Tag Archives: meat

Meat Made Us Human

BBQ Pork Chops With Vegetable Skewers, Baked Beans and Coleslaw

From Watts Up With That?

David Archibald

Another COP, another call to have meat removed from our diet. The further we depart from what we evolved to do, as individuals and as a society, the less efficient we become. We didn’t evolve to be vegetarian. Quite the contrary, humans are one of the most carnivorous animals on the planet, surprisingly so.

Eating meat is more efficient. Carnivores spend less time feeding than similar-sized herbivores. For example, one of our primate relatives, baboons (Papio cynocephalus), devote almost all their daylight hours to feeding while adult males of hunter-gatherer Ache (eastern Paraguay) and Hadza (northern Tanzania) tribes spend only a third of the day in food acquisition, preparation and feeding. Acquiring and consuming medium-size animals, at a return rate in the range of tens of thousands of calories per hour, is an order of magnitude more time-efficient than plant-gathering.  In nature, for humans, plant-sourced calories cost ten times the price of meat if it is available.

The most energy-dense macronutrient is fat (9.4 kcals/g), compared with protein (4.7 kcals/g) and carbohydrates (3.7 kcals/g). Plant proteins and carbohydrates typically contain antinutrients with functions in plant growth and defence. These antinutrients, such as lectins or phytate, limit full energetic utilization and nutrient absorption by humans. Phytates also limit iron absorption from plants. Up to 30% of the iron in meat can be absorbed while iron absorption from plants is limited to about 10%. That is why iron deficiency is a common symptom of vegetarianism.

Then there is the matter of stomach acidity. The acid involved is hydrochloric acid. Carnivores have a stomach acidity of pH 2.2 on average and omnivores are pH 2.9. Obligative scavengers, which feed almost exclusively on carrion, have a stomach pH of 1.3, while facultative scavengers, with a proportion of diet being dead animals they have found, have a stomach pH of 1.8. The human stomach acid level lies between the two types of scavengers with a pH of 1.5 which equates to a hydrochloric acid content of 0.115 percent. This is some 30 times the stomach acid concentration of omnivores.

Figure 1: The acidity spectrum by feed type

pH can be misleading as it is a log scale. Restated as percent of acid in the stomach, humans are well into scavenger territory.

Producing stomach acid and maintaining the stomach walls to contain it are energetically expensive. It seems that our antecedents found that it was easier to eat semi-rotten meat from a large carcass than to hunt for a fresh animal. Note that we would rather eat semi-rotten meat than increase the proportion of vegetables in our diet. We are hyper-carnivores – meat-eaters that keep going even as the meat starts rotting. Vegetables would take us backwards. This is instinctive knowledge.

Another attribute we share with carnivores is low insulin sensitivity which means that our muscles, fat and liver have a weak response to insulin. The role of insulin is to direct these organs to take glucose from the blood. It has been speculated that physiological insulin resistance allows humans on a low-carbohydrate diet to conserve blood glucose for the energy-hungry brain.

Most plant-eaters extract most of their energy from the fermentation of fibre by gut bacteria, which occurs in the colon in primates. For example, a gorilla extracts some 60% of its energy from fibre. The human colon is 77% smaller, and the small intestine is 64% longer than in chimpanzees, relative to chimpanzee body size. Because of the smaller colon, humans can theoretically obtain less than ten percent of total caloric needs by fermenting fibre, with the most rigorous measures suggesting that it less than four percent. That 77 percent reduction in human colon size relative to our closest primate relative points to a marked decline in the ability to extract the full energetic potential from many plant foods. The elongated small intestine is where sugars, proteins, and fats are absorbed. Sugars are absorbed faster in the small intestine than proteins and fats. A long small intestine relative to other gut parts is also a dominant morphological pattern in carnivore digestion.

Another thing about being human, relative to other primates, is the reduced size of our mouth and jaws. While chimpanzees spend 48 percent of their daily hours chewing, humans need to devote only five percent of their day in chewing. The shrinkage of the relative size of the jaw started with Homo erectus 1.9 million years ago.

Figure 2: Dentition change in response to meat – it started with Homo erectus

From left to right, the skulls of Homo erectusHomo heidelbergensisHomo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens

Our energy-dense, high-meat diet also allowed humans to have a lower weaning age than other primates. In orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees, weaning age ranges between 4.5 and 7.7 years but is much lower in humans of hunter-gatherer societies at 2.5–2.8 years, despite the long infant dependency period.

The energy metabolism of humans is adapted to a diet in which lipids and proteins, rather than carbohydrates, make a major contribution to the energy supply. At the same time, humans are limited in how much protein can be converted to energy. This is a third to a half of normal caloric requirements, due to the liver and kidney’s limited ability to remove large quantities of the toxic nitrogen byproducts of protein metabolism – urea and creatinine5. Thus, depending on the relative energetic returns and abundance of plants and animal fat, humans have to obtain 50–65% of their calories from either animal fat or plant fat and carbohydrates. Thus, in the absence of readily available plant foods, humans have an important obligatory requirement for animal fat. Some hunters will give up on an animal once it is perceived to have a low fat content. The targeting of fat, at substantial energetic costs, could point to chronic maximal protein consumption.

Changing a plant-dominated diet to a meat-based one allowed the development of a larger brain. Once that process was underway it was self-reinforcing to the limit of the ability of the brain’s neurons to communicate with each other. The increase in brain size allowed humans to become more successful hunters which ultimately led to the Late Quaternary Extinction in which the megafauna of many continents was killed off. This was a problem for Stone Age hunters as they preferred to hunt larger, adult animals which have a high fat content. Hunting small and medium-sized prey takes more effort relative to the reward.

Dogs were domesticated not long after the Late Quaternary Extinction of the megafuana. As dogs can utilise a higher proportion of protein in their diet than humans, it has been proposed that dog domestication is a form of joint venture between humans and wolves/dogs. Under the arrangement, humans contributed surplus meat protein from relatively fat-depleted animals that dogs could utilize but humans could not. In return, dogs helped humans save energy by helping to track and chase smaller animals. In most ethnographic cases, dogs are employed to aid in hunting smaller animals. It is conceivable that dogs were domesticated as a behavioural adaptation to the increased energetic demands of hunting a larger number of smaller animals as prey size declined. Dogs aren’t the only animals with a symbiotic relationship with humans. For example, honeyguides are African birds that lead humans to bee hives.

When did the rot set in? A high caries prevalence, a sign of intensive carbohydrate consumption, first appears in Morocco about 15,000 years ago, together with evidence for starchy food exploitation. Caries prevalence in humans increased markedly after the transition to agriculture. The transition to agriculture though produced an explosion in human productivity as it removed the repressive effect of group food pooling behaviour which regulated the distribution of meat within a tribe. Group food pooling behaviour, necessary to even out the supply of meat for a family, punished hard work with a higher death rate while not rewarding it with an increase in the food received. The agricultural revolution flipped the scrip and suddenly working harder was rewarded by the ability to store excess food with a survival benefit.

Humans are now in the optimal position of growing grain to feed animals to produce meat. Meat made us human. Vegetarianism is a psychological condition on the spectrum, not as bad as gender dysphoria with its 50 percent suicide rate but self-harm is involved nevertheless.

David Archibald is the author of The Anticancer Garden in Australia.

Scientists declare meat should have cigarette-style climate warning labels: Proposed label: ‘Warning: Eating meat contributes to climate change’

UK Independent: Adding graphic, cigarette pack-style warnings to meat-based meals had a significant impact on people’s decisions to choose them, according to new research. Scientists from Durham University in the UK came up with the novel approach to cutting meat consumption which, alongside dairy, accounts for about one-seventh of global emissions. …

The scientists took a group of 1,000 meat-eating adults and split them into four groups. The participants were then shown pictures of hot meals tagged with a climate, health or pandemic warning, or no label.
The participants found the climate warning labels to be the “most credible”. These labels showed fire-charred landscapes and read: “Warning: Eating meat contributes to climate change.”

“As warning labels have already been shown to reduce smoking as well as drinking of sugary drinks and alcohol, using a warning label on meat-containing products could help us achieve this if introduced as national policy,” said Jack Hughes, the study’s lead author.
#

Flashback: Former UN Climate Chief: Meat eaters should be banished, treated ‘the same way that smokers are treated” – “How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated?” Figueres suggested during a recent conference. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”

NYU Bioethicist Prof. Liao on Eating meat: Seeks to ‘Make ourselves allergic to those proteins…unpleasant reaction…The way we can do that is to create some sort of meat patch’ – ‘Kind of like a nicotine patch where you put it on before you go to dinner go out to a restaurant and this will curb your enthusiasm for eating meat’. 

Flashback: Watch: NYT Bioethicist Matthew Liao: In order to tackle “climate change”, humans should be genetically modified to be intolerant to meat. “If we eat less meat, we could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Now, some people would be willing to eat less meat, but they lack the willpower. Human engineering could help… We could artificially induce intolerance to meat, and in this way, we can create an aversion to eating eco unfriendly food.” Source: https://youtu.be/AcaKMu7I6vU

Eat insects? ‘Meat patch’ to stop cravings? New UN report takes aim at meat eating – UN seeks expansion of climate agenda to regulate what you eat

From Climate Depot

By Marc Morano

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/meat-cigarette-vegan-diet-warnings-b2438993.html

By Stuti Mishra

Adding graphic, cigarette pack-style warnings to meat-based meals had a significant impact on people’s decisions to choose them, according to new research.

Scientists from Durham University in the UK came up with the novel approach to cutting meat consumption which, alongside dairy, accounts for about one-seventh of global emissions.

Industrial farming is not only playing a significant role in the climate crisis but is also responsible for forest loss and biodiversity decline.

The scientists took a group of 1,000 meat-eating adults and split them into four groups. The participants were then shown pictures of hot meals tagged with a climatehealth or pandemic warning, or no label. All labels had an impact, and caused the meat-eaters to choose a veggie option 7-10 per cent of the time.

The participants found the climate warning labels to be the “most credible”. These labels showed fire-charred landscapes and read: “Warning: Eating meat contributes to climate change.”

One of the cigarette pack-style warning labels suggested for meat-based meals

(Durham University )

Cigarette packs around the world now show images of premature babies, patients with tracheostomies, and people using breathing apparatus.

2021 study found that 42 per cent of non-smokers said they did not want to try smoking after seeing graphic warning labels on cigarette packs.

Nearly three-quarters of the UK population eats meat. The Climate Change Committee, which advises the UK government, says Brits need to cut their meat and dairy consumption by 20 per cent if the country is to remain on track for its climate goals.

“As warning labels have already been shown to reduce smoking as well as drinking of sugary drinks and alcohol, using a warning label on meat-containing products could help us achieve this if introduced as national policy,” said Jack Hughes, the study’s lead author.

According to the organisation, Veganuary, a growing number of people are interested in taking up plant-based diets.

#

UK Independent: Adding graphic, cigarette pack-style warnings to meat-based meals had a significant impact on people’s decisions to choose them, according to new research. Scientists from Durham University in the UK came up with the novel approach to cutting meat consumption which, alongside dairy, accounts for about one-seventh of global emissions. …

The scientists took a group of 1,000 meat-eating adults and split them into four groups. The participants were then shown pictures of hot meals tagged with a climate, health or pandemic warning, or no label.

The participants found the climate warning labels to be the “most credible”. These labels showed fire-charred landscapes and read: “Warning: Eating meat contributes to climate change.”

“As warning labels have already been shown to reduce smoking as well as drinking of sugary drinks and alcohol, using a warning label on meat-containing products could help us achieve this if introduced as national policy,” said Jack Hughes, the study’s lead author.

#

Flashback: Former UN Climate Chief: Meat eaters should be banished, treated ‘the same way that smokers are treated” – “How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated?” Figueres suggested during a recent conference. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”

NYU Bioethicist Prof. Liao on Eating meat: Seeks to ‘Make ourselves allergic to those proteins…unpleasant reaction…The way we can do that is to create some sort of meat patch’ – ‘Kind of like a nicotine patch where you put it on before you go to dinner go out to a restaurant and this will curb your enthusiasm for eating meat’. 

Flashback: Watch: NYT Bioethicist Matthew Liao: In order to tackle “climate change”, humans should be genetically modified to be intolerant to meat. “If we eat less meat, we could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Now, some people would be willing to eat less meat, but they lack the willpower. Human engineering could help… We could artificially induce intolerance to meat, and in this way, we can create an aversion to eating eco unfriendly food.” Source: https://youtu.be/AcaKMu7I6vU

Eat insects? ‘Meat patch’ to stop cravings? New UN report takes aim at meat eating – UN seeks expansion of climate agenda to regulate what you eat

Waste Not, Want Not, Still True About Food

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

FILE – Dairy cows graze on a farm near Oxford, New Zealand, on Oct. 8, 2018. New Zealand scientists are coming up with some surprising solutions for how to reduce methane emissions from farm animals. (AP Photo/Mark Baker, File)

Jack Hubbard reports at Real Clear Markets Eat What You Want While Questioning ‘Food Sustainability’ Claims.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Earth Day started 50 years ago, and if you judge the event by society’s environmental conscientiousness, it’s been a success. Today, people are increasingly considering the environmental impact of products they buy. That’s true not just of cars and clothing, but also what we eat.

A survey last year found that 37% of consumers look for sustainability claims on food. Food marketers have taken note, increasing the number of food products with eco claims.

But buyers should beware: Not all food sustainability claims are true.

Where is the Beef?

Perhaps the single most common claim you’ll hear today about food is that meat is bad for the environment. Ads for plant-based fake meat commonly assert this. These claims are parroted by animal rights activists who–naturally–don’t like people eating meat. You can even find a few documentaries that try to paint meat as eco-unfriendly.

But is eating meat actually bad for the environment? No.

A frequently cited statistic is that 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture. But what you may not know is that this figure doesn’t apply to the US, where we have the most advanced modern agricultural technology in the world.

American agriculture has become economically and environmentally more efficient over time. For instance, we need 60% fewer cows yet produce twice as much milk as we did in the 1930s.

The EPA tracks greenhouse gas emissions and reports them by sector. According to the EPA, all of our agriculture only accounts for about 9% of total US greenhouse gas emissions, while animal agriculture accounts for only about 4%. That’s why researchers estimate that if the entire U.S. population went vegan tomorrow, it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by less than 3%. That also means, as an individual, giving up meat will have zero impact on curbing climate change.

Fake Meat Doesn’t Lower Emissions

It turns out that producing plant-based fake meats actually produces the same amount of emissions as producing chicken. And cell-cultured meat–that is, grown from cells in a lab setting–has five times the emissions of regular chicken.

Why? Because while making fake meat may use less land than raising chickens, it uses much more electricity to power all those factories that make fake meat.

“Organic” Feels Good

“Organic” is another term that many consumers look for, thinking organic food is better for the environment and their health. Once again, reality is different from perception.

A recent study of organic vs. modern agriculture on different factors such as land use, climate, over-fertilization, and energy use. Modern farming was superior on land use while organic farming was better on chemicals. Overall, the two compared equally on most factors.

(Most consumers also believe that organic food is more nutritious. But once again, scientific research has found there’s no real difference.)

Food Waste Is Important

The biggest environmental impact associated with food isn’t about the food we eat. It is actually about food we don’t eat.

The USDA estimates that up to one-third of food produced in the country is thrown away. Whether that’s meat or fake meat, or organic produce or non-organic produce, that food took resources to grow and fuel to transport. And all of those resources go to waste when you don’t finish your meal or throw out the leftovers.

What’s the lesson?

Eat what you want and ignore the marketing claims. In the big picture,
anyone’s diet has a small footprint. But whatever you choose to eat,
make sure you don’t let it go to waste.