 2009, p. 66).
Only one of the eleven articles reviewed ended with a relatively positive view of the technology and the scientists who champion it: ‘We are ready but venture capitalists and federal agencies are not…but the time will come’ (Nylander, 2011, n.p.)
Discussion and Conclusion
In vitro or lab manufactured meat technology does not offer a viable alternative to factory farmed meat at present; estimates as to how long it will before in vitro meat is available in conventional grocery stores hover at around twenty years. That said, the technology does effectively highlight the unsustainable nature of the current food production model, particularly in the domain of meat.
Much of the literature touts the advantage of lab manufactured meat to parts of the world where shortages in arable land and water would render traditional modes of meat farming impossible. For example in countries in Asia such as India and Singapore where the consumption of meat is on the rise, scientists have remarked that there is ‘significant interest’ in the technology behind lab manufactured meat (Lee, 2010, p. 7).
However, many of these countries depend on the current factory farming model, especially the grazing of herds, and the loss of that revenue would render these countries less able to invest in the technology required to produce in vitro meat.
Other articles draw attention to the fact that should the production of lab manufactured meat supplant so-called natural meat, the fate of domestic animals remains to be seen. Domestic animals that were not raised for meat consumption would presumable still be used for other purposes; however, the care and feeding of these large numbers of animals left superfluous by in vitro meat would require a comprehensive and qualitatively new farming strategy.
Overall more than 50 per cent of the literature reviewed raised scepticism as to the viability of lab manufactured meat, and offered a less than flattering assessment of the science behind it, choosing to emphasize the cost involved in lab manufactured while often not equally balancing the cost of the factory farm within the article.
Also, overwhelming emphasis placed on the perceived reluctance of the consumer to eat in vitro or lab manufactured meat pervaded most of the articles researched. The fact is, factory farming exacts huge costs on the environment, including air quality, land usage, water, deforestation and pollution.
It also exacts costs on the animals that are slaughtered, as well as the people who ingest harmful fats, growth hormone, pesticides, veterinary drugs, and heavy metals when they eat the animals. Above all, the factory faming model cannot be sustain the human species; all this points to the needs for a radical shift in food production.
Though essentially a new form of food technology, lab manufactured meat represents a complex cultural issue with global ramifications. According to Miller (2008), ‘globalization leads to disembedded organizations and people. In a global society, behaviour and interaction are often lifted from their local context and restructured across time and space…cultural consciousness and self reflexivity is a requirement for organizational and individual well being’ (Miller, 2008, p. 261).
The more lab manufactured meat enters into the mainstream of cultural consciousness, the greater the rate of change felt across traditional lines of farming, civilization, the relationship between humans and animals and the fate of domestic animals will be experienced.
Effective environmental stewardship dictates that the unsustainable nature of the current mass meat industry method of factory farming must evolve if the planet’s resources are to be preserved for future generations. Whether or not in vitro or lab manufactured meat will provide a viable alternative for meat eaters remains to be determined.
References
Fox, J. L. (2009) Test tube meat on the menu? Nature Biotechnology, 27(10), 873.
Steinfeld, H. et al (2006), Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1-26. Web.
Meat is an irresistible food that most people prefer specially during occasions and when enjoying their evenings with friends and families. Most people believe that meat is the most delicious animal product and this explains why it is in high demand. Meat is obtained in different forms from poultry, pigs, cows, sheep, goat, camel, and other domesticated animals. Some people slaughter wild animals and eat their meat even though this practice is not encouraged in some countries. Most people consume cooked meat and other animal products; however, some eat them without cooking because of personal, religious, or traditional beliefs. Raw meat is harmful to human consumption and people should cook it properly before tasting or eating it.
The main reason why people cook foods is to make them soft for easy chewing and digestion. Moreover, the digestive system of human beings is not as strong as that of animals. Cooking meat makes it soft and tender because it reduces its toughness by weakening the bonds between muscles. Most people slaughter animals when they are old and this means that their meat is tough. Tough meat may spoil a rather delicious meal because people will not enjoy it (Anderson 33). Most people believe that good foods should be soft and easily digestible. Raw meat is very tough and cannot be digested easily. People may suffer abdominal discomfort if they eat raw meat. This means that meat should be cooked properly and under the right conditions to make it soft and good for consumption. Therefore, it is necessary to cook meat before eating it to ensure it is tender, soft, and easily digestible.
Secondly, children have weak jawbones and this means that their teeth cannot tear or cut tough meat. Most children like meat, especially from fish, goats, pig, and sheep. Tough meet may cause teeth deformities or pain in the gum because children use excess force to tear it. In addition, some people have dental cavities and other health problems that do not allow them to use their teeth to tear meat. Most dental diseases are managed by avoiding tough foods like raw meat. Individuals who have weak jaws and eat raw meat are to blame for exposing themselves to severe pain. People should not eat raw meat because they may lose teeth as they try to tear, cut, or chew them.
Moreover, tapeworms thrive in raw meat and their eggs stay viable for a very long time even after the animal is slaughtered. People who eat raw meat have higher chances of having tapeworms because they are transmitted through uncooked foods. A research report that appeared on Medical News Today on January 18th 2007 revealed that most people who suffer from tapeworm infections usually have a history of eating raw pork or beef. Tapeworms lay their eggs which are transported through an animal’s bloodstream and stored on muscles and other organs for incubation. Most people do not de-worm their animals regularly and this means that they are likely to have tapeworms (Anderson 59). Worms cause stomach discomfort and perforate the lining of the large intestines. In addition, they may damage the liver and cause indigestion because of the damages created on the large intestines. People should eat cooked meat to kill the eggs of these worms and ensure their food is healthy.
Flies are known for carrying germs and contaminating food. In addition, they spread waterborne diseases that affect human health. In addition, some people who prepare food may not be careful when packaging it. There are chances of food poisoning as a result of human error on other unavoidable reasons. The health of individuals is determined by what they eat. Those who eat contaminated food are likely to fall sick more often. Raw meat is a good recipe for contacting diseases like typhoid, bilharzia, and amoebiasis. It is advisable to eat cooked meat because most disease-causing vectors and germs cannot survive the extreme heat used for cooking. Raw meat may be contaminated and contain germs that may risk the health of people.
Raw meat has a very high level of cholesterol that is harmful when consumed. Animal products like beef, mutton, and pork contain cholesterol that accounts for the increase of overweight or obese individuals in society (Rosenberg 59). The best remedy of reducing this cholesterol is by cooking meat to destroy the harmful anti-nutrient substances that causes of accumulation of minerals in the gut. Consuming uncooked meat interferes with the utilization of nutrients because most of them do not reach their destinations or are not synthesized properly. Boiling meat and making soups breaks down cholesterol and alters its cell structure to ensure fewer of an individual’s enzymes are used to digest the food. People should eat cooked meat and avoid raw ones because of the health dangers of consuming excess fats.
Animal products like meat, pork and mutton are obtained after slaughtering animals. Most nations employ public health officers to conduct routine checks and inspect food premises, handlers and their sources. They give permits to businessmen to sell meat after it has been inspected and confirmed healthy for human consumption (Anderson 63). However, some unscrupulous traders take advantage of the complexity of the nature of public officers to slaughter unchecked animals. Cases of food poisoning as a result of consuming sick animals have been reported in various parts of the world. Some people believe that animal diseases cannot affect them.
Therefore, they slaughter sick or dead animals and sell their meat to unsuspecting consumers at cheap prices. The poison of meat from sick or dead animals may be weakened by cooking it and this will enable medical experts to attend to patients in good time. Today, most animals are reared using genetic engineering practices which mean that they have high levels of drugs and other chemicals harmful for human consumption. People who fall victims to eating poisoned meat agree that it was not inspected (Anderson 81). Those who cook it do not experience similar health complications like their counterparts who eat raw meat. People should never eat raw meat, especially if its source is not known.
Raw meat is dangerous and nobody should consume it. Cooking meat makes it softer and palatable and this makes people enjoy their meals. In addition, the high temperatures used for cooking meat kill disease causing bacteria or vectors and this makes it healthy for consumption. Disease causing vectors like flies and poor food handling exposes meat to contamination. However, cooking it kills germs and ensures it is safe. Most people believe that all meat is usually inspected before being offered to the public. However, this does not guarantee that there will not be unscrupulous traders and public health officers who put their greed and risk the health of other people. Eating cooked meat in healthy and enjoyable and there is no reason for people to eat uncooked foods.
Works Cited
Anderson, Pamela. The Perfect Recipe: Getting It Right Every Time — Making Our Favorite Dishes the Absolute Best They Can Be. New York: Wiley, 2014. Print.
Rosenberg, Ehud. Meat and Dairy: An Illustrated Halachic Guide. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.
The consumption of meat in different forms is the norm today, and many people prefer a high-protein diet. However, the excessive consumption of animal protein can be fraught with dangerous consequences for the human body. It is not just about digestion difficulties since meat is a hard product for the stomach but also some other problems, including such dangerous ones as asthma and cancer. Reducing the intake of animal protein can help the body to recover, and various scientists and nutritionists confirm this fact. One of the basic rules is balance. It is not necessary to completely eliminate meat from the diet, but it is significant to observe certain doses of consumption and not exceed this amount. The additional benefit of the constant use of vegetables and greens in food is scientifically proven; therefore, one of the ways to improve health is to reduce the amount of meat consumed and eat more vegetables, fruits, and greens.
Introduction
The use of meat for food has always been considered the norm since this product, as it is known, not only contains various nutrients, in particular, animal protein but also has a delicious taste. However, today, there is a tendency to refuse meat for various reasons, and this movement is gaining momentum. Not for nothing that various vegetarian diets are considered to be a good way to cleanse the body of toxins and eliminate the risk of developing dangerous diseases.
The fact is that the excess of the protein of animal origin cannot be digested properly when getting into the body, which has a significant burden on the human digestive system and causes the liver to experience colossal tension. It does not mean that it is necessary to completely abandon the consumption of meat dishes and entirely eliminate this product from the diet. Nevertheless, the path to health lies through a reduction in the rate of meat consumption since the confusing eating of all types of fatty foods can lead to dangerous consequences.
Reducing the intake of animal protein can help to improve digestion. The organism will be easier to perceive other foods that are less caloric and saturated. Therefore, no matter how useful the meat is, its excessive use can do more harm than good.
Possible Negative Consequences of Excessive Meat Consumption
Despite the fact that meat contains protein, amino acids, and other useful minerals, in particular, iron that helps in the prevention of anemia, this product does not contain other important components for the body. Thus, it does not contain fiber that contributes to the normalization of the gastrointestinal tract; therefore, meat is heavily digested, and the body has to spend a lot of energy on its processing. Also, eating meat causes many serious diseases, including asthma, diabetes, problems with the cardiovascular system, and even cancer because of the presence of harmful fat (“Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk”). Excessive consumption of meat is fraught with permanent processes of putrefaction in the intestine. The liver and kidneys begin to work hard to neutralize the toxins that result from putrefactive processes. It, in its turn, leads to the disruption of the work of these important organs.
The damage caused by meat consumption is greatly enhanced by modern methods of its processing. Various hormones to enhance the growth of livestock and poultry, feed saturated with nitrates and pesticides, cruel conditions for slaughter animals, and chemicals to give the meat a beautiful color leave no nutrients in meat, exacerbating its harmful properties. Therefore, views on meat consumption are recommended to be reconsidered in order to avoid severe health consequences.
Ways to Reduce the Negative Effects of Meat
One of the ways to completely stop eating meat is vegetarianism. Kellman describes it as the way of life and claims that its popularity over many years is due to a positive effect on health (402). Similar views are presented in the work by Richman who examines vegans and lists many advantages of such a diet, separately noting successful culinary decisions (388). Despite the fact that a complete rejection of the consumption of animal protein can be a drastic measure, there are certainly particular advantages of such a diet.
First of all, it is worth remembering the main rule of healthy nutrition: it is required to eat balanced. If vegetables, fruits, cereals, nuts, and beans are present in the daily diet in addition to meat, the harm will significantly decrease, and it will be easier for the body to digest protein. Also, the prescribed rate of eating meat should not be exceeded.
When touching upon the topic about what meat is the most harmful, it is the meat of mammals: beef, pork, lamb (“Meat and the Environment”). Poultry meat, especially white (chicken fillet), and also by-products are less harmful. Fish meat almost has no harmful properties. In addition, it is very important to combine protein with other products, which can enhance or, conversely, weaken its dangerous impact. Thus, for instance, it is extremely undesirable to eat meat with vegetables containing starch, and it is better to give preference to greens and vegetables.
Additional Use of Vegetables
The benefits of vegetable products for food are obvious; however, it applies to not only human health but also to the state of the environment as a whole. Thus, according to scientists, the number of harmful emissions to the atmosphere can be reduced by two-thirds by 2050 if people completely switch to a vegetarian lifestyle (“Why Eating More Vegetables is Good for the Environment”). Accordingly, if the population continues to eat meat in large quantities, the air will be polluted more, and the risk of increasing the number of emissions to 75% by 2050 arises (“Why Eating More Vegetables is Good for the Environment”). These figures are quite frightening; therefore, it is essential to pay attention to vegetable diets for the safety of the planet.
Another reason to abandon the constant consumption of red meat is the real figures based on scientists’ research. For example, if people replace animal protein with plant products, the risk of mortality may decrease from 7% to 19% (“Risk in Red Meat?”). It is also a significant argument in favor of the fact that the excessive consumption of meat negatively affects human health.
Conclusion
Thus, despite some useful substances contained in meat, its excessive use will bring more harm to the person than good. A complete rejection of animal protein is possible but not necessary. It is important to adhere to the norms and not to overeat; otherwise, there is a danger of excessive load on the internal organs, in particular, the digestive tract and the liver. The increase in the volume of vegetables and greens in the diet not only positively affects the improvement of well-being but also has significant environmental benefits.
Works Cited
Kellman, Stephen G. “From Fish, Flesh, and Foul: The Anti-Vegetarian Animus.” Eating Words: A Norton Anthology of Food Writing, edited by Sandra M. Gilbert and Roger J. Porter, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016, pp. 400-407.
Richman, Alan. “From Fork it Over: My Beef with Vegans.” Eating Words: A Norton Anthology of Food Writing, edited by Sandra M. Gilbert and Roger J. Porter, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016, pp. 385-392.