| Latest blogs
Open up...and say 'ah ha'!Pat Thomas - 02 March 2012How do we decide what to eat? That was the subject of today’s Rethinking Diets panel discussion and debate.Most of us there expected some blue sky thinking but to say the skies turned a little thundery in our little room is an understatement. The Soil Association’s Richard Young made a fascinating case for bringing back indigenous pasture fed animals because not only can they thrive in our climate but the simple act of eating a natural diet of pasture means they have a healthier fat profile that mixes saturates, monosaturates and polyunsaturates in proportions that are optimal for human health. Richard’s view of the research, which was echoed by that of Dr Nastasha Campbell-McBride is that we’ve demonised animal fat at the expense of our health (though few agreed with Dr Campbell-McBride’s view that vegetarians were suffering from a form of mental illness!). Of course this is absolutely the antithesis of message we’ve all grown up with and a hard sell in the marketplace. Nevertheless, compelling research shows that the link between fat and heart health remains unproven and indeed the ‘fat is bad’ mantra has been used to skew dietary advice to a spectacular degree making it harder for any of us to make clear decisions about how we eat. As Sue Dibbs of Sustain said, many of us just eat what’s there, because busy lives mean that we rely on others (such as supermarkets) to make the choice for us. Yours truly suggested that it’s time to at least put the notion of choice editing on the table for a proper discussion – really do we need supermarkets with 30,000 different products to feel ‘free’? Suddenly it becomes clear that for all the blah blah blah that we hear on the topic of food on a daily basis, real discussion about what we eat, how we eat, how our food is produced, what’s healthy and what isn’t and how the data on this is misdirected and misinterpreted to serve not so healthy corporate aims, is very rare indeed. How do we decide what to eat? Well maybe we could start with more conversations like this that put it all on the table for everyone to digest.
Comments
Anon
13 March 2012 15:08
Philip. As I said before me and you will argue forever. just to put the record straight i did not say that veg travelling distances was worse than local livestock. Carbon footprint even an air freighted lettuce is only a third of beef. That aside i don't think your mythical grass-fed organic ruminants exist. I have worked on a lot of farms and have never seen them. The standards are percentage different but it is definitely not the case with organic dairy who get impressive yields precisely because of grain feeding. Grain feeding is also standard with organic pigs and poultry.
|
Carole Ford
13 March 2012 15:04
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313,0,565423.story
|
Philip Ridley
12 March 2012 13:26
Anon. Indeed, and the point is, that there is a growing number of people saying that there is no basis for asking people to reduce consumption of organic meat. The Soil Association's policy, in my humble opinion should be to encourage more consumption of all organic food produce. If the Association is not confident of its organic meat products, then why should livestock farmers pay for organic certification and why should consumers purchase said products? This is the most silly position to take. As you rightly point out, organic vegetables flown in from thousands of miles away have far greater impact upon the environment than meat produced locally. And again, you have applied a complete distortion to your statements because organic meat is primarily grass fed (The soil association requires that), and organic cows can be fed hay silage during the winter, that the farmer cuts from his own fields. It is only confinement animals that are fed primarily grain based diets, and it is only conventional farms that use GM soy. So I agree, go for less grain feeding and less confinement, but the way to achieve that is to encourage increased consumption of organic meat.
|
Anon
10 March 2012 15:31
As far as I am aware the Soil Association message is eat less meat not don't eat meat. Last time I looked the import crisis around food is that 95% of our fruit isn't grown here and neither is 50% of our vegetables. According to Simon Fairlie from our existing rural hinterland we could produce enough meat and dairy for everyone from organic systems. So therefore this brings me back to my point we should be concentrating on arable land being used for healthy crops for direct human consumption. This is in direct contrast to the current 60% of arable land that is feeding livestock cereals when instead they should be eating grass (in the case of ruminants) and waste (in the case of poultry and pigs).
|
Philip Ridley
09 March 2012 23:07
Anon. Precisely, which is why the Soil Association should not be in the business of telling people to not eat meat, for their health and environment, because those criticisms only apply to factory farmed meat. You appear to want balance without recognising that there has been an anti-livestock element in recent years attempting to marginalise livestock farmers. This must end so that we can have co-existence and the encouragement of organics wherever farming is found.
|
Anon
09 March 2012 19:01
Philip. I said that both systems should live alongside each other. The Soil Association should support market garden in urban and peri urban agendas because it supports its other agendas particularly around good food for all. It also has its new project around sustainable cities. You are trying to polarise me when I am not taking that position. In the spirit of this tolerance the Soil Association should not be organising "rethinking diets" workshop without allowing the peer reviewed studies around 9-a-day to be presented and should be guarded around allowing a presentation that says long-term vegans are mentally ill. That is insulting to me who is a certified licensee who pays my fees, is totally inspired by the agroecology of the soil - reading Eve Balfours book the Living Soil was a life changing moment for me and has shaped all my important life decisions since. You say: the Soil Association shouldn't marginalise livestock producers - it doesn't it represents their interest very well. I say the Soil Association shouldn't marginalise vegans especially if they are food producers using animal free techniques like composting and green manures. That is my fundamental question. Is this a new direction for the Soil Association? Others in the Soil Association have pointed out to me that this isn't the case as a stockfree grower was allowed to present in another workshop. Perhaps someone who understands plant-based nutrition and health should have been paid the same courtesy in this workshop. To create balance and reduce exclusion. I know at least two people who attended this workshop were extremely upset afterwards. That doesn't create community cohesion within the movement it cause long-term harm.
|
Philip Ridley
06 March 2012 19:15
John. Whether or not animals are necessary to organics, shouldn't we encourage livestock farmers to become organic rather than telling them to halt production, engaging them rather than marginalizing them? Telling people to not eat their products will merely serve to marginalize the Soil Association, which should instead focus on counteracting factory farming.
|
John Byng
06 March 2012 18:04
I am not a vegan or a vegitarian but I do know that animals are not "necessary for organic agriculture" as Philip Ridley states. Experiments with stockless rotations have been very succesful in producing organic crops.
|
Philip Ridley
06 March 2012 17:02
Anon. Regardless of your ambitions for a vegetarian country, Britain has and always will have livestock farmers. The economics of livestock will always over-whelm any of your attempts. Are you seriously suggesting that sustainable livestock producers in this country should be shunned by the Soil Association? This dogmatic approach provides you no favors and will do nothing to affect the public's appetite for meat. It will only achieve the marginalization of the Soil Association, setting back the organics agenda. Within this debate, nobody is criticizing the market garden model and of course it should play a key role in restoring local produce to this Country, with or without animal manure. Unfortunately you seem to see this as a polarized debate, whereby we have either a market garden or a pasture based livestock system, but the world is not like that, and both can co-exist. Thus, in promoting pasture based farming, I am not criticizing your market garden, and I advise you to not be so defensive.
|
Anon
06 March 2012 16:22
I think that you think there is only one organic food production system - there isn't. Mixed farming may work in rural hinterland areas on non-arable soils but it is not the best system for urban and peri-urban situations when we have rising world populations. In those situations we should concentrate on market gardening recycling societal wastes and green manuring. Even Simon Fairlie "livestock permacultural" scenario agrees with this. Biointensive growing with super efficient distribution is the only option. Market gardening, orchards, soft fruit and nut groves produce the maximum food calories per hectare. Also I won't be taking you up on the chicken idea because I don't want to make a 365 day commitment to the market garden when we pay wages. It is hard enough making a living from it as it is. Livestock is just too expensive for the average joe grower like me to introduce.
|
Philip Ridley
06 March 2012 15:27
Dear Anon. It is precisely the need to move from GM that is the reason why it is so important for the Soil Association to engage with livestock farmers. If The Soil Association withdraws from that sector, then it will continue towards the factory farming route without a positive counterbalance. I think your desire to move away from meat is therefore counterproductive to your objectives.
|
Anon
06 March 2012 11:44
I seriously hope that the Soil Association organised this workshop to promote debate and not showing the future direction of food policy for my charity that I pay nearly £600 towards each year. Philip - Joel Salatin is dismissed in the scientific community as making things up and buying in livestock feed probably GM. The nutritionists seem shaky internet phenomenon who are into selling supplements and not into having their work peer reviewed. If this is a new waive of intolerance towards vegan and vegetarians in the Soil Association then it needs to take a good look at itself. They are often the staunchest supporters and customers. This is in polar opposition to "good food for all" which I have been extremely filled with optimism about.
|
Philip Ridley
05 March 2012 22:04
Vicki. Our climate is one of the best on the planet for grazing, so not sure whether your comment has any merit for Britain. There are also grazing ruminents adapted to most climates. For example, Yaks in the dry, cold Himalayas and Alpaca high up in the Andes. You may find of interest our Thumbs Down reviews of Micheal Pollan's books supporting some of what he says but criticizing his simplistic conclusions: Ombivore's http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-down-reviews/the-omnivores-dilemma
|
vicki hird
05 March 2012 14:19
this was clearly a frustratingly short session for what is a huge and hugely crucial topic. I suspect in 5 years time it will be seen as the most important one regarding food and we will need some tried and tested policy solutions to drive dietary change. But for now I have always found that when talking to people, in the UK, who only care a bit and have even less time, quoting Michael Pollan is the best way: 'eat food, not too much, mostly plants'. For other communities with different climates and ecology there may be suitable variations..
|
Philip Ridley
05 March 2012 09:16
Anon. I just recommend that you get a small flock of chickens in your market garden, raised for eggs. This requires little space. Two or three can provide for a family, and you can pickle eggs for the winter. Feed them on scraps from the market garden and your kitchen and allow them to range and eat bugs. Then do a comparison, comparing veg plots with chicken manure and compost, and those with only compost from plant sources. Also, feed those fresh beautiful eggs to a child and see their eyes light up, or whisk a few raw golden yolks into your smoothie and notice how it makes you feel. Also, notice how the garden comes alive with just a couple animals, quite literally. God provided us with plants and animals, and I do believe that if we allow balance, then many of the problems in the world will work themselves out. One of the saddest things about the modern world is that we have been taught that polarized imbalance is balance, when nothing could be further from the truth.
|
Anon
05 March 2012 08:04
Other interesting research on heart disease http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/111901.html Thanks Philip for your reference. Has this article by Fallon and Enig been submitted for peer reviews? Had a read and it is extremely interesting and some of the information I hadn't come across before. Will definitely be rethinking eating margarine and stick to my cold pressed omega 3-rich vegetable oils. Interestingly about that article is the emphasis on exercise, eating lots fruit and vegetables, avoiding stress as well as the points you are making that eating unprocessed animal products. 3/4 isn't bad for a vegan and gives me confidence. Perhaps the farming systems we are promoting are are both right? Simon Fairlie has made the same point in the past. I think that l will stick with the market gardening because I know it works for the social inclusion agenda. But I do think that livestock farming needs to change dramatically probably onto a tree hay system as noted in a previous post as grazed grassland won't be able to survive our future droughts that are only around the corner. Livestock farming will also have to compete with the growing of energy silage and wood coppice on more marginal land in the future. I am not commenting on whether that is right or wrong just a comment on what is happening.
|
Philip Ridley
04 March 2012 20:01
Anon. Dr Natasha was claiming not only that animal fats are not harmful (if grass fed, ideally organic) she was also stating that they are important sources of nutrition, noting that the brain is almost 80% fat and contains over 25% of the body's cholesterol. You insinuate that no peer reviewed papers have questioned the diet heart hypothesis. I recommend that you read referenced articles such as this: http://www.westonaprice.org/cardiovascular-disease/what-causes-heart-disease . Also take note of this statement from the Director of The Framingham Study, which is the most thorough study on heart disease and it is often falsely cited by politicians as justification for the diet heart hypothesis. Think back to WMD's in Iraq, evidence is often "sexed up" to fit the policy objectives: "In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol… we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active." William Castelli, Director, The Framingham Study. Source: Archives of Internal Medicine 1992
|
Anon
04 March 2012 19:27
I think the main issues that Dr Natasha is arguing are that animal fats are not the issue in poor diet. I think Dr Natasha now needs to submit her papers to respected medical / nutrition journals and get her work peer reviewed. That is the only way to take it forward. I always feel uneasy about people who like putting their names to websites but that might be my British cultural upbringing. Perhaps her friends should make her aware that to many it puts her in the category of doctors who get internet degrees although I am aware that this is not the case. I believe health benefits come with eating more fruit and vegetables i.e. nine-a-day be that through reducing meat and dairy or reducing refined carbohydrates. This seems to be backed by Pat Thomas own work for Friends of the Earth and the 10 year European diet study by Oxford University. The main way to match land use with the health needs of our population is setting up market gardens to serve urban and peri-urban areas. Market gardens have multiple outcomes including health education, improved mental wellbeing, job creation, volunteering opportunities for marginalised people etc. They can also be set up on small patches of land e.g. Growing Communities micro sites. The Maasi comment was directed at Philip as he was suggesting that this is the roots of my diet. I disagree bovines have only been domesticated since neolithic times as far I am aware. Until Dr Natasha peer reviews her work we will probably be having the same discussions in 30 years time. Kind regards.
|
Gill Jacobs
04 March 2012 18:06
Anon, I'm sorry you didn't get my point. I hope others did. Look forward to carrying on this discussion face to face at another seminar sometime soon.
|
Anon
04 March 2012 15:11
To Gill and Philip. Thanks for an interesting Sunday discussion. I would urge against romanticising the diets of people who are living on the absolute marginal lands of the world like the Inupiat and the Maasi - this argument is always trotted out. In Britain we do not live in what are essentially deserts. The Maasi men are very aggressive and have some dubious cultural traditions including beating their wives, letting the women and girls do all the work and female gential mutilation of young girls. We cannot pick and choose which traditions we like of theirs. I am sure these traditions lead to a lot of mental health conditions far worse than imposing nearly two decades of a wholefood vegan diet on my body. If I was going to be experiencing the mental disfunction that you are arguing for I think it would have happened already. I also am friends with a lot of long term vegans and they are extremely positive people who hold professional careers and often work towards social justice. Britain is one of the best countries for growing food and that we should do. I am thinking we need a Dig for Victory type food system but instead linked to community-led trade ideas developed by Julie Brown. This is the only way I can see to create jobs in low-income neighbourhoods and connect everyone to better diets.
|
Gill Jacobs
04 March 2012 14:47
First of all I would like to thank Anon for the food he grows without chemicals for others to benefit from, including me. And for stimulating this very fruitful debate!It seems to me there are two issues here. First what is best for the environment, and secondly what is best for the environment, the planet and our health. Now from that some use ethical beliefs about not eating any animal products because of cruelty, and construct arguments to suggest that that is also best for the planet. If eating that way keeps you healthy and well, without supplementing with artificial nutrients, then that is fine. But it is not fine for all, and I don't want to be labelled as 'cruel' for basing my diet of both plants and animal protein by others taking the moral high ground! (I am not suggesting that is you, Anon)But I'm more in tune with looking back to indigenous people and their belief that the death of one being leads to the birth of another; this is seen as sacred and to be welcomed, not resisted. Mutual indebtedness is not something to shy away from, but to embrace. I think this is what traditional farmers on small farms intuitively understand.'In other words, in this culture in particular, we need to revive the tradition of honoring every blessing we receive with the recognition that we then become indebted to the giver. You cannot step out of the cycle of life and death in order to avoid this indebtedness.' http://www.ediblecommunities.com/ojai/winter-2012/how-animals-will-save-the-planet.htmGratitude is missing in our society, and exposure to hunger, as in climates where grains and vegetables are not to hand. I have a friend who lived with the Inupiat in Alaska for 23 years. These indigenous people believed, before dependence on the western diet, that when they were hungry, and hunting to live rather than starve, a karibou presented itself to them as part of the cycle of life and death. There is an energetic connection between hunter and animal. Their sacred beliefs honoured the animals they depended on. Availability of factory produced food, in conditions detrimental to animal welfare, and distant from our plates, allows us to take food for granted. It also does very little for our health, and the environment. So now I have developed this warm feeling of gratitude to those farmers who farm organically and ethically, on my behalf. If the Soil Association can raise the profile of those farmers, so undervalued by the majority, I am supporting them all the way! As for the topic of this seminar 'Rethinking Diets', lets unite in pushing forward for foods that can sustain us and connect us to the cycle of life. In the end its the wise traditions of our ancestors we need to connect with before corrupt science (the low fat mantra) separated us from the healthy and the local.Having said all this I am fully prepared for the comeback that in looking backward I am idealistically and romantically ignoring the need to feed a vast urbanised and growing population. We can't go on expeditions to the M25 to shoot a stray karibou! But I don't want to eat less meat to 'show China the way'. I want to eat a diet that fits with what my environment can produce naturally and ethically, and has a proper balance between plants and animal protein for my health needs. And if we have to eat less meat and fish because of availability or cost, then I'll be fine eating the more nutrient dense organs and bone broths, so ignored by the majority. Of course without grass if we start to experience drought, I'll have to think again!
|
Philip Ridley
04 March 2012 13:01
Anon. Human history prior to 10,000 years is unwritten, so it would be disingenuous and highly unlikely to claim that ancient tribes did not milk other mammal species. The chances that no hunter gatherer prior to 10,000yrs thought to milk a lactating mammal is remote to say the least, particularly given that mothers will obviously be familiar with the benefits of their own milk. You can successfully milk horses, for example, and no doubt humans have been taming horses for many tens of thousands of years if not more. Plenty of isolated tribes, potentially older than written history are dairy based, particularly in Africa, where some believe Humanity originated. Think of the ancient Masai tribes who only consume bovine blood and fermented milk. Regarding digestion, all healthy mammals are perfectly capable of digesting unpasteurized milk. It provides all the digestive enzymes and probiotics necessary for the digestion of casein and lactose, which can be digested by babies who lack the capability to digest solid food. Infact, the vast majority of people with lactose intolerance can tolerate raw milk because of the lactase and lacto-bacilli it contains. Only those with severe gastrointestinal disease cannot, and we recommend a GAPS diet for them www.gaps.me . For more information about the distinction between raw and pasteurised milk, visit realmilk.com and westonaprice.org . The only other animal food as digestible, nutritious and bio-available to humans would be the egg yolk, which requires little to no digestion. Regarding thermodynamics, you have inappropriately applied them to ecology in this manner, because the earth and its eco-systems are not closed systems. Ruminants are very effective at converting plant cellulose (unavailable to human digestion) into short chain saturated fatty acids, which contain the fat soluble vitamins A, D2 and K2 and many other complex nutrients and minerals in digestible form. Humans can produce many of these nutrients but the metabolism process is laborious and often cannot be carried out during illness, just when you need it, for example the conversion from carotene to vitamin A is very difficult. The manure from ruminants and the act of grazing stimulate more growth than would otherwise occur as a result of nitrogen fixing and the provision of micro-flora to the soil, and this process builds fertility for crops planted in rotation. Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics have been inappropriately applied to humans regarding obesity, because again, humans are not closed systems and different calories have different metabolic effects. Zoe Harcombe explains this and identifies it as a primary reason why obesity rises despite our efforts ( http://vimeo.com/26994290 ). The same impact would occur to ecological systems if we mis-apply the laws of thermodynamics to them, disregarding their complexity and their dynamic, open nature.
|
Anon
04 March 2012 12:34
When talking about dairy I was not talking about the last 10,000 years but much longer time scales when our digestive tracts evolved and our opposable thumbs. For most of human evolution humans have not eaten dairy. Thanks for other information which is interesting and will look up. Reducing meat in the diet doesn't waste resources. It is just eating lower down the food chain and therefore is thermodymnamically more efficient. When you are relying on marginal land to feed populations it probably means that your civilisation is nearing its end. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/01/lessons-history-collapsed-civilisations?newsfeed=true We should be maximising calories from arable land using biological cycles and that healthy food will produce healthy (including mentally well) populations. That is not possible within the mixed organic system on arable land because the aggregate yields are low. It is possible from organic market gardening on arable land with the Soil Association's own research from Reading Uni shows favourable yields.
|
Philip Ridley
04 March 2012 11:26
Anon, indeed, vitamin B12 was gained by the vegetarians in South India from insects prominent in their grain stores. With hygiene and pesticides, these were eliminated and vitamin B12 and other deficiencies became more prevalent. Incidentally, you can have your own chickens, do not have to slaughter them, and the chickens will turn insects into lovely tasty, nutritious eggs for you with plenty of vitamin B12. Also, Ahisma Cows sell slaughter free, organic milk http://www.ahimsamilk.org/ (they use semen selection to avoid excess bull production which would normally go for meat) . I have been talking with them about potential raw milk options for them. Again, cows also eat many insects when grazing, so you can also benefit from that without having to eat food that is not appetizing! Thus, you can retain your vegan ethical principles without banishing animals from the landscape.Regarding climate change, I never made the claim in my comment that climate change has been exaggerated, and do not wish to get into that debate here. My claim, backed up by George Monbiot is that the contribution of food to that issue has been exaggerated by a factor of almost two. Claims made about meat reduction and ecology are therefore vastly over-estimated and I say this means that we should focus on converting factory farming methods into organic pasture based models rather than wasting time on meat reduction a) because the benefits cannot be shown with the updated figures and b) because the public simply will not buy it and c) you will miss out on a huge opportunity to promote and expand organic agriculture because time spent trying to reduce meat consumption uses finite resources which could be employed promoting organic meat and dairy and, assisting factory and conventional farms in the conversion process. Also, you say that diary consumption is new. In saying this you clearly have not read your history. Look at the story of Romulus and Remus in the founding of Rome to mention one ancient milk based myth. Clearly, dairy has been part of Indian culture for millenia where the cow is sacred and there is much evidence that ancient Britons were primarily herders of bovine, consuming meat and dairy products. Infact, there are writings about how the Romans were fighting Britons to get them to stop grazing animals and instead plough and grow grains because then, as now, grains could be stored and traded across an empire, whilst dairy and meat remained mainly a local product with no benefit to international financial interests.
|
Anon
04 March 2012 10:28
To Phil.My diet is vegan of 17 years and is deficient in only one aspect B12 and in evolution I would have probably got that from insects. Drinking milk in any quantities is very recent and charring meat gives you cancer which makes me think that these were not the mainstay of our diets. I think we ate plants and insects. I think it is wrong to suggest a correlation of veganism to mental health. Today about 0.3% of the UK population are vegan whereas mental health conditions are according to the Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report is at 25% - hard to see a correlation. Dr Natasha is relying on her own anectdotal evidence which I can do the same. I work with a lot of people on our care farm with mental distress and they are all meat eaters. I would be careful at stating that climate change has been exaggerated. Tell that to the people of the global south where it is getting too hot to grow food. Also I would be careful about promoting Graham Harvey's book even Simon Fairlie has explosed some of the flaws when relying on the US Carbon Cowboys e.g. Salatin data when he buys in feed for his chickens (probably GM). Salatin has been dismissed in the scientific community. No one is denying that grassland is an important carbon reservoir but it has to sequester new carbon each year to offset GHG. There are issues around equilibrium of carbon stores, permanence and net gains are unlikely with nitrous oxide emissions from grassland. Powlson D S, Whitmore A P and Goulding K W T (2011). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false, European Journal of Soil Science, 62, 42–55 This was also found with Helen Brownings own carbon audit page 53 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=FO0404_8543_TRP.pdf I think it is much harder to argue against tree hay http://www.farming.co.uk/news/article/6111 Perhaps that should be the future direction of livestock farming? whilst leaving arable land for wholefoods, fruit and veg for direct human consumption. At the end of the day we can both argue our points. That is because we both respond to the ways we feel about the data rather than the actual facts. That is down to our values http://valuesandframes.org/. What I do know is that my form of farming i.e. market gardening delivers on environmental, health and social justice agendas and delivers "good food for all" so I think that I will stick with it. It also makes me and my family very happy.
|
Philip Ridley
04 March 2012 03:23
The key issue is not vegan vs vegetarian, vs carnivore. They key issue is whether fats from organic animals are safe for human consumption and, whether organic animals are beneficial for the environment. The question then is whether the Soil Association should promote mixed family farms as a sustainable solution for the future, abandoning agenda's which attempt to artificially skew farming towards more vegetables and grains, interfering with what the farmer would do under normal conditions. In particular, the impact of farming on climate change has been vastly exaggerated, as revealed by George Monbiot ( Why I was wrong about meat: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation ). This and Graham Harvey's books suggest that we should focus not on reducing meat reduction, but should instead focus on converting meat production to organics and promoting and educating the public about the health benefits of organic vs factory farmed meat. For example, grass fed has the proper omega 3/6 balance, vitamin D comes from sunshine, vitamins A and K2 come from green grass, and it is microbes in the soil, killed by pesticides and artificial fertilizer, which provide minerals for plants and the animals which eat them.
|
Philip Ridley
04 March 2012 00:04
In addition, if you wish to see how mixed family farms can feed our population, read Graham Harvey's "Carbon Fields".
|
Philip Ridley
04 March 2012 00:01
Anon, it is not vegan bashing to say that one should have a balance between plant and animal products. It is also not prejudice for a medical doctor to explain that a vegan diet is deficient in amongst other things, vitamin B6, B12, A, D2 and K2, or to say that protein and minerals are more readily available from animal products including eggs and dairy. A vegan diet also tends to be too high in carbohydrates which is why many vegetarians and vegans with weight problems struggle to loose weight, yet shed pounds when they move temporarily to a low carb, high protein and high fat diet which allows the body to re-balance. A vegetarian diet can be perfectly healthy for many if eggs and dairy are consumed, though some people do need red meat for sufficient iron and zinc and I have come across a number of anemic vegetarians and vegans.A vegan diet can, temporarily, be fantastic for cleansing the body, but does not in the long term provide everything the body needs, particularly in reference to a growing baby.I do recommend that you take the Weston A. Price Foundation's introduction for vegetarians: http://www.westonaprice.org/about-the-foundation/vegetarian-tour
|
Anon
03 March 2012 23:04
As a vegan of 17 years and a registered organic farmer for 8 years I feel saddened that the perceived lack of healthiness of a vegan diet marginalises vegans who are a subject of ridicule within the organic movement even though many of them are doing a excellent job as food producers. These forms of prejudice would not be acceptable in other walks of life. We don't run a mixed farm because we do not have the space. What I do know is that our rented 3 acre market garden, that is run purely on compost and green manures, feeds a lot more people on arable land (not marginal land) than any mixed farming system I have seen. Mixed farming was fine when we had the population before the second world war. It cannot provide 60.5 million people with a diet full of fruit and vegetables. Oxford Uni are arguing for nine-a-day. We are living in resource depleting times we have to get to grips with the real issues for arable land i.e. maximum calories per hectare. I believe urban and peri-urban horticulturalists e.g. the SPIN farming movement in US etc have much more to environment, health and social justice agendas over large organic farms that buy inputs from and sell within the industrialised food system. I also know onto our 3 acres we welcome about 30 volunteers each week with heart breaking issues around learning disability, physical disabilities and enduring mental health issues. We give then something to look forward away from where they live which is a really deprived and declining industrial town. Surely this is what "Good Food For All" is really about? Finally I would like to add that my veganism and that of my children (who are veggie) is not showing any lack of mental faculty in fact the opposite we are really happy, every day, and our children are thriving alongside the community that we are creating. We understand that we need to eat healthy fats and we include them in our diet. That is not a problem in a plant based diet. I also agree that a major factor in obesity is refined carbohydrates. The issues are complex but the vegan bashing in the organic movement takes us backwards not forwards.
|
Philip Ridley
03 March 2012 21:56
Pat, I was interested to see that you campaigned in the past for Meat Free Mondays. Given that animals are necessary for organic agriculture and, given that there are now questions about saturated fat, it would be interesting to see what implications that has for the meat reduction agenda that may fail to achieve any human health or ecological benefits, tho I do believe that many involved in that movement are unaware of that. I think it key that we not only rally against factory farmed animals, but also fight for grass fed, organic animals.
|
Barbara Jones
03 March 2012 19:03
It was a shame that this workshop had a poor start with last minute changes to the panellists and late arrival of Dr Natasha Campbell McBride. Joanna Blythman was asked to chair the workshop at short notice and was only made aware at a very late stage during the session, that we actually had an extra half hour. So everything was too rushed unnecessarily and points could not be made or explored in any depth. I had come across the work of the Weston A Price Foundation before and my daughter had attended a lecture last week by Dr Campbell McBride and recommended her highly. Without this background information, I don't think it would have been possible to get much from that session at all. From what I understand of the work of the Weston A Price Foundation, the organic system of food production is fundamental to their teachings and there was no time to bring this into the discussion and to make the connection between their work and this conference. This did her a disservice and would surely not improve the credibility of the Soil Association in their eyes.
I was aware that you, Pat, were brief and succinct with your comments thus allowing more time for discussion in that short workshop, so thank you for that...
|
Gill Jacobs
03 March 2012 10:49
The discussion did get heated with one vegan of two years saying that we could eat grass in the form of plants in the same way as cows eat grass, but go one better because we can avoid eating animals that way. Dr Campbell-McBride was already in the mode of having a very short time to present her talk, and I took it that having seen many problems in human health from a vegan/vegetarian diet in her practice, she was not going to pussyfoot around and go softly. She firmly responded that light in the form of energy from the sun is taken up by the grass, which is kindly processed for us by cows, using three stomachs, which we don't have, to break it down. She then explained that a plant based diet is good for cleansing, whilst an animal protein diet is necessary for building up and growth. Both are needed, whether meat, fish, insects or animal products in the form of butter or milk. That does not mean that a plant based diet for a short time for cleansing is not a good idea, as she had done for a ten day cleanse herself.I applaud her bravery in sticking her neck out like that in no uncertain terms, because of the health problems she has to treat when things go wrong because people think plants are enough for human health. Reading Lorre Keith is a good idea, as she suggests, if you want to hear it from the horses mouth. http://lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htmActually, Dr Natasha did not say that vegetarians suffer from mental illness. She did state that vegetarians eating grass fed, ideally raw dairy, and eggs, that they can be perfectly healthy. What she did say, is that a vegan diet lacks cholesterol, vitamin B12, B6 and vitamins A, D and K2, and that many minerals and proteins are more available in animal products. The brain is very hungry for cholesterol and fats, itself being approximately 80% fat. She has said that in her medical practice, as a practicing neurologist, that she has many patients suffering mental disorders from deficiencies bought about by veganism, not vegetarianism. She also balanced her point of view by stating that a vegan diet can be beneficial and cleansing for up to one or two years but that it should not be a lifestyle choice. She said that vegetable foods are crucial, in balance with animal products, because of their cleansing role. Others in the panel explained that mixed family farms with animals, cereals and vegetables are the most sustainable, with grazing and manure replenishing the soil which becomes depleted by ploughing. Dr Natasha's main work is based on mental disorders and nutrition, and her work can be found at http://www.gaps.me/In addition, you can see her speak on the issue, at the 2010 Weston A. Price Foundation Conference at this link: http://vimeo.com/10507542
|
Philip Ridley
03 March 2012 10:42
Actually, Dr Natasha did not say that vegetarians suffer from mental illness. She did state that vegetarians eating grass fed, ideally raw dairy, and eggs, that they can be perfectly healthy. What she did say, is that a vegan diet lacks cholesterol, vitamin B12, B6 and vitamins A, D and K2, and that many minerals and proteins are more available in animal products. The brain is very hungry for cholesterol and fats, itself being approximately 80% fat. She has said that in her medical practice, as a practicing neurologist, that she has many patients suffering mental disorders from deficiencies bought about by veganism, not vegetarianism. She also balanced her point of view by stating that a vegan diet can be beneficial and cleansing for up to one or two years but that it should not be a lifestyle choice. She said that vegetable foods are crucial, in balance with animal products, because of their cleansing role. Others in the panel explained that mixed family farms with animals, cereals and vegetables are the most sustainable, with grazing and manure replenishing the soil which becomes depleted by ploughing. Dr Natasha's main work is based on mental disorders and nutrition, and her work can be found at http://www.gaps.me/In addition, you can see her speak on the issue, at the 2010 Weston A. Price Foundation Conference at this link: http://vimeo.com/10507542
|
Post a comment | |