Whole Foods’ new nutritional ratings system ignores 2.4 million years of human history. Oops.
First off, we love us some Whole Foods (WF). They get it, and in a big way. Plus their stores are really cool and smell nice. But, in case you missed it, WF just launched (or is in process of launching) a new nutrition rating system called ANDI (Aggregate Nutrient Density Index) based on the work of author Joel Fuhrman. So far, so good.
A quick review of the ANDI page reveals a thoughtful effort to help consumers eat better. However, the “Low Fat” portion of ANDI got our attention. According to ANDI, your diet should be low in fat and you should “get your healthy fats from plant sources, such as nuts and avocados.” In other words, your primary source of fatty acids/lipids (aka fat) should be from plants. While we get why WF takes this position, the ANDI system conveniently ignores 2.4 million years of human evolution, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on fatty acids, and major paradigm shifts under way in the nutrition, medical, and genomic sciences. Again, we love us some WF, but this is a classic example of political vegetarianism vs evolutionary biology. Somewhere betwixt the twain the truth will be found. But first, our perspective.
By analyzing ancient human and animal remains, studying the diets of modern hunter-gatherers, and comparing nutrient compositions of wild and domesticated plant and animal foods, evolutionary biologists have gained insights into ancestral human diets. Although dietary patterns varied by latitude, season, weather, culture, and other variables, all ancestral diets shared key features. Food sources were limited to unprocessed plants foraged, and unprocessed land and marine animals hunted from the proximate environment. Hunted animals consumed only natural foods from local environments. Until recently, human diets consisted of combinations of wild animal carcasses (including brains, bone marrow, and organs), shellfish, fish, fruits, leafy vegetables, mushrooms, insects, larvae, nuts, and seasonal honey and eggs. These diets provided balance in critical metabolic processes, favored health, and allowed our ancestors to thrive, reproduce, and pass their genes to subsequent generations.
It is clear from modern medical research that dietary lipid intake exert important influence upon human health and the expression of chronic disease. Therefore, it is likely that human dietary lipid requirements are genetically determined, and that the evolutionary, nutritional selective pressures that have acted upon the ancestral human lineage over the past 2.4 million years may provide important insight into optimal, present day, lipid intakes. Substantial evidence from archaeological deposits reveal that consumption of animal tissues play a prominent (often dominant) role in diet of our ancestors. Consequently, fats derived from wild game animals almost always represented the primary lipid source in pre-agricultural human diets.
Neither fish nor fowl became common dietary constituents until about 15,000 years ago — limited mainly due to technology — so the main nutritional adaptation over the most of humanities 2.4 million year existence was the tissues of mammals that were either scavenged or hunted. Archaeological and ethnographic data indicate that our ancestors consumed not just muscle tissue, but also certain fatty portions of the carcass including brain, marrow and depot fat. Consequently, the lipid composition of these wild ruminant tissues provide insight into the qualitative range of dietary lipids that ancestral humans typically encountered and may be useful in determination of present day dietary lipid recommendations for the prevention and treatment of chronic disease.
So any new nutrition rating system (e.g., ANDI) that honestly wants to improve human health should develop rating systems that consider the lipid composition of mammal tissues most likely consumed by our ancestors in order to provide some evolutionary glimpse into dietary lipid profiles that modern humans are physiologically adapted to and create rating systems that most likely resembles fats we are genetically selected for.
LIVNAKED friendos. Think before you bite.
This whole discussion is funny to me because I remember having very much the same argument in 2001 while in high school over the school’s e-mail server. I was raised a vegetarian and stayed one until I turned 18. After going to college, I decided it would make sense to eat some meat so I could get the protein I needed since I wasn’t eating home-cooked meals anymore and had to rely on the really limited cafeteria.
In the end, it comes down to this: if you are living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and don’t have consistent access to high-protein and high fatty-acid vegetables, then yes, meat is by far the readiest and best source of the two. But if you have any choice in the matter, the unnatural practices of the modern meat industry have made it less healthy to eat meat, and thus it would make more sense to be vegetarian. You can, after all, just go to Whole Foods and get plenty of avocados, cereal containing hemp seeds, etc. We have been seeing more and more studies showing us that meat, and especially red meat, cause all sorts of cancers, heart disease, etc.
Y’all, in the end, are just trying to stir up a discussion and justify your own dietary choices. I hope it works out for you, but don’t try to put down others choices in the process. “Political vegetarianism” has done a lot to change the way we think about the food we eat, and so it might make more sense to take an approach that embraces both views…
There are lot of vegan/vegetarian people who like the taste of meat, but choose not to eat it for ethical reasons. That is why meat replacements exist. It amazes me how many omnivores don’t understand this. They are dumbfounded when people who don’t eat meat emulate it in different ways. Really? Is that so hard to understand? We have moral issues with it, okay? And yes, I understand that everyone has different morals and that not everyone cares about animal rights. More specifically that very few people care about animal rights. But maybe you meat-eaters could try to be a little more understanding too?
@vitameatavegimin No one. I am the arbiter of what kind of life deserves consideration for myself only.
I haven’t really seen any vegetarians or vegans posting here saying that everyone should stop eating meat. They have said what works works for them. Overly defensive meat eaters have lashed out saying we should keep our opinions to ourself…yet you are free to express your opinion.
I’ve been vegan for 6 years. I’m not scrawny, but could actually stand to lose a few pounds. I’ve got no issues with B12 deficiency. I hike, mountain bike, and workout on a regular basis and have plenty of energy.
The diet works for me, but that doesn’t mean it will for everyone.
Ethical/animal rights reasons are not what made my decision. Environmental and world economics reasons are though. From the meat industry (which is the lowest number and likely not accurate) it takes 2.6 pounds of grain and 436 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef. That grain and water could have been used to feed people and it would be much more efficient. For me, I can’t rationalize being that selfish.
Similar the amount of grains or vegetables produced per acre vs beef is a significantly larger number.
This isn’t even taking into account the environmental impacts of a factory farm and the methane/other pollution that is created.
Grass fed is better? Did you know that grass fed beef produces 50% more green house gases than corn fed according to the latest studies?
Cancerproject.org (mentioned above) is a great site which talks about health benefits of cutting down on meat intake as well. It is run by doctors and nutritionists.
My reasons for what I choose to eat are: World Economics, Environmental, Health, and then Ethical.
To each his own, do what works for you and what you are comfortable with. I don’t advocate that everyone be vegan or vegetarian, but I do suggest that eating less meat/dairy is better for your health, the environment, and world economics.
It’s important to consider that it’s only very recently in human history that the animals we eat have been consuming grain and it’s not good for them. Were our ancestors eating fat sick animal meat? I don’t think so. Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with the article. The other consideration is learning how to feed all of us without having to create a mass of sick fat animals…. but that’s another story.
According to my dentition, meat should be a part of diet in addition to tasty vegetables, crunchy nuts and yummy grains.
I particularly like the meats I capture, kill and process myself. Given the choice between a wild-sourced elk chop and a commercial beef ribeye, nie time out of ten I’ll choose the elk. I feel the same about the other small game, fish and seafood I gather myself.
Every ‘meat’ substitute is just that…a SUBSTITUTE! If we were truly meant to consume ONLY fruits and ONLY certain vegetables, then why the need for the substitutes? Just eat your fruits and veggies and quit eating the wanna-be meat concoctions (which, by the way, are horrible..too much MSG and salt..gotta shoot some flavor into those Q’orn patties somehow. Ick).
As for the previous argument that Hindus have always been vegetarians, not true. In practice, yes, but until about 50 years ago, when food hygiene practices started becoming widespread, most of a Hindu’s meal contained a fair amount of insect material. What do insects have? Protein and FAT. Components that allowed Hindus to absorb the Vitamins A and E that were prevalent in their meals. Now many Hindus are suffering from vitamin deficiencies because their vegetarian fare is devoid of those tiny insect eggs and bodies.
As I said, all y’all veggie heads can keep your ‘ethical’ eating to yourselves. There has never been a vegan culture on this planet, and there never will. I wonder why?
As usual vegge-mites think they rule the world. Gimme a steak and let me die at 50….geez. Have you seen veggo’s. Pale, thin, and real ‘healthy’ looking.
Here is a good video on meat: http://meat.org
Regarding “preying” on plants — we usually eat the fruit of said plants, and the grains of said plants. These were meant for the taking, in the hopes that some of the less chewed or less digestible parts would be deposited in a heap of shit, so that more of said plants could grow.
Animals don’t happen to reproduce this way, nor encourage the harvesting of their body parts. I’d say that’s a significant difference.
@Vegan: So again, who made you an arbiter of what kind of life deserves consideration and what doesn’t?
It’s a specious (and self-serving) argument that if something doesn’t SEEM to have animal-like nervous systems / feelings / blood / what-have-you, then it’s ok to reap-em and eat-em.
Videos? Puh-leeze! Like Former_Vegan, I’ve actually gotten my hands bloody. I would argue that a meat-eater has greater respect for their impact as a whole than someone who hasn’t looked into the eyes (or pistils) of their food. I never take what’s on my plate for-granted.
Again, I ask, if plants are alive, why do you think it’s ok to prey on them and not animals?
Yes, it’s an ethics question. And one that cannot be answered by remaining on that awfully-tasty-looking high-horse. If science itself has problems defining what constitutes life, then I’m pretty damned sure no one can make an informed argument that it’s ok to boil up a head of cabbage because it can’t feel it. Where are the morals in that?
And you invoke sentience as a pre-requisite for recognizing a living thing’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?! Truly a high-horse position. “Little Timmy, life is precious and we shouldn’t take the wittle calf’s life because it has a brain and nervous sytem and a family. But it’s okay to take the life of a plant. It can’t think after all.”
Life is life. If there’s going to be an ad-hominem blanket condemnation of taking a certain type of life for food purposes, then it applies to ALL taking of life for food purposes. No one gets out of jail free. Life is sustained by other life. Slitting the jugular of a ruminant is no more abhorrent than cutting up a carrot, chopping up broccoli no less damning than drowning an ortolan.
I’m an equal-opportunity food-slaughterer. Time for a plant-rights movement!
@ vitameatavegimin I don’t base it on whether or not it has a face. I base it on whether or not it is sentient, has a nervous system, etc.. It’s like a quote I read somewhere (I forget where): You watch some videos from slaughterhouses and I’ll watch some strawberries being harvested.
Get off my ethics high-horse? I’m just living according to my morals and what I believe in. If you think plants have an equal right to life, then why are you not among those few extremists you have so much respect for?
I find it fascinating that “ethics” only seems to apply to ambulatory life forms. Who made anyone the ultimate arbiter that it’s “okay” to eat plants? If you’re gonna call evolutionary design to cover that, then you can’t stand on the opposite leg and call fowl (hah!) on eveolutionary design for meat-eating.
Plants have an equal “right” to live without being inhumanely harvested simply because they can’t run. Just because it doesn’t have a face doesn’t mean it’s “okay” for you to eat. Get off your ethics high-horse. Alive is alive, if you eat plants, you’re eating something alive. Accept the fact that something has to die (yup, if it was “alive” then that means it “dies” as well) for you to eat. Plant or animal makes no difference.
I will, however, give props to those very few who observe a truly rigorous version by only eating plant matter that falls naturally off the parent plant – like waiting for ripe fruit to drop.
To all those sanctimonious vegetarians and vegans, you can keep your ‘holier than thou’ attitudes about not eating meat. For me, being a vegetarian for two years, then a vegan for two more, nearly killed me. There is NO WAY a single one of you is ever going to convince me the human race was and IS designed to forgo the dead flesh and organs and eggs of animals.
And for all of you who believe all meat is nasty, then good. More for me. I get my meat from cows and chickens raised on pasture. Oh, and I KNOW the farmers. The eggs are so delicious, I eat one or two raw a day, right out of the shell. I also drink raw milk from that same farm, and have for six years. I am free of the symptoms of Crohn’s Disease I had when I was a vegan bodybuilder.
Even better? I hunt elk and deer, and I EAT them!
So put that in your veggie stuffed pipe and smoke it!
About seven years ago I undertook an experiment to see if I could live healthily on a vegan diet. I went into this with full knowledge of its pitfalls (lack of B12, difficulty in getting iron and calcium) and ensured that I ate foods that were enriched in B12 and contained enough iron and calcium. It’s been pretty much a non-event, other than that I eat more than my non-vegetarian counterparts. I’ve consumed animal protein on rare occasions (maybe 5 times); each time I’ve done it, it hasn’t made any difference in how I feel.
Now, the caveats. This works for me, with my (skinny-ass, energetic, carb-loving) body type. It certainly doesn’t work for other people for whom large quantities of carbohydrates does not work well. Nor does it seem to work for women, who need more iron than men.
I’d love to say “oh yes, let’s all go vegetarian”; and for those who it does work for, it’s great. But I don’t think that 100% of the population being vegetarian is conducive to good health for all.
re: nachogod says: March 3, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@Lori “I fail to see how excluding meat from their index is a political move by Whole Foods. Seems to me like they are promoting what they feel is the healthiest diet to our present-day, non-caveman population.”
And you think, just because they are not using science, human biological needs, 2.5 million years of evolution, that they are not cribbing the data?
I guess you don’t believe in Climategate, but buy algore and global warming…
My suggestion is, don’t believe ANYTHING the media says. Find credible sources with real data and see how much that you usually hear, is not true at all.
the old rang
“The truth is more important than the facts.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
My late wife used to not believe me, when I said I needed meat at the very minimum, every two days. If not, I got a little irritated.
With our first child, and with the other two, she quickly learned I was not kidding.
She breast fed them all.
If SHE didn’t eat meat, at least every two days, the kids got theirs ‘at the table’ so to speak.
She learned to eat meat, in order to wear a bra again.
beans make me fart. meat doesn’t
I prefer to turn to science to answer these great debates. So what do I do? I go to Google scholar and search for articles on a given topic and search out the answer for myself. Here’s a good start, a comprehensive review of ‘Dietary lean red meat and human evolution’: http://www.springerlink.com/content/26l8kwh2b0xalyyp/ If you cannot access the article, the abstract should be sufficient. The article basically makes the point that “meat itself is not a risk factor for Western lifestyle diseases such as cardiovascular disease, but rather the risk stems from the excessive fat and particularly saturated fat associated with the meat of modern domesticated animals.” It goes on to say that we are genetically built to eat lean meat. And “In conclusion, lean meat is a healthy and beneficial component of any well-balanced diet as long as it is fat trimmed and consumed as part of a varied diet.” Great stuff here.
Another scientific articles compares the 2 populations of healthy, Caucasian women: vegetarians and omnivores. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6852620&jid=BJN&volumeId=102&issueId=12&aid=6852612 Both consume the same amount of protein. Yet the omnivore population had significantly higher muscle mass index. They also conclude that animal protein intake is a much better indicator of muscle mass index than total protein intake.
Similar articles may be found which all indicate that the consumption of animal protein efficiently increases the body’s lean muscle mass. This is certainly why athletes and those interested in general fitness need to consume lean meat.
Need more convincing? Again use the power of the scholarly articles that flood the internet. If you can’t access the full articles, you can usually access them from a University library.
All those ancestors are dead. Your point is invalid.
@Rez, you don’t think that vegans don’t feel well because of a vitamin B12 deficiency, do you?
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/VitaminB12/
It appears as if a lot of people haven’t studied any sort of evolutionary biology, at all.
2.4 million years of evolution is not negated by “I take my vitamins, so it’s ok if I don’t eat meat.”
@Lori “I fail to see how excluding meat from their index is a political move by Whole Foods. Seems to me like they are promoting what they feel is the healthiest diet to our present-day, non-caveman population.”
Whole Foods doesn’t really specialize in overpriced meat. They sell overpriced, feel-good-despite-it-being-the-same-or-worse-for-environment-and-health-as-normal-product organic plant stuff. “You can buy other products if you HAVE to”
Maybe my local one is different or has changed since I went there, but at the time it definitely had the condescending vegetarian thing going on, which is tolerable because they have some good food.
Nice article but it has two nasty flaws in the logic.
First You assume that our anscestors were healthy.
Evolution simply means they were healthy enough to reach breeding age (plus a bit further to raise offspring). In all likelyhood they died from diseases at a very early age that we laugh at today.
Second you assume that the meats we eat today are the same that they ate then. We eat domesticated animals that you just have to shoo-shoo into the slaughter house. Our anscestors had to catch the fast little suckers that they ate.
I’m not a vegan/vegetarian/whatever. I’m a omnivore I also happen to be a fat fvck. I have no problems at all eating meat but I also have no illusions about how good it is for me.
Sorry guys but this fat omnivore is going to side with the opinion of the vegetarians here.
@SRM-LRM – re: expensive meat alternatives… noticed you didn’t mention beans (or legumes like lentils). Way cheaper than your corn-fed, factory farmed, $0.99/pound ground meat. I can get a 2 pound bag of fancy organic dried beans or even French lentils du Puy (the most expensive kind) for less than 5 bucks. 1 cup dried makes at least 4 servings. Beans and rice have been staples for many cultures too, so there’s no lack of variation in flavors. Don’t get me started on what you can do with lentils.
You just prefer meat. (not that there’s anything wrong with that) However, using cost as a barrier is complete crap.
@ ZC First off, I was not trying to convert anyone. I merely stated my opinion in response to the article.
Secondly, nope, not even close to good enough. If the ONLY reason you eat meat is because you like it, then there are a few possibilities here: -you are oblivious to how incredibly unethical meat production is -you are not oblivious, but just don’t care (which is even worse in my opinion) -you are selfish or lazy/have absolutely no will power/are completely unwilling to change, etc.
@ SRM-LRM I understand where you’re coming from, but there are ways to avoid expensive alternatives to meat. I eat a lot of lentils, chick peas, beans, etc..all of which are very cheap and very healthy. You don’t need soy, but if you want it you can get tofu very cheap at places like COSTCO or at Asian grocery stores like you would find in Chinatown.
@ Rez I am far healthier and happier now than I ever was on an omnivorous diet.
For those who argue that we don’t have to eat as we always have because we have alternatives that science says provides for most of our nutritional needs, evolution requires a lot more than 100 years to adapt our bodies, particularly for something as critical to survival as what we eat. In fact, humans evolved our big brains precisely because we started eating a lot of meat. Read the hypothesis: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians? Part II: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-ii/
@Seriously
Dude, the ancestors who only lived to be twenty did so because they had no medicine, no antibiotics, no medical knowledge. They also had natural predators as enemies that we do not.
And while the bible is a completely useless reference in any discussion, if you want to quote it as part of your argument you might want to mention how often lamb were kept in herds and eaten.
Every vegan I ever met was a scrawny, pale, sickly wisp of a person who was constantly bitching about not feeling well.
Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.
Dammit, stop making sense. Next thing you’ll be telling us is that medical science is beginning to look at genetic makeup in order to determine the best course of medical treatmen…. wait, never mind.
@Vegan “I have been vegan for years now and have yet to hear a valid argument in favor of eating meat.”
How about this: I like eating meat, so shut up and eat your tofu-dog and sprouts quietly, without trying to convert other people to your habits.
`That a good enough reason for you?
Here is MY best reason to eat meat–I like it.
It is tasty. I also eat vegetables, fruits, and all sorts of other tasty foods.
To all the people saying meat is no longer “necessary”: It must be nice to have enough disposable income that you don’t need to consume meat. On a pound for pound basis, meat is cheaper than nuts or even soy. If I’m careful and I pay attention to sale flyers, I can still buy meat for less than $1/lb. where I live. I can’t buy nuts or soy retail for that price.
Also, you’ve all completely missed the point about evolutionary biology and adaptation.
I agree with Seriously. Wholeheartedly. Yes people have been eating meat for a long time, but that doesn’t mean we should continue doing so. People have also been murdering each other for a long time. Should we continue that as well?
To evolve is to change, progress, move forward, etc…not copy what our ancestors did.
Overall, a very unconvincing argument. I have been vegan for years now and have yet to hear a valid argument in favor of eating meat. I don’t think one exists.
Yes, as a species, we have gotten much of our nutrients from meat in the past. Just because that is the way it was, does not mean that it still should be. We live in an age when that is no longer necessary. It is possible to get all of our nutrients from non-meat sources, well all but vitamin B12. Because it takes fewer resources to grow vegetables than to raise livestock; Because it is possible to live a healthy life without meat; Because the common practices of raising animals are inhumane and environmentally destructive; Why not avoid meat?
Say what you want about past evolution, but the fact is people no longer have to eat meat to be healthy. There are enough vegetarian alternatives (at least for those of us who can afford to shop at places like Whole Foods) to negate the need to consume animal flesh. That’s the new evolution, and encouraging people to embrace it is very progressive.
I think it could be argued that the habits people have adopted around eating meat, such as over-eating, eating incredibly fatty items, and excluding other food groups, in many cases negates any positive impact meat actually has on your diet.
Perhaps meat isn’t bad for you, but people have a tendency to over-do it when meat is on the menu. Meat eaters seem to build their meals around meat, rather than consuming the correct amount to actually be healthy. It probably isn’t a bad idea to cut it out of most people’s diets entirely. Every single one of the vegetarians, and even vegans, I know are much more healthy both in appearance and in practice than most meat eaters I know.
I fail to see how excluding meat from their index is a political move by Whole Foods. Seems to me like they are promoting what they feel is the healthiest diet to our present-day, non-caveman population.
Can I say … I love you Jeff! This is by far, the finest, most excellently awesome and well-thought-out argument in favor of omnivorism that I have EVER READ. EVER!
Would you be offended if I frame this?
A few years ago, Hannaford introduced a “Guiding Stars” system: zero, one, two or three stars to rate nutritional value. Problem is, now they have two sets of tags to change every week. Eggs are good protein (three stars), no wait, they’re high in cholesterol (one star), no wait, it’s the good cholesterol (two stars), no wait, the hens are treated cruelly (no stars)…
well i like me beef, i like me steek, i like meat. yes, meat very good.
i also like german sausage, very good.
A few years ago, Hannaford introduced a “Guiding Stars” system: zero, one, two or three stars to rate nutritional value. Problem is, now they have two sets of tags to change every week. Eggs are good protein (), no wait, they’re high in cholesterol (), no wait, it’s the good cholesterol (), no wait, the hens are treated cruelly (no stars)…
@ Christine- I was happily raised vegetarian since birth by my parents with no negative affects to my health. I would contend that animal fat may not be a bad thing in moderation, but is hardly essential to growth and development. however, simply eliminating meat without altering the diet to accommodate may leave gaps in nutrition. please be open minded towards your daughter’s wishes, and eat well!
Just because our ancestors ate X doesn’t mean we should. Instead of spreading FUD, just admit that you’re selfish and short sighted.
Seriously!…
Our ancestors also lived to the ripe old age of 20. In recent history, we used to think Agent Orange was safe to use or that there was nothing wrong with asbestos. Just because we used do something, doesn’t mean it is correct.
A lot of science supports minimizing intake of animal protein and dairy in order to prevent cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc… Check out cancerproject.org
That doesn’t mean you need to drop it from your diet, but certainly eating less is better.
Also for historical argument… Many people in India have been vegetarian for the past 4000 years or so.
The first Buddhists and Hindus ate meat only when they didn’t have other food options. This is also true Judaism. The old testament says that god gave humans plants and herbs to eat. Hunting was forbidden unless no other food was available. It was actually pretty common that meats were a last resort, not a first.
Cavemen would find it easier to forage than hunt and that means the majority would not be meat based unless they were forced to do so during a cold season.
This article really provides no valid facts or useful debating points.
I guess you could call it ‘political vegetarianism’ if you want, but you’ve got to figure though that a good chunk of people reading the ANDI are vegetarians anyway. I should say they don’t tell you not to eat meat, later in the recommendation it just says that if you do eat meat its better to eat leaner meats. Arguable according to Atkins folks et al.
Avocados and a variety of nuts were probably not readily available to most of our ancestors (not being there myself I can only guess). When you look at the environmental impact of these vegetable based fats vs. the animal ag thing, it actually makes sense for our own evolution as a species to not necessarily stop eating meat, but to eat way less than the average American does.
I guess what I’m saying is that in modern times, evolution means more than just lipids/proteins and physiological adaptations. We have to make decisions that also make sense for the planet if we want to continue to pass on our genes. You seem smarter than me so I know you’ve considered this angle, I think you just wanted to talk about lipids. :)
People also used to live without:
Heating/air conditioning Cars Refrigeration Anti-biotics Burritos Computers
etc. I think we should go back to capturing animals by hand and eating them there on the spot, like our ancestors! How dare Whole Foods suggest anything otherwise!
Oh and if you didn’t notice corn fed cattle are VASTLY different from grass fed cattle (which is what our ancestors would have eaten because cows don’t normally eat corn. Rather it destroys their gut).
The font on this website makes me want to vomit.
The heart of the problem with this post, is your not really making an argument for eating beef. Your making a reasonable argument why we should be consuming wild boar and venison.
The lipid profile of the slab of beef you get in the supermarket is nothing like that of a wild animal that is under constant threat by apex predators.
What is with the thin, saturated font on a white background? I would love to read this article.
Very interesting article – I’ve forwarded it to my 16 yr old vegetarian daughter. My parents maintain that she should be eating at least some protein from “animal tissue” in order to support her growth. This may be a good argument for that line of thought. Need to be Naked on Westbank please!!
Yes!
Naked,
Is the 2 pizza $15 faculty good anytime?
LarryB