Meat's World

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Rasputin
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2005
    • 63906

    #1

    Meat's World

    It's time we learnt the truth about all the issues that surround the food we consume. How much do we really know about origins, farming, environmental implications and all the other issues that we cause an impact on, every single time we take a trip to a supermarket. So how well informed are we? Not as much as you would think! Ultimately we only know what the government are pressured into allowing us to know and the odd ‘Expose’ by the media. So how are we to make informed and socially conscious decisions? Well, in essence, we can’t. We are not equipped to make well-informed decisions when it comes to the food we consume as we just don’t have enough knowledge and education on the key issues affecting the global food, farming and agriculture industry.

    It is this lack of knowledge that has prompted me to conduct a considerable amount of research in the hope that I can help people (including myself) understand some of the news-worthy issues, trends and practises that affect our everyday choices when purchasing and consuming food.

    If you live in England, there is no possible way you could have escaped the somewhat shocking, recent campaign focusing on the origins of the food we consume as a nation. The campaign spearheaded by Jamie Oliver of “Naked Chef” fame and ably assisted by two other culinary heavy-weights…. Internationally renowned Chef Gordon Ramsay of “Hells Kitchen & Kitchen Nightmares” fame and respected food writer and author Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

    This series of programmes were created with the intent to shock the public on common farming practises taking place both in the UK & the USA. Shedding light on the process of rearing poultry from birth to slaughter, and actually slaughtering birds live on television for all to see exactly what the REAL process involves. Including the cruel culling of baby male chicks, that have little use as they cannot lay eggs or reproduce and so are gassed to death in batches. They also comparing practises from the 1950’s to modern day farming, featuring the birth of the ‘Frankenstein’ chicken (created by our American friends) which produces a monster-sized bird with giant breasts to satisfy the overwhelming demand for white meat in the USA. Bigger is definitely not better in this instance. Every method of rearing poultry is covered, from free-range and organic farming to battery and barn farming.

    What’s the difference?

    Well, it’s complicated and this is exactly the point of the whole campaign. Their ultimate aim is to strive to educate the consumer into making informed decisions when it comes to purchasing their food. The focus here is not solely about heightening awareness to cruelty in farming practises but also about the quality of produce you get, which is directly reflected in the price you pay. I.e. If you normally take advantage of the ‘deals’ available in supermarkets, such as pay £5.00 ($10 USD) for 2 medium/large sized chickens, then how on earth can you expect quality? And out of that £2.50 per bird, the British farmer only gets about 3 pence, which is appalling as we aren’t even a third world country. So this (and so much more besides) has sparked a nation-wide debate.

    Ask yourself, if you would you pay more money to ensure you get a better quality product? And is organic the same as free-range? If not, which is best? Most of us are (perhaps secretly) are a little unclear as to what the true definition of organic produce actually is. Quite frankly, we cannot be blamed for our lack of clarity on this particular subject, as supermarkets and food producers are so clever in their labelling, that for most of us normal folks, it can make it impossible for us to know what we are getting in return for our hard earned monies!

    To begin with, there are two different definitions for organic practise. The first relates to crop farming and stipulates that all crops should be grown without the use of pesticides, artificial fertilizers and human waste or sewage of any kind. Further more, any processing involved must be free of ionizing radiation and any food additives. The second definition relates to the farming and rearing of livestock and stipulates that livestock must be reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth hormones and lastly must not involve any genetically modified feed.

    So, now that’s all cleared up… Is that all we need to know? Well, not exactly. Because one of the most important things that NOBODY is telling us is this… Organic does NOT always necessarily mean that you are getting the best produce you can possibly get. Now, I’m in no way advocating we all refrain from eating organic produce, but I feel that so many people just jump on the “Trend-train” when it comes to organic food, often paying double the normal price for produce, when they really have no idea what they are buying in to! I believe we should always endeavour to make decisions consciously and strive to obtain as much knowledge as possible about our choices, especially when we are being asked to part with more money than the norm.

    The only benefit of buying organic produce is that you can (almost) always be certain that the food that you are buying is pesticide and chemical free. This is, of course, a good thing, however when it comes to meat, I must admit that I don’t particularly go for organic. This is largely because I just want the BEST meat and I don’t feel organic meat is the most superior variety available. Although I’m still happy to use organic meat, I think it’s mainly overpriced and there are no guarantees of its flavour and quality, just its organic rearing. Personally, I feel that the best meat usually comes when the animal has a stress-free and happy life.

    It may sound stupid, but it's been proven that when livestock have enough space to roam around freely, exercise well, have fresh air, good feed and are allowed to graze, it results in better quality, slower-growing meat, with less trauma. Trauma is commonly incurred in ‘Intensive Farming’ practises, where livestock are packed together in densely over-populated barns (often in their thousands) with no fresh air or natural daylight and the overcrowding means that they regularly incur illness that can often go unnoticed and in some cases live stock are left to mix with dead animals that were unable to survive the conditions of ‘Intensive Farming’.

    I’m not alone in my belief in happier animals = better meat. Any Chef worth his salt, will echo my sentiment. “Free-Range” are the words you should look for when buying, meat and poultry… And let’s not forget eggs. Eggs, the one thing we overlook when it comes to quality. So many people buy plain old ‘Value’ or ‘Economy’ eggs. Instead, you should be looking for the ‘Free-Range’ variety, which are better quality, more wholesome and more flavoursome eggs, ultimately from happier chickens. If you think about it, so many things we buy on a regular basis, contain eggs… such as mayonnaise and ready-meals etc. which make it extremely hard to avoid poor quality eggs, if that’s what you are choosing to do.

    Don’t mistake me for some animal-loving hippy… All I’m saying is that we should be aware of what we are eating, what ultimately goes into our bodies. If a cow has mad-cow disease (Cruetzfeld Jakob Disease or ‘CJD’) you wouldn’t eat it would you? So why would you eat meat which was farmed intensively, as often livestock are also riddled with disease, disfigurement and ill health. Ultimately the poor health of the livestock is being passed on to you, although unlike CJD, you may not die as a result, although it still can’t be a good thing, can it?

    Organic and free-range issues aside, there seems to be a steady increase of things for we the consumer to have to consider these days. Now we are being asked to think about things like ‘Fair Trade’ farming, which relates to wide range of products such as fruits, vegetables, coffee, sugar, flowers and so much more. The basis for “Fair Trade” farming is that by purchasing items with the ‘Fair Trade’ stamp, we are ensuring that farmers (often in third world) that produce these crops are being paid a fair wage for their produce, instead of being undercut to serve greedy supermarkets and their ever-increasing need to stay competitive price-wise. Thus, social awareness is further bleeding into our everyday lives at a rapid pace.

    The latest ‘Food for thought’ (so to speak) are ‘Food Miles’, which is the distance that food travels from the time of production to the time of consumption. The message here relates to environmental best-practise. Governments are being put under pressure by environmental agencies (amongst other bodies) to try and reduce the quantity of food that is imported from around the world, by pushing the consumer to try to eat food that is grown seasonally and locally to their particular location in the world, therefore reducing the need to import food from far-away destinations. The vision, long term, is that in doing so we could massively reduce fuel emissions which ultimately have a devastating impact on our environment and ozone layer. The message here is not unfamiliar and is pretty straight-forward…. Our consumer-driven lives have resulted in neglecting to take care of our planet and our children will ultimately have to pay the price for the mindless and greed-driven decisions we have made in the last 100 years.




    iran
  • Rasputin
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2005
    • 63906

    #2
    But (for example) if we start to eat food produced locally and prevent food from being flown in from around the world, then surely farmers in third-world countries will suffer, right? So what on earth are we supposed to do? On one hand, we are saving the planet but on the other hand we are once again provoking the downfall of newly repaired communities in the third world and single-handedly driving the demise of recently implemented infrastructure. Sadly the only people that suffer, as usual, are the people who have very little to lose in the first place, the people who depend entirely on what little trade our countries do with them. So what is the right thing for us to do? The truth is, I just don’t know. I wish I had the answers to these questions and so many more. The one thing I’m hoping to do is to help some of you understand a little more about the decisions you make and the impact they have on the world. I, for one, didn’t really understand a lot of the aforementioned issues properly until a few years ago and they have certainly had an impact on my decision making when it comes to buying food and produce.

    So is this how things are going to be for the foreseeable future? Without a shadow of a doubt, I can say that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Not only is the food in our supermarkets controversial in farming terms and environmental terms, it also costs us more money than ever before but more importantly, it’s costing us our health and very often our lives. There is a global demand for “Bigger, Better, Faster, Cheaper” food. Food packed with additives, preservatives, sugar, salt, fat, nitrates and also kinds of nasties that are killing us and our children.

    Although it’s easy to blame the supermarkets, you need to understand that the number one rule of thumb in trade is “Supply-and-demand”. If we didn’t demand it, they wouldn’t make money supplying it! It is WE the consumer that are demanding and detrimentally accepting these foods. So how on earth do we have the right to question the rapidly increasing rate of obesity, heart disease and diabetes in world? What we put in out mouths is affecting our health, costing our governments (and ultimately we the taxpayer) billions in medical costs which are burning a whole in the global economy… and for what? All because we are too lazy to cook, so we opt for the easy choice. Fast food? Convenience food? Ready meals? Shame on us.

    I’m not trying to influence anyone into changing their entire way of eating. Not all of us can afford to spend a little more to get the best of everything and therefore economy food has its place in our culture and inevitably will always do so, unless our governments place an all out ban on processed foods. But perhaps we could at least try to avoid blatantly unhealthy junk foods at the very least, because we know that it’s bad for us. If what we describe as ‘normal’ food, such as eggs, poultry, fruit and vegetables are now under question, why on earth are we eating processed trash foods that we 100% aware are contributing to our untimely demise? Stupidity, irresponsibility and a lack of knowledge, these are the only possible reasons for making poorly-informed decisions on our purchases.

    I believe we need to take small steps in order to change ourselves and our habits. If enough of us start to make small changes that we could uphold long term, just imagine the impact it would have on the world? One of my new year’s resolutions was to cut out junk food entirely. This may sound harsh, but it’s not as bad as you would think. I have vowed to cut out the obvious offenders like McDonalds, Burger King, KFC etc. But the fact is that I adore burgers! But you know what? I make burgers that are ten times better (and sometimes even a little bigger) than McDonalds and the other usual suspects, but at least I know exactly what goes into them and hands down they contain less fat, are lower in calories, are better for you and are much tastier than their fast food counterparts.

    Nothing will make me stop eating the food I love, but I will not consent to eating food ‘Unconsciously’ any longer. Food that contains ingredients that I can’t spell or even begin to understand the purpose or effect of. All I know is nothing can substitute the benefits of simplicity. For me, a burger should contain 2 basic ingredients… ground beef and onion. Adding salt, pepper and a little egg is completely up to the individual. Perhaps when you next visit your local fast food burger joint (or even the freezers of your local supermarket) why not count the number of ingredients listed in your burger patty? If they contain more ingredients than you can count on one hand, then I think you should be extremely concerned.

    Whether you sat up and took note of what I had to say or if “Ignorance is bliss” for you… Either way, I wish you well. The only thing I can tell you is the more of us that start to question what we eat, make better choices and demand better practises, the easier it will be to force supermarkets to sell produce that won’t damage our health, economy or environment. We were given a voice so it could be heard. We were given a mind so we could think for ourselves and question things that come our way. Silence and ignorance is not the way to a better life. Stand up and be counted…. Enjoyment comes with responsibility. Don’t shrug your social responsibility, you owe it to yourself to be aware and conscious about the things you choose to purchase and consume. Let us start small, but let us start now. We only have this life in which to make a difference, so we should do the best we can before it’s too late.

    iran

    Comment

    • Rasputin
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2005
      • 63906

      #3
      “مصرف گوشت برای سلامتی انسان زیان*آور است و کره*ی زمین را به نابودی می*کشاند.“ شاید در آینده بر روی بسته*های گوشت *نیز، همچون بسته*های سیگار، چنین شعارهای هشداردهنده*ای نوشته شوند.

      نتایج تحقیقات تازه*ای که از سوی متخصصان موسسه*ی ملی مبارزه با سرطان در آمریکا منتشر شده، در مورد استفاده از گوشت قرمز هشدار می*دهند. تیم تحقیقاتی این موسسه برنامه*ی غذائی بیش از ۵۰۰ هزار نفر از مردم آمریکا را در سال ۱۹۹۵ ثبت کرد. این تیم سپس وضعیت سلامتی این افراد را طی سال*های گذشته زیر نظر قرار داد. نتایج بدست آمده از تحقیقات حاکی از این هستند که مصرف گوشت قرمز (گاو، گوسفند، خوک و بز) در میان افرادی که وضعیت مشا*بهی دارند، به مراتب بیشتر سبب بروز سکته*ی قلبی و سرطان می*شود.


      طبق این پژوهش، کسانی «مصرف کننده*ی حداکثر» مقدار گوشت قرمز تلقی شده*اند که روزانه به طور متوسط ۱۶۰ گرم گوشت مصرف می کرده*اند و رژیم غذایی «مصرف کنندگان حداقل» هر روز شامل حدود ۲۵ گرم گوشت قرمز بوده است. پژوهشگران به این نتیجه رسیده*اند که اگر همه*ی میزان مصرف گوشت قرمز خود را به سطح میزان مصرف*کنندگان حداقل برسانند، یعنی ۲۵ گرم در روز، آنگاه خطر سکته*ی قلبی و ابتلا به سرطان در بین مردان ۱۱ درصد و در بین زنان ۱۶ درصد کاهش می*یابد.

      Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: برای تولید یک تن گوشت به ۱۷ هزار لیتر آب آشامیدنی نیاز است

      کیفیت خوب تحقیقات


      در گذشته تحقیقات در مورد گوشت معمولا پس از بررسی نتایج تحقیقات میدانی در چندین عرصه ارائه می*شد، دلیل آن هم محدود بودن تعداد افرادی بوده است که مورد تحقیق قرار می*گرفتند. این برای نخستین بار است که تحقیقی در باره*ی ۵۰۰ هزار نفر یکجا انجام می*گیرد.


      دکتر زابینه رورمان، از مرکز تحقیقات سرطان آلمان در شهر هایدلبرگ، با توجه به محدودیت*های بررسی میدانی رژیم غذائی، نتایج بدست آمده* از این پژوهش را بسیار خوب می*داند. دکتر رورمان که خود در پروژه*ی اروپائی بررسی رژیم*های غذائی کار می*کند، چندی پیش نتیجه*ی تحقیقاتی را منتشر کرد که بر مبنای آن مصرف بیش از حد گوشت باعث ابتلا به سرطان معده و روده می*شود.


      پس از انتشار این پژوهش هنوز هم متخصصان نمی*دانند که چرا مصرف گوشت قرمز رابطه*ی منفی با سلامتی انسان دارد. دلایل مختلفی تاکنون اعلام شده است. دکتر هاینر بوینگ، از موسسه*ی تحقیقات رژیم غذائی در شهر پوتسدام، می*گوید، به هنگام سرخ کردن گوشت قرمز مواد سرطان*زا تولید می*شود که دلیل آن به خاطر میزان بالای آهن در گوشت قرمز است. از سوی دیگر پرفسور هارالد تسورهاوزن، برنده*ی جایزه*ی نوبل پزشکی سال ۲۰۰۸، معتقد است که گوشت گاو می*تواند به ویروس*هائی آلوده شود که سرطان*زا هستند.


      iran

      Comment

      • Rasputin
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2005
        • 63906

        #4
        «مصرف گوشت براي سلامتي انسان زيان آور است و کره زمين را به نابودي مي کشاند.» شايد در آينده روي بسته هاي گوشت نيز همچون بسته هاي سيگار، چنين شعارهاي هشداردهنده يي نوشته شوند.

        نتايج تحقيقات تازه يي که از سوي متخصصان موسسه ملي مبارزه با سرطان در امريکا منتشر شده، در مورد استفاده از گوشت قرمز هشدار مي دهند. تيم تحقيقاتي اين موسسه برنامه غذايي بيش از 500 هزار نفر از مردم امريکا را در سال 1995 ثبت کرد. اين تيم سپس وضعيت سلامتي اين افراد را طي سال هاي گذشته زير نظر قرار داد. نتايج به دست آمده از تحقيقات حاکي از اين هستند که مصرف گوشت قرمز (گاو، گوسفند، خوک و بز) در ميان افرادي که وضعيت مشا بهي دارند، به مراتب بيشتر سبب بروز سکته قلبي و سرطان مي شود.

        طبق اين پژوهش، کساني «مصرف کننده حداکثر» مقدار گوشت قرمز تلقي شده اند که روزانه به طور متوسط 160 گرم گوشت مصرف مي کرده اند و رژيم غذايي «مصرف کنندگان حداقل» هر روز شامل حدود 25 گرم گوشت قرمز بوده است. پژوهشگران به اين نتيجه رسيده اند که اگر همه ميزان مصرف گوشت قرمز خود را به سطح ميزان مصرف کنندگان حداقل برسانند، يعني 25 گرم در روز، آنگاه خطر سکته قلبي و ابتلا به سرطان در بين مردان 11 درصد و در بين زنان 16درصد کاهش مي يابد.

        در گذشته تحقيقات در مورد گوشت معمولاً پس از بررسي نتايج تحقيقات ميداني در چندين عرصه ارائه مي شد، دليل آن هم محدود بودن تعداد افرادي بوده است که مورد تحقيق قرار مي گرفتند. اين براي نخستين بار است که تحقيقي درباره 500 هزار نفر يکجا انجام مي گيرد.

        دکتر زابينه رورمان، از مرکز تحقيقات سرطان آلمان در شهر هايدلبرگ، با توجه به محدوديت هاي بررسي ميداني رژيم غذايي، نتايج به دست آمده از اين پژوهش را بسيار خوب مي داند. دکتر رورمان که خود در پروژه اروپايي بررسي رژيم هاي غذايي کار مي کند، چندي پيش نتيجه تحقيقاتي را منتشر کرد که بر مبناي آن مصرف بيش از حد گوشت باعث ابتلا به سرطان معده و روده مي شود.

        پس از انتشار اين پژوهش هنوز هم متخصصان نمي دانند چرا مصرف گوشت قرمز رابطه منفي با سلامتي انسان دارد. دلايل مختلفي تاکنون اعلام شده است. دکتر هاينر بوينگ از موسسه تحقيقات رژيم غذايي در شهر پوتسدام مي گويد هنگام سرخ کردن گوشت قرمز مواد سرطان زا توليد مي شود که دليل آن به خاطر ميزان بالاي آهن در گوشت قرمز است. از سوي ديگر پروفسور هارالد تسورهاوزن برنده جايزه نوبل پزشکي سال 2008 معتقد است گوشت گاو مي تواند به ويروس هايي آلوده شود که سرطان زا هستند.

        دکتر بري پوپکين از دانشگاه کاروليناي شمالي، در تفسيري در رابطه با نتايج منتشرشده از سوي موسسه ملي مبارزه با سرطان، تاکيد مي کند که مصرف به اندازه گوشت قرمز، به خاطر وجود آهن در آن سالم است. وي خواستار کاهش ميزان مصرف گوشت و به خصوص گوشت هاي پردازش شده (مثل سوسيس و کالباس) شده است.

        نکته ديگري که در گزارش موسسه ملي مبارزه با سرطان در امريکا به آن اشاره شده، اين است که افرادي که به طور عمده گوشت سفيد مثل ماهي، مرغ و بوقلمون مصرف مي کنند، در مقايسه با افرادي که ميزان کمي گوشت قرمز در برنامه غذايي شان است، کمتر در معرض ابتلا به سرطان يا بيماري هاي قلبي قرار دارند.

        در پنجمين اجلاس جهاني آب که روز يکشنبه گذشته (22 مارس) در استانبول خاتمه يافت، مشخص شد بين 15 تا 25 درصد از منابع آب آشاميدني کره زمين براي دامپروري و توليد گوشت به کار مي رود اين در حالي است که يک ششم ساکنان کره زمين آب آشاميدني در اختيار ندارند. اين به اين معنا است که براي توليد هر تن گوشت به بيش از 17 هزار ليتر آب آشاميدني نياز است.

        20 درصد گازهاي گلخانه يي از سوي دام ها توليد مي شوند که حتي از ميزان گازهاي توليدشده توسط وسايط نقليه نيز بيشتر است.

        iran

        Comment

        Working...