Comfortably Unaware (16 page)

Then there is the question of how “sustainable” eating grass fed livestock is on our own health. There will be the same overall lack of sustainability or effect on depletion of our own health as we have already seen, despite the myths that have been generated about grass-fed beef. When you hear or read that “grass-fed beef is healthy,” it is, in reality, being compared to grain-fed beef, which is not at all healthy to consume. Grass-fed beef has detectable amounts of beta-carotene, slightly less saturated fat, and slightly more vitamin A and E than its grain-fed counterpart. It will, in most cases, have fewer hormones and lower pesticide and herbicide content. All grass fed beef, however, will still contain unwanted high levels of cholesterol, higher than needed levels of saturated fat, and less than one-sixtieth the amount of beta-carotene as most plants, as well as containing cancer-causing agents such as heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, protein that has been implicated in numerous
disease states and the five leading causes of cancer, minimal vitamins, no fiber, and no phytonutrients or antioxidants to speak of, particularly when comparing it to nearly all plants used as food.

Many of individuals who exhort the virtues of grass-fed livestock make comparisons between our health now and that of our predecessors, who ate food that was not industrialized. So, when looking back to the beginning of the previous century, we might be able to learn just how “sustainable” consuming pasture-fed animals was.

It is true that back in 1900 to 1910, individuals in the United States were eating grass-fed cattle and other types of animals that were not grain-fed. Yearly consumption of meat was 143 pounds per person, but that did not reflect eating poultry or fish because record-keeping for that form of food was vague at best (USDA). Beef accounted for 41 percent of all meat consumed, compared to less than 30 percent as it is today (USDA). It is safe to say that a hundred years ago, individuals in the United States ate their fair share of meat—nearly as much as we eat today—and it was grass-fed. Even though this was long before the commercialization of food, the leading cause of death back then was coronary heart disease, just as it is today—from eating too much saturated fat and cholesterol from all the animal products, and not enough fiber or phytonutrients that can only be found in plants (The Leading Causes of Death 1908–1910, CDC). The only difference was that in 1910, people died at an average age of forty-eight to fifty-one because they did not have all the stents, triple and quadruple bypass surgical procedures, and medications that we have now, which allow us to live another forty years. In fact, the only reason cancers were number eight on the list of most
common mortality in 1910, instead of number two as it is today, was because the average age of death was forty-eight for men and fifty-one for women—they simply did not live long enough to develop all the cancers we see today, many of which (including the five most common malignancies) are related to eating animal products. Certainly from a health-risk standpoint, raising and eating grass-fed livestock is not sustainable at all.

Entertainers, policy-makers, or well-known authors may enjoy feeling as if they are authorities on this subject and therefore promote the continued use of raising animals for our food consumption, but the reality is that raising cows, pigs, or any other animals for slaughter and use for our food is
not sustainable at all
. Pasture-fed, organic, grass-fed, or whatever else you would like to call it is simply
not healthy
for anything or anyone involved.

The concept of migrating toward grass-fed livestock is understandable, in that it is much easier for the general public to accept—much easier than the more obvious evolutionary move away from eating animals altogether.

Even though I have presented a comprehensive view of global depletion that is occurring due to our food choices, it is important also to give you an example of what I think
is
sustainable.

Let's create an exercise using a parcel of land as a model, which can then be extrapolated to include all land used for agricultural purposes on our planet, give or take a few variables, depending on the degree of complexity for this exercise.

The best way to do this is to begin by giving each of you a parcel of land that consists of two acres. You can do whatever you would like with it but in the context that it must be used to grow food. Many of you would want to plant pasture grass and then use your two acres to raise livestock, because after all, it's
supposed to be very sustainable—and you may still feel the need to eat meat. You could raise one pasture-fed cow on those two acres, and even throw in a few chickens. Your two acres might be enough land in some areas of the country, but in others, you might need to borrow another few acres from your neighbor, just to support that one cow. You will need to supplement the cow with feed and hay over the winter months—where does that come from? Also, remember this cow will need to drink twenty to thirty gallons of water each and every day, and then you'll need to slaughter it, using hundreds of gallons of water in the process. At the end of the two years required for growth, you will be left with about 480 pounds of what some people would call edible muscle tissue—essentially whatever is left over for you that was cut off of the cow's body to consume as food.

Or, alternatively, you could forego the cow/livestock method and use your two acres to grow varieties of plant-based foods; there are many. Take kale, for example. Stated as one of the primary “power foods” on our planet by a number of food and nutrition experts, this plant delivers more nutrients per calorie than any other food. Kale has antioxidants, and among its many micro- and macronutrients, it has a large amount of vitamins K and C and potassium. This plant food has more than sixty times the amount of beta-carotene than grass-fed beef. Kale has at least forty-five different phytonutrients, each of which has been shown to increase immune response, reduce the likelihood of developing cancer, and provide anti-inflammatory properties. Kale also has a perfect ratio of omega-3 fatty acids, and it has fiber, something no grass-fed livestock can provide.

Looking at land use efficiencies and sustainability of resources, one acre will produce, on average, 10,000 pounds of kale
in one year, with no (or minimal) water needed during growth, and no water during the “slaughtering” (harvesting) process. Kale will actually continue to grow through extremes of temperatures from minus-5 degrees through 105 degrees F., and after you pick the leaves, it grows new ones. Also, no pathogens, such as H1N1,
E. coli
, salmonella,
Campylobacter
, etc., will ever grow on these plants—as long as there are no livestock farms nearby.

Remember, you have one other acre left over, so my suggestion is to plant a grain, such as quinoa, which is another powerful food that can be grown quite sustainably, yielding 5,000 pounds per acre and providing a gluten-free source of 18 percent protein with a balanced amino acid profile and 14 percent fiber—quite healthy.

So there you have it. With the first method, you have used your two acres of land to create 480 pounds of animal products used as food, but it is a type of protein still implicated in numerous disease states, and along the way you have produced tons of methane and CO
₂
, and used, at the least, 15,000–20,000 gallons of water.

Or instead, if you used your two acres to grow plants, such as kale and quinoa, you have produced at least
30,000 pounds
of food over a two-year period that required no water and caused no greenhouse gas emissions. And the food you ended up with is infinitely healthier for you and for our planet.

To conclude this exercise, I have a novel idea. Grow only plant-based foods, such as kale and quinoa (although there are many other plants) on your two acres, instead of using the land to support one grass-fed cow. Then feed yourself and your family—you could even feed your neighbors' families. But then look at all that leftover kale and quinoa, and take just a moment to box up
some of the remaining thousands of pounds of surplus food that you grew, and ship it to all the starving children in Ethiopia. That is my definition of sustainable.

I hope you now have a better understanding of the immense effect your food choices have on the health of our planet. So where do we go from here? What can you do, as an individual, as a consumer? First, you must take yourself, your health, and the health of your planet more seriously. It is not enough to think only about the type of car you need to drive to use less gas, or to change to energy-efficient light bulbs. These are important, but you must look way beyond global warming toward global depletion. Understand and have it clearly imprinted that the choices you make for food to eat today—every meal, every day—had to come from somewhere other than just your grocery store. Ask yourself what resources it took; what was sacrificed to get it to you. Ask yourself about the true cost of that food—what was depleted in its production process?

It is my hope that this book serves as a platform of food-choice enlightenment from which you will keep your awareness antenna up and open for expansion of knowledge, based on accurate and unadulterated information. With a newfound awareness, you can use common sense and make a clear decision to commit to do the right thing regarding food choices—do not go halfway. I like to refer to Tony Horton, creator of the P90X fitness protocol, who continually motivates his audience to “bring it” and “don't just kinda do it.” Sure, deciding to not eat meat once a week or only when not with friends is a step in the right direction. But if you take this halfway approach, here's what you are really doing: you are saying, “I read Dr. Oppenlander's book and now realize that eating meat is contributing to global depletion. Therefore, I
will do the right thing and eat plant-based foods a couple of times a week to feel good about myself, and then I will continue contributing to global depletion on every other day.” Please remember that with
every
bite you take of any animal product, some serious form of global depletion took place, and something had to be sacrificed. There really is no room to go halfway or to “just kinda do it.”

Millions of people are influenced by a few who advocate not only eating grass-fed livestock but also that we approach our food choices from other less-than-sustainable concepts. I have a better approach. For instance, instead of “voting with our forks,” which we have actually been doing for the past fifty years—and look where it has gotten us—we should actually vote
with our minds
first; then, let
our forks follow
. Also, it is not so wise to eat only foods that your great-grandmother would recognize, because she ate cows, pigs, turkeys, chickens, lamb, and other unhealthy foods obtained from animal parts—not such a good idea.

If you go to the farmer's market, choose plant-based foods. Let the local farmers that you support know you want organically produced food and nothing that came from raising animals, because that uses too much land and water, and affects our atmosphere and our health.

Now for the most important modification of what you hear from many sources: the “go meatless on Monday” campaign. Good; that's terrific. Now you will be contributing to global warming, pollution, and global depletion of our planet's resources on only six days of the week instead of seven. You will be contributing to our national health-care cost crisis to the tune of $140 billion per year, instead of $143–160 billion, and you will be reducing your likelihood of contracting any one of the five leading
causes of cancer to only 50 percent, instead of a 58 percent higher risk than if you ate all plant-based foods. Also, by only eating meat six days of the week, your risk of succumbing to coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, or any of a number of other diseases might be reduced by a very small amount, but it is still significant.

The point is clear: If you do not eat meat on just
one day
per week, it is certainly better than eating it every day—but not much better, and you are not doing nearly enough. Eating animals is a choice, not a physiological mandate; there is no reason to eat them. Therefore, there is no reason to produce them, particularly knowing how detrimental this practice is to our health and the health of our planet—as well as knowing the benefits of plant-based foods. So, there is no reason whatsoever to advocate going “meatless” on Monday. My strong recommendation is that we
do not
eat “only foods our great-grandmother would eat”; that we vote with our minds and with a new awareness; and that we go meatless
every day
.

Regarding food choices, continue to enlighten yourself; open up and enhance your level of consciousness. Break away from those cultural and media marketing constraints. Do the right thing and commit. Be absolutely consistent with following through, and then feel great about what you are doing. Your body, mind, and spirit will be in a better place—and so will our planet.

A closer look at the animals

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
—Mahatma Gandhi

OF COURSE, THE TITLE OF THIS
chapter is facetious; this chapter desperately needs to be read. And this is why: although I have presented the impact our current food choices have on global depletion, somewhere in the mix it would not be right to exclude the reality of animal management. Why? Because it is real. Similar to global depletion, the manner in which we treat animals raised for food is “out of sight, out of mind.” Please understand: this book is not about animal rights, although that is a very noble concern. It is about truth,
so some mention of the way animals raised for food are treated behind the scenes is in order. I do not want to expound heavily on this topic, however, because, frankly, you might not view the entire contents of this book properly otherwise. Animal rights has inappropriately become a stigma in some venues. The vast majority of humans would rather not hear about their food origins, particularly if it involves inhumane treatment, torture, abominable living conditions, or the pain and suffering of living things. It is much easier to simply turn the other way.