Archive | 5:07 pm

How to Win An Argument With a Meat-Eater

13 May

The Hunger Argument

Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million
Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million
Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20
Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80
Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95
Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250
Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16
The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more
Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85
Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million
Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds
Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75
Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet
Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year
The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times
For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times
For women who eat butter and cheese 2-4 times a week: 3.25 times
Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times.
The Cholesterol Argument

Number of U.S. medical schools: 125
Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours
Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack
How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds
Average U.S. man’s risk of death from heart attack: 50 percent
Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15 percent
Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4 percent
Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9 percent
Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45 percent
Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90 percent
Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl
Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50 percent
The Natural Resources Argument

User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production
Amount of water used in production of the average cow: sufficient to float a destroyer
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000
Years the world’s known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13
Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260
Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78
To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2
Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by U.S. that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33
Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the U.S. needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2
The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55
Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13
Percentage resistant in 1988: 91
Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban
Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support
The Pesticide Argument

Common belief: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection
Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues
Percentage of U.S. mother’s milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99
Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother’s milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8
Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher
Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level
The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000
Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker
Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker
The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner)
Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian
Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?)

via: vegweb.com

Animal Protein -Meat and Dairy – Cause Cancer

13 May

This is Professor T. Colin Campbell PhD’s FULL presentation at the 2003 VegSource Healthy Lifestyle Expo.

In the 45 minute talk, Professor Campbell discusses the powerful evidence demonstrating that animal protein is one of the most carcinogenic substances people are regularly exposed to.

Only 2 to 3 percent of cancers are attributable to genes.  The rest has to do with lifestyle, and diet is the primary driver behind several common cancers.

This is what the life’s work reveals of celebrated professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and one of the directors of the China Project — T. Colin Campbell, PhD.

His first epiphany came in the 1970’s when he found liver cancer was associated with a diet high in animal protein.

The Great American Diet causing cancer??  Campbell’s colleagues thought he was nuts.  “Don’t go there.”

But go there he did…and beyond.

In this fascinating 45-minute talk, Campbell describes his journey from dairy rancher and animal-protein advocate…to vegan and disease prevention researcher.

Campbell’s famous research showed that cancer tumor growth could be turned on — and turned off — just by raising or lowering animal protein intake.

Via: Vegweb.com http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/01/meat-dairy-cause-cancer-video.html

Jamie Oliver: Obesity costs US $150 Billion a year

13 May

Great speech by Jamie Oliver, take 21 mins to watch it is worth while, enjoy !

Mike Tyson Goes Vegan

13 May

Mike Tyson says he feels awesome and that’s a little scary.

Proving that Americans always love a comeback story, Tyson captivated a studio audience as he taped a 90-minute interview for the Yes Network series “CenterStage” in New York on Tuesday. Alternately defiant, choked-up and introspective, Tyson’s frank answers frequently drew applause and laughs some of the nervous variety as he detailed his rise and fall as heavyweight champion.

Tyson is starring in a reality TV series on Animal Planet in which he races pigeons. He says he’s become a vegan and has “no drama” in his life right now, which he concedes is an odd feeling for an athlete notorious for his brushes with the law.

Millions Spent Pushing Junk Food in Movies

13 May

Children are blasted with images of non-nutritious foods and beverages when they go to the movies, a new study says.

Companies pay to have their products used conspicuously in movies, and items pushed are overwhelmingly low in nutrients and high in calories, researchers say in a new study in the journal Pediatrics.

For the study, raters viewed 200 movies that cashed in big at the box office, scoring the top 20 hits each year between 1996 and 2005 based on sightings of brand foods, beverages, and food retail establishments.

The study found that 69% of the movies had at least one food, beverage, or food retail establishment brand placement. Movies rated PG-13 and R scored significantly higher on brand placements than movies in other categories, the authors write.

The researchers, including Lisa A. Sutherland, PhD, of Dartmouth Medical School, say that their study is the first to provide a comprehensive analysis of food and beverage product placement in popular movies. Candy and salty snacks were common product placements, as were sugar-sweetened beverages and fast food eateries.

The researchers say that:

  • Candy/confections (26%) and salty snacks (21%) were the most prevalent food brands, and sugar-sweetened beverages (76%) were the most prevalent beverage brands.
  • Most of the placements were for high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods or product lines.
  • Products were placed most often in comedies, action-adventure, and horror films.
  • Soft drink, chips, and fast food brands dominated PG and PG-13 movies.
  • McDonald’s and Burger King were responsible for one-fifth of all fast food brand placements.
  • Sugar-sweetened drinks accounted for one of every four brand placements identified by researchers.

The researchers say trained scorers spotted 1,180 brand placements in 138 movies, and most were for foods or product lines with little nutritional value.

“Our findings demonstrate that popular movies provide yet another medium through which energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods are promoted to children and adolescents,” the authors write.

Product placement is far from new, but it didn’t attract much attention until the early 1980s, when placement of Reese’s Pieces candies in the movie E.T. resulted in a 65% jump in sales within three months.

The authors say although “the prevalence of food and beverage advertising in children’s television programming has been widely studied, little is known about product placement in movies and how it might affect the food and beverage preferences and choices of children and adolescents.”

According to the study, six companies — PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Nestle US, McDonald’s, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and Burger King — accounted for 45% of all brand placements in the movies viewed.

The authors say that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo “have longstanding commitments not to advertise their soft drink products during children’s television programming,” but their items “regularly appeared in movies, especially those rated for children and adolescents.”Children are blasted with images of non-nutritious foods and beverages when they go to the movies, a new study says.

Companies pay to have their products used conspicuously in movies, and items pushed are overwhelmingly low in nutrients and high in calories, researchers say in a new study in the journal Pediatrics.

For the study, raters viewed 200 movies that cashed in big at the box office, scoring the top 20 hits each year between 1996 and 2005 based on sightings of brand foods, beverages, and food retail establishments.

The study found that 69% of the movies had at least one food, beverage, or food retail establishment brand placement. Movies rated PG-13 and R scored significantly higher on brand placements than movies in other categories, the authors write.

The researchers, including Lisa A. Sutherland, PhD, of Dartmouth Medical School, say that their study is the first to provide a comprehensive analysis of food and beverage product placement in popular movies. Candy and salty snacks were common product placements, as were sugar-sweetened beverages and fast food eateries.

The researchers say that:

  • Candy/confections (26%) and salty snacks (21%) were the most prevalent food brands, and sugar-sweetened beverages (76%) were the most prevalent beverage brands.
  • Most of the placements were for high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods or product lines.
  • Products were placed most often in comedies, action-adventure, and horror films.
  • Soft drink, chips, and fast food brands dominated PG and PG-13 movies.
  • McDonald’s and Burger King were responsible for one-fifth of all fast food brand placements.
  • Sugar-sweetened drinks accounted for one of every four brand placements identified by researchers.

The researchers say trained scorers spotted 1,180 brand placements in 138 movies, and most were for foods or product lines with little nutritional value.

“Our findings demonstrate that popular movies provide yet another medium through which energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods are promoted to children and adolescents,” the authors write.

Product placement is far from new, but it didn’t attract much attention until the early 1980s, when placement of Reese’s Pieces candies in the movie E.T. resulted in a 65% jump in sales within three months.

The authors say although “the prevalence of food and beverage advertising in children’s television programming has been widely studied, little is known about product placement in movies and how it might affect the food and beverage preferences and choices of children and adolescents.”

According to the study, six companies — PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Nestle US, McDonald’s, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and Burger King — accounted for 45% of all brand placements in the movies viewed.

The authors say that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo “have longstanding commitments not to advertise their soft drink products during children’s television programming,” but their items “regularly appeared in movies, especially those rated for children and adolescents.”

Sourced from WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20100209/movies-butter-up-to-kids-via-junk-food?src=RSS_PUBLIC

By Bill Hendrick
WebMD Health News

Health insurance companies invest billions in fast food chains

13 May

Did you ever wonder how health insurance companies drum up future business? It’s easy: Just invest in companies whose products cause chronic degenerative disease, driving people towards more health care needs and therefore more health insurance.

And that’s exactly what the health insurance industry is doing. A new article published in the American Journal of Public Health reveals that U.S. and Canadian health insurance giants own nearly $2 billion worth of stock in fast food giants like McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell and others.

So profits made by health insurance companies are reinvested in industries that make people sick and diseased, bringing them back to buy more health insurance down the road. It’s a pretty clever business model for an industry that seems focused on the almighty dollar and obviously has no concern whatsoever for the actual health status of its customers. If anything, these health insurance companies hope you get sicker!

Corporate conspiracy to keep you sick and diseased

These unholy alliances among corporate giants that conspire to keep you sick are more common than you think. In addition to health insurance companies owning billions of dollars worth of shares in fast food companies, pharmaceutical companies now own major shares of popular vitamin companies — the ones that produce the cheap, useless chemical vitamin supplements sold at places like Wal-Mart and Walgreens.

Investors in the mainstream media are some of the same companies that own medical imaging equipment manufactures that produce mammography machines and CT scans, too. And did you know that the American Dental Association owns patents on materials used in mercury fillings, which is one of the reasons why the ADA continues to push for installing toxic mercury into the mouths of children? (http://pnwf.org/Dentistry_Mercury_C…)

This ownership of fast food companies by the health insurance corporate giants demonstrates a deeply disturbing fact about the entire sick-care industry: It really is about profits rather than health. If they can make an extra buck feeding you the very junk foods that are causing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and strokes, they will absolutely jump on that profit bandwagon no matter what the cost in human lives, pain and suffering.

The bigger picture: What are YOU invested in?

There’s an even bigger story to all this, by the way. While it seems altogether contradictory that health insurance companies would invest in fast food chains, the disturbing truth is that many institutional investors hold billions of dollars worth of shares in pharmaceutical companies. Your very own mutual funds may hold large positions in Big Pharma. Even your employer may be investing your pension funds in vaccine-pushing corporations.

Right now might be a good time, in fact, to review whatever investments you might have and make sure you’re not inadvertently investing in the types of corporations whose actions you oppose.

Personally, I don’t have a single dime invested in any drug company, oil company, junk food company or fast food chain. I prefer to focus on “green” investments that support the things I believe in: Renewable energy, nutrition companies, etc. Did you know that Cyanotech, the Hawaii company that makes spirulina, is a public company? You can actually own stock in Cyanotech (I don’t, but only because I don’t want a conflict of interest when I write about them). Vitacost.com is also a public company, as are many companies in the natural products space.

If you own mutual fund shares, you might be surprised to find out where your money is being invested. You actually have to research it a bit to find out where these mutual funds redirect your money. Most of them invest in Big Pharma in one way or another.

Remember that every dollar pumped into the pharmaceutical industry is another dollar that will be used to further expand the medical enslavement of the population through vaccines, medications, chemotherapy and other dangerous chemical treatments. The best way to protect the health of future generations is to starve Big Pharma of investment dollars and revenue by refusing to buy their products or stock shares.

It’s easy to criticize health insurance companies for investing in fast food chains, but it takes some courage and maturity to review your own investments and make sure they’re all supporting the right companies.

Can you pass the investment integrity test?

One thing I’ve learned about people in this world is that some people are so incredibly greedy and selfish that they’ll put their money anywhere that makes them the most money, regardless of where it’s being invested. Even some people in the natural health industry are that way, I’ve learned: If they could get a 15% annual return by investing in Big Pharma, they’d do it!

So here’s something to ask yourself. It’s an integrity quiz, actually: If you could make a 5% annual return investing in renewable energy, or a 15% annual return investing in a vaccine-pushing drug company, which one would you really choose to invest in? Consider, too, that your investments are private and no one would really know what you invested in.

If you can honestly say you would gladly earn less money by supporting more natural and health-friendly companies, then you pass the test and you can consider yourself one of the few in our world who truly operate with integrity.

Sources for this story include
NaturalNews.com

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_Diet…

American Journal of Public Health
http://ajph.aphapublications.org

Preview from Food Inc.

13 May

An incredible documentary showing the harsh realities of the food industry, very informative and a must watch. This will open your eyes and change the way you look at food and also alter your decisions when purchasing food, enjoy !