|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
by author Graham Butler, BSc, CNPA
What happened? Two things-an overall trend toward lower meat consumption and the fact that numerous studies in the last 40 years have indicated a relationship between beef consumption and a host of diseases, including heart disease,cancer, arthritis, colitis and gout. In defense of beef, critics such as Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD, authors of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats (NewTrends Publishing, 1999) argue that many problems we associate with beef are, in fact, more likely the result of increased sugar and hydrogenated fat consumption in the last 40 years. Studies implicating beef are also often difficult to interpret because people who consume beef regularly tend to eat few fruits or vegetables, a fact that may in itself explain most of the results. On their website, westonaprice.org/myths _truths/myths_truths_beef.htm, Fallon and Enig write, “With the exception of butter, no other food has been subjected to such intense demonization in recent years as red meat, particularly beef.” Who’s right? Is beef a problem, are there other contributing dietary trends, or does it have something to do with way we raise and process our cattle? It’s worth noting that in countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where processing methods differ greatly from North America and Europe and where grass-fed and organic beef are the rule, the association between beef consumption and disease is much less credible. This is interesting because all have similar dietary habits. So, if it’s not beef itself, then maybe we should be looking more closely at conventional beef industry practices.
References available upon request. Graham Butler, BSc, CNPA, writes on numerous natural health topics based on his experiences as a consultant, retailer, educator and lobbyist. He lives in Toronto, Ont., and can be reached at tierdes@surenet.net. Source: alive #247, May 2003 |
||||||||||