Comfortably Unaware (10 page)

The University of Michigan takes its responsibility of protecting and preserving resources very seriously, and every contribution can make a difference. I challenge everyone in our community to think about how even the smallest efforts will work to make our great institution even greener.

—U of M president, Mary Sue Coleman

Save energy. Save the planet. The difference starts with you!

Great message, right? Well, let's look more closely at this. Following a more than hour-long discussion with the director, this is what I learned:

•  He did not understand that food choices play one of the largest roles in the global depletion of our resources.

•  He did not know that eating plant-based foods requires substantially fewer resources than eating animals or that plant-based foods are generally much healthier for the students. (In fact, he was eating a burger from McDonald's as we began the meeting.)

•  There is no program in place to provide ongoing education for the Director of Food Purchasing, his staff, the educators, or administrators of UM regarding the role of food choice in nutrition and sustainability.

•  He thought the word “sustainability” meant “nutrition.”

•  He did not understand the ecologic or general health benefits of foods grown organically, and there is no program established whereby organic foods are even considered for purchase.

•  He was confused as to the concept of buying locally. To my question of “Do you feel there are reasons and benefits for you to purchase food produced locally or by Michigan businesses? And therefore do you and the UM have any specific programs in place to accomplish this?” The response was, “Yes, we buy some things from UNFI [United Natural Foods, Inc.].” I reminded him that UNFI is a distributor, not a local food producer; that it is based in Iowa; and that is does not carry any locally produced or grown food.

•  The Director of Food Purchasing and UM have no policy or program for establishing proper allowances for pricing margins for organic and/or locally produced foods, and they have falsely thrown them into the category of potato
chips, soft drinks, and candy bars in terms of retail pricing, economic gain to the university, and need for customer enlightenment.

Now consider that message from President Coleman. The “difference” she urges actually should start with her and with her staff, the administrators, the faculty, and the Director of Food Purchasing. This gross dysfunction is seen not only at UM but also at the majority of our learning institutions across the country. Those at the top, who are making policies and decisions, are disconnected from the reality of what occurs with their food choices. They owe it to their community to establish continuing-education programs and an accurate awareness base for themselves first, before they ask students to “make a difference.” The gap between what leaders are saying and the needs of all they serve is filled with layers of lack of enlightenment, irresponsibility, and resistance. Perhaps once they make an effort to understand what “sustainability” and “green” really mean, in terms of our food choices, then change in the right direction can occur.

There is another reason why individuals have not stopped eating meat and adopted a healthier plant-based way of eating. This reason is pervasive and is equally discouraging because many people do not care—they think that they are impervious to the effects of eating animal products. It's the attitudes of “It will never happen to me” and “I won't care until it happens to me.” I have witnessed many patients, friends, and relatives who have gone through the typical sequencing of eating unhealthy foods, with a large percentage of those foods being animal products—hamburgers, hot dogs, steaks, pork chops, bacon, chicken, turkey, fish, etc. They have eaten these foods day after day after day,
over a period of many years. Then, not so mysteriously, they gain weight and develop one or more diseases—diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney or heart disease, or cancer. Eventually, they sustain a life-threatening heart attack or undergo life-changing surgery. They may suffer and die at an earlier age than normal. Many of these individuals feel this occurs because of genetics, which may be true to some extent, but no matter what the genetic predisposition to a certain disease state may be, I can assure you that eating animal products in any form will substantially raise the likelihood that you will contract and suffer from one of these debilitating diseases.

I have even witnessed extreme examples of this with my patients and friends who have eaten meat their entire lives. Some have contracted colon cancer at ages forty-five to fifty and have undergone multiple or extensive surgeries. Yet they then continue to eat meat, even after I presented them with the book
Surviving Cancer
by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which cites numerous studies and conclusions that eating meat can and does cause colon cancer, as well as other types of cancer. This, to me, is an excellent example of just how powerful our cultural, social, political, and media influences have been—and obviously still are—regarding the inappropriate perpetuation of the myth that eating meat is good for you.
People are dying because of this
.

Now, let's talk about the physicians in whom we put our trust. A primary reason why people think meat is good for them is because their doctors believe it is healthy and convey that myth. And because doctors are the keepers of our health, we must follow.

Although consumption of animals for food is expected to double over the next two decades, there are stark differences
in meat consumption between countries; for example, it's eleven pounds per person per year in India as compared to the United States, which consumes meat at the rate of 270 pounds per person per year.
¹²⁷
The World Health Organization (WHO), Tufts University researchers, the PCRM, and others have consistently recommended lower intake of animal fat and red meat due to a clear relationship of various diseases (cardiovascular, diabetes, obesity, certain types of cancer) with the consumption of animal products.
¹²⁸

Livestock products are also more susceptible to pathogens than other food products and have a capacity to transmit diseases from animals to humans. The World Organization for Animal Health estimates that 60 percent of human pathogens and 75 percent of recent emerging diseases are
zoonotic
—living on or in animals. Many human disease have their origins in animals (such as common influenza and smallpox) and others—such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and many internal parasitic diseases such as those caused by tapeworm, threadworm, and others—are transmitted through the consumption of animal products. Avian flu, Nipah virus, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (“mad cow”), bovine encephalitis, E. coli, salmonella, shigella, Campylobacter, and H1N1 (swine flu) are all associated with handling and consumption of animal products for food.

The wide overuse of antibiotics in animals has caused many bacteria that now affect humans to become antibiotic-resistant. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health report that 96 percent of Tyson chicken flesh (Tyson is the largest producer of chickens in the world) is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter bacteria.
¹²⁹
USDA studies have found that 66 percent of all beef samples were contaminated
with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
¹³⁰
Toxic levels of arsenic are commonly found in chicken flesh.
¹³¹
Fish have been found to have levels of PCBs and mercury, thousands of times higher than those in the water in which they live.
¹³²

USDA inspection reports reveal that on average, one out of eight turkeys served on Thanksgiving is infected with salmonella, and Campylobacter causes the second most commonly reported food-related illness.
¹³³
Reports also showed that more than 50 percent of samples of meat from pigs (pork products) were contaminated with Staphylococcus.
¹³⁴

Dairy products contain a wide variety of contaminants, including chemicals and hormones. Milk contains natural hormones and growth factors that are produced within a cow's body and also synthetic hormones, such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) or insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1).
¹³⁵
Additional contaminants found in milk samples and other dairy products include antibiotics, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins. When consumed, any of these toxins can build to levels that eventually may harm the immune, reproductive, and other systems, as well as leading to the development of cancer.

A word must be said here about the H1N1 (swine flu) virus and epidemic. On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization escalated the alert to a level four (out of a possible five), due to worldwide concern for a possible pandemic. Many people died, numerous others were infected, and it spread quickly throughout a number of countries. As it should have been, news of the outbreak and what was being done about it was front and center on every conceivable media format. This is a wonderful example of timeliness and how well information on an important topic can be disseminated in a very short fashion. It is also a perfect example
of
just which information
is really told to us. For instance, with a story of this magnitude, we know of the first few people who died from swine flu in the small town of La Gloria in Oaxaca, Mexico. We know of the generally rapid response of readiness and formal statements by the United Nations, WHO, President Obama, and other world leaders. We have been reassured of the stockpiling of a proper amount of vaccinations, and we even know of certain organizations' desire to change the name of the virus. I find it interesting that we have
not
been told how and why the virus exists, which conditions help foster the development of these types of viruses, and what we should do to remedy the situation. Regardless of what becomes the official statement by investigators regarding the cause, it will most likely be a clouded version of the fact that it all began in overcrowded pig farms in that area of Mexico, which is run by a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world.
¹³⁶

Pigs are highly susceptible to both avian and human influenza A viruses; they are commonly referred to as “mixing vessels,” in which viruses commingle, swapping genes along the way; then new strains emerge. It is thought that pigs have been the intermediate hosts responsible for the last two flu pandemics, in 1957 and 1968.
¹³⁷
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
up to one-half of pigs on modern farms have evidence of the H1N1 virus
.
¹³⁸
Thousands of pigs are crowded and confined in sheds, stacked to the point where the animals are continuously inhaling and recirculating airborne fecal matter, methane, ammonia, and pathogens. Antibiotics are commonly given to treat and prevent devastating outbreaks within feedlots, but influenza viruses are resistant to antibiotics. Once a pathogen like the swine flu virus emerges, it is then spread by farm workers and
by the transport of pigs to other locations.

In the United States alone, over 320,000 pigs are slaughtered for food
every day
, which drives the continual operation of congested livestock farm lots.
¹³⁹
In the Mexico town near the Veracruz Mountains, where this recent outbreak began, more than 450 residents had complained of severe respiratory and flu symptoms weeks before the outbreak and confirmed swine flu virus strain, which affected and eventually killed a four-year-old boy there.
¹⁴⁰
The focus of all our attention, therefore, should not be on which schools to close, when to wear masks, who should be vaccinated, who should be allowed to travel Mexico, or what to call the virus. The majority of our efforts should be on divulging the real reason behind this epidemic, which is the factory farming of massive amounts of pigs in filthy, confined conditions that promote the development of viruses that can cause infectious diseases in humans. And the reason this happened is because of our demand for meat products. Those pigs are here, living in those conditions and developing viruses, only because people want to eat them. Therefore, I find it incongruous that there has been such a movement to remove the name “swine,” and major efforts have been made to assure the public that this virus has nothing to do with pork products and that they are entirely safe to continue eating. Well, the virus has everything to do with pork products. The movement to remove the name swine is propelled by the USDA and world pork producers, and although it is true that the H1N1 virus may not be contracted directly by eating pork, the production of pork is precisely the ultimate reason that the swine flu virus exists. So while the pork industry is encouraging people to continue eating pigs, it is the eating of pigs that is the problem—this is exactly what the public needs to be told so that
the problem can be resolved.

This completes the portrait of what I consider to be global depletion of our own health. Food choices are implicated, and you have the ability to change that.

Entering the no-wake zone

“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.”
—Daniel J. Boorstin

GLOBAL DEPLETION IN SOME FORM
will occur simply because the earth can only support so many people doing so many things over so long of a period of time. The gross number of humans on our planet is not as much of an issue as what they are all doing to the planet in a short period of time. To make matters worse, individuals and institutions that are in a position to expose myths, enlighten the public, and change the direction of public opinion clearly are not doing so. There are two primary reasons for this: first, lack of adequate knowledge, although they purport to have it; and second, they are unable to express the truth due to various constraints—political, cultural,
social, legal, business, etc. Although these entities may be accomplished in some particular field, it essentially has provided them an avenue to influence us in other areas. They may not be in these elevated positions because they are any more brilliant than the rest of us or have any special skills that others do not have. While we must respect that talent or knowledge play a role in the attainment of an elevated status, they also have access to a platform for a variety of other reasons, with an accompanying form of media that allows them to express their opinions and influence their large audience. Sometimes this is a good thing, but more times than not, there is lack of full disclosure, even an ulterior motive. This is one of the reasons that full enlightenment of an important subject frequently does not occur. There are many examples of this, but some that immediately come to mind are with newscasters, best-selling book authors, actors, and especially hosts of gossip shows, politicians, and organizations/occupations that we hold in such high esteem, such as doctors and dieticians, specific businesses, and institutions. Unfortunately then, this can compose up to 99 percent of our current mode of information. Some talk show hosts, such as Oprah Winfrey, are placed in such high reverence that we will support anything they recommend, whether it is a new book, movie, or presidential candidate. There is one caveat, however—whatever these people with platforms have to say, it cannot be alarmingly controversial, especially as it relates to food. If any comments are made that would negatively impact the meat, dairy, or fishing industries or our current cultural dependence on these, a career could be jeopardized. Therefore, these high-profile people must tread lightly and not create waves.