Sustainability Reality Check

The nutrition and public health quagmire in the United States has, like a virulent contagion, infected many other topics. “Sustainability” is one of them. Sustainability is a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition" (Ratner 2004).  Let’s look at the following paragraph from the “Food” section of the Wikipedia page for sustainability (Wikipedia, 2011):

The American Public Health Association (APHA) defines a "sustainable food system"[86][87] as "one that provides healthy food to meet current food needs while maintaining healthy ecosystems that can also provide food for generations to come with minimal negative impact to the environment. A sustainable food system also encourages local production and distribution infrastructures and makes nutritious food available, accessible, and affordable to all. Further, it is humane and just, protecting farmers and other workers, consumers, and communities."[88]

Lots to feel good about in that statement, but not a lot to sink your teeth into. On the face of it, it’s hard to argue with. But we have to dig deeper. Just what do they mean by “healthy food,” “healthy ecosystems,” “negative impact,” “nutritious food,” “accessible and affordable,” “humane,” and “just”? Who gets to decide? Perhaps the next section of that paragraph will provide some insight …

Concerns about the environmental impacts of agribusiness and the stark contrast between the obesity problems of the Western world and the poverty and food insecurity of the developing world have generated a strong movement towards healthy, sustainable eating as a major component of overall ethical consumerism.[89]

Here we have the flawed belief that overeating and sedentary behavior cause obesity. Once again, the “experts” have conveniently overlooked the fact that obesity is NOT caused by affluence and that obesity and under-nutrition have frequently been observed in the same unbelievably poor populations (Taubes, 2010). Continuing with the paragraph …

The environmental effects of different dietary patterns depend on many factors, including the proportion of animal and plant foods consumed and the method of food production.[90][91][92][93] The World Health Organization has published a Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health report which was endorsed by the May 2004 World Health Assembly. It recommends the Mediterranean diet which is associated with health and longevity and is low in meat, rich in fruits and vegetables, low in added sugar and limited salt, and low in saturated fatty acids; the traditional source of fat in the Mediterranean is olive oil, rich in monounsaturated fat. The healthy rice-based Japanese diet is also high in carbohydrates and low in fat. Both diets are low in meat and saturated fats and high in legumes and other vegetables; they are associated with a low incidence of ailments and low environmental impact.[94]

The WHO got it wrong with Livestock’s Long Shadow. (see my earlier post). The circular reasoning of far too many is that since the consumption of animal products is bad for our health, the production of animal products must be bad for the environment. Many others reason that since the production of animal products is inherently bad for the environment, the consumption of animal products must be bad for the environment. Of course these are myths, based upon the great lies of American conventional wisdom on nutrition and health (Diets low in meat promote health and longevity; Physical activity is key to health; Low fat (high carbohydrate) diets are “healthy”) and vegetarian-influenced environmentalism (The production of vegetables, fruits, cereals and pulses (or legumes) is more environmentally friendly than the production of animal products).

Grass fed, NOT lean!

The clear testimony of the archeological record and anthropological research confirms that the human diet has been and should be based upon animal products. The mistaken belief that the healthy diet is a plant-based one, in other words one based upon carbohydrates, has produced an epidemic of chronic disease in the United States. Any conversation about “sustainability” that does not take this into account is pointless and fatally flawed .

The fiscal crisis currently facing the United States is, to a significant degree, driven by the dramatic increase in health care spending. US health care expenditures surpassed $2.3 trillion in 2008, more than three times that spent in 1990, and over eight times that spent in 1980 (CDC, 2010). The share of the U.S. economy that Americans spend on health care has increased from 7.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1970 to 17.6% of GDP in 2009 (CDC, 2010). Chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity, cancer, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Alzheimer’s disease – in other words, metabolic diseases – are taking a heavy toll on health while taking an increasing portion of the health care spending. Chronic diseases account for $3 of every $4 spent on healthcare. That’s nearly $7,900 for every American with a chronic disease (CDC, 2010).

Seventy percent of deaths in the US are due to chronic diseases (CDC, 2010). Chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease are the leading causes of disability and death in the US. About 25% of people with chronic diseases have some type of activity limitation, including restrictions in employment and education (Partnership for Solutions, 2004).

Conventional wisdom states that obesity increases the risk of developing conditions such as diabetes and heart disease.  An opinion informed by recent research understands that obesity is a metabolic disorder and is associated with other metabolic disorders, such as diabetes and heart disease. Obesity is not a cause of metabolic syndrome, it is one of metabolic syndrome’s conditions. This fundamental misunderstanding contributes to obesity epidemic we’re now experiencing .

The rate of obesity in adults has doubled in the last 20 years. It has almost tripled in kids ages 2-11. It has more than tripled in children ages 12-19 (CDC, 2011). Without big changes, 1 in 3 babies born today will develop diabetes in their lifetime (ADA, 2011). Average healthcare costs for someone who has one or more chronic conditions is 5 times greater than for someone without any chronic conditions (Partnership for Solutions, 2004).

Let’s look at the yearly costs due to a handful of conditions associated with metabolic syndrome:

        Heart Disease and Stroke $ 432 Billion (Mensah and Brown, 2007)

        Diabetes $ 174 Billion (ADA, 2011)

        Obesity $ 147 Billion (Finkelstein, et al., 2009)

        GERD (2005) $ 2 Billion / week, $ 104 Billion in lost productivity (IFFGD, 2008)

        All cancers, except lung and lymphoma $ 100 Billion

        Alzheimer’s  $ 148 Billion (AA, 2007)

More than 1 trillion US dollars are represented by this partial list of conditions now thought to be associated with metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is most effectively treated by adopting a low carbohydrate, high fat way of eating. It’s likely caused by eating diets high in carbohydrate (Taubes, 2008). Until that is officially accepted by the massive disease treatment industries and agencies, health care costs will continue to be unsustainable and will threaten the long-term sovereignty of this country. To say nothing of the pain and suffering of millions of people.

Given all this, “sustainable” food production looks a little different. Clearly “sustainable” production of grains, pulses (legumes), starchy vegetables and sugary fruit begs the question “Who cares if we can produce these sustainably if we can’t sustain the health impacts of consuming them?” And the issue of “sustainable” production of animal products begs the question “Can we produce enough of them?”

Grass grows were other crops can't.
Cattle grazing the slopes of the Columbia Gorge. 

The USDA’s Economic Research Service provides census statistics for the individual states. For 2007, they reported there were 44.3 million acres of pastureland, pastured woodland, and pastured cropland in the 26 states east of the Mississippi (including Wisconsin) (USDA ERS, 2011). How many people could be fed from animal products produced on those acres? To answer that question, you need to make some assumptions. One can argue these one way or the other, but they should serve well enough for this exercise.

Consumed forage dry matter (DM) yield pounds per acre (lb/A) = 12,500 (Hofstrand and Edwards 2009)

Conversion rate = 14 lb DM/lb carcass weight (Lincoln University)

Edible yield = 0.76 lb/lb carcass weight (Jackson Frozen Food Locker)

Cooked yield = 0.65 lb/lb edible yield (Canadian Beef)

Cooked meat per meal  = 4 ounces (oz) (Eades and Eades, 2000)

Meals per day = 3

Given the above, 1.6 people could be supported per acre. So if all of the various forms of pasture land east of the Mississippi were managed to this degree, we could feed 71.5 million people. The current population of the US is 307 million (US Census Bureau, 2011). What about the remaining 235.5 million people? How about if we added all of the various pasture land in Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Missouri? That would be enough to feed 108 million people. Okay, how about if we took all of the cropland in these states and converted it to pasture, bringing the totals to 247 million acres of pasture land would theoretically allow us to feed 398.2 million people.

That still leaves a great deal of the United States, but much of it will be less productive and it will be needed to produce the young growing animals needed by this vast pastoral enterprise. It should be pointed out that these assumptions are rather generous ones. They represent high forage DM yields and high levels of grazing management. In The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre Keith cites Joel Salatin’s production from 10 acres of his Polyface Farm in Virginia:

3,000 eggs

1,000 broilers

80 stewing hens

2,000 pounds of beef

2,500 pounds of pork

100 turkeys

50 rabbits

Keith calculates that this is enough to fully feed 9 people for a year. Compare this figure of 0.9 person persons fed per acre and the preceding exercise’s  value of 1.6 persons fed per acre. It should be pointed out that, while Salatin’s pigs and poultry are on pasture, he feeds grain to the pigs, chickens and turkeys. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’ve written before about how the differences between grain- and grass- finished animal products have been over-sold. But if we’re going to feed grain to livestock, it has to be grown somewhere. In my exercise, I assigned all of cropland east of the 95^th meridian, and a bit west of it, to pasture.

Western Oregon pasture and hay ground.
Tremendous potential remains

There are 473 million acres of privately owned pastureland in the US . In addition, the Bureau of Land Management manages livestock grazing on 157 million acres of public lands (BLM,2011). Add to that the 361 million acres of cropland that could be converted into highly productive pasture, and one begins to see just how vast this country’s pasture resource is.

Anthony Bourdain poses a telling question in his book Medium Raw.

“If, somehow, we manage to bring monstrously evil agribusinesses like Monsanto to their knees, free up vast tracts of arable land for small, seasonal, sustainable farming, where’s all the new help coming from? Seems to me, we’re facing one of two scenarios. Either enormous numbers of people who’ve never farmed before are suddenly convinced that waking up a five a.m. and feeding chickens and then working the soil all day is a desirable thing. Or, in the far more likely case, we’ll revert to the traditional method: importing huge numbers of desperately poor brown people from elsewhere – to grow those tasty, crunch vegetables for more comfortable white masters. So, while animals of the future might be cruelty-free, which would allow those who can afford to eat them to do so with a clean conscience, what about life for thos who will have to shovel the shit from their stalls?”

It takes a while to become a good grazier. One really good pasture-based dairyman told me that a New Zealander told him it would take 20 years, and his experience has confirmed that estimate. Where are these folks going to come from? How will they get access to the land? How will they acquire the animals? It’s one thing to talk about it, it’s another to do it. It’s a blessing to be able to afford the extra cost of local, organic and/or sustainable food products, but what if that is not an option? And that, of course begs the question, “Is it worth it?”

And what about the 6.3 billion people in the rest of the world (CIA, 2011)? If the world’s population is going to feed itself appropriately, people will have to learn how to produce animal products that are appropriate to the regions where they live. Research and demonstration will be needed. This will require a great deal of new thinking, purged of the contamination of American dietary and environmental conventional wisdom.

References:

Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures 2007. Alzheimer’s Association Web site. Accessed July 19, 2011.

American Diabetes Association. 2011. Diabetes Statistics. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Beef Information Centre. Virtual Beef Nutrition Counter. Canadian Beef. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Fact Sheet on the BLM’s Management of Livestock Grazing. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Bourdain, A. 2010. Medium Raw: A Bloody Valentine to the World of Food and the People Who Cook. Harper Collins. New York, NY

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. Chronic Disease Overview: Costs of Chronic Disease. Accessed July 15, 2011.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. Overweight and Obesity. Accessed July 15, 2011.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. 2010. National Health Care Expenditures Data.

Central Intelligence Agency. 2011. The World Factbook. Washington, DC. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Eases, M.R. and M.D. Eades. 2000. The Protein Power Lifeplan. Warner Books, Inc. New York, NY.

Finkelstein, E. A., J. G. Trogdon, J. W. Cohen and W. Dietz. 2009. “Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: Payer- and service-specific estimates.” Health Affairs 2009; 28(5): w822-w831.

Hofstrand, D. and W. Edwards. July 2009. Computing a Pasture Rental Rate. Iowa State University Extension. Accessed July 19, 2011.

International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders .2008. GERD Costs America Nearly $2 Billion Each Week in Lost Productivity. Accessed July 17, 2011.

Jackson Frozen Food Locker. Ask the Meatman. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Keith, Lierre. 2009. The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability. Crescent City, CA: Flashpoint Press.

Lincoln University. Farm Technical Manual. Lincoln University Press. Christchurch, NZ.

Mensah G, Brown D. An overview of cardiovascular disease burden in the United States. Health Aff 2007; 26:38-48.

Partnership for Solutions. 2004. Chronic Conditions: Making the Case for Ongoing Care, September 2004. Accessed July 17, 2011.

Ratner, B.D. 2004. "Sustainability as a Dialogue of Values: Challenges to the Sociology of Development." Sociological Inquiry 74(1): 50–69

Taubes, G. 2008. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease. Anchor Books, New York, NY


Taubes, G. 2011. Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It. 2011. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.

United States Census Bureau. 2011. Population of the United States. Accesses July 19, 2011.

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2011. State Fact Sheets. Accessed July 18, 2011.

Wikipedia. Sustainability. Accessed July 19, 2011.

References from Wikipedia quotes:

86. Feenstra, G. (2002). "Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons from the Field". Agriculture and Human Values 19 (2): 99–106. doi:10.1023/A:1016095421310.

87. Harmon A.H., Gerald B.L. (June, 2007). "Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Professionals Can Implement Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and Support Ecological Sustainabiility" (PDF). Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107 (6): 1033–43.. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.05.138. PMID 17571455. http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/Conservenp.pdf.  Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

88. "Toward a Healthy, Sustainable Food System (Policy Number: 200712)". American Public Health Association. 2007-06-11. http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1361. Retrieved : 2008-08-18.

89. Mason & Singer (2006).

90. McMichael A.J., Powles J.W., Butler C.D., Uauy R. (September 2007). "Food, Livestock Production, Energy, Climate change, and Health." (PDF). Lancet 370 (9594): 1253. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2. PMID 17868818. http://www.eurekalert.org/images/release_graphics/pdf/EH5.pdf.  Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

91. Baroni L., Cenci L., Tettamanti M., Berati M. (February 2007). "Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems." (PDF). Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 61 (2 ): 279–86. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602522. PMID 17035955. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~choucc/environmental_impact_of_various_dietary_patterns.pdf.  Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

92. Steinfeld H., Gerber P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M., de Haan, C. (2006). "Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options" 390 pp. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

93. Heitschmidt R.K., Vermeire L.T., Grings E.E. (2004). "Is Rangeland Agriculture Sustainable?". Journal of Animal Science. 82 (E-Suppl): E138–146. PMID 15471792.  Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

94. World Health Organisation (2004). "Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health." Copy of the strategy endorsed by the World Health Assembly. Retrieved on: 2009-6-19.

Agriculture - Curse or Cure?

Jared Diamond has described agriculture as "the worst mistake in the history of the human race." (Diamond, 1987) "Recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence." 


Inequality and despotism have been, and still are, undeniably present in this world. But we should always remember that association does not prove causation. Might there be other forces leading to these conditions?  Could there be forms of "agriculture" that would not produce them?


The term agriculture includes the production of animal products from managed grasslands, not just the production of "cash crops." As I discussed in a previous post, human manipulation of the environment to favor food production (in other words, agriculture) was a long-standing practice in pre-Columbian America. 

“When Lewis and Clark headed west … they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans.” (Lott, 2002) 

Converting cellulose into fat and protein

Today we face an epidemic of chronic diseases in the United States, and throughout the world. Kelly Brownell would have us believe that obesity and other metabolic diseses are the result of a “toxic food environment.” (Brownell, 2002) Too much cheap food (including fast food) causes us to eat too much. It’s easy to entertain such flawed theories when people are well-fed on less than 10% of their disposable income (USDA ERS, 2002). But as Gary Taubes has documented in Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat, there are numerous examples of obesity and malnutrition existing in the same impoverished populations at the same time. Their condition was NOT the result of too much food, or a life that didn’t include sufficient exercise. 

The conversation about diet, health and human nutrition has been dominated by those who believe that obesity is the result of over-eating and sedentary behavior, that eating animal products causes various chronic diseases, and that animal agriculture is bad for the environment. Various “experts” who hold these world views have allowed their innately human “belief engine” to form incorrect conclusions from the associations they’ve perceived in dubious observational studies (Park, 2002). These fallacies have so thoroughly contaminated the “conventional wisdom” that they’ve influenced the “new conventional wisdom” held by members of the paleo / primal / low carb communities. Our message ought to be that replacing carbohydrates with fat from animal products, regardless of how they’re produced, will improve the health of most people. Instead it can be heard to mean that unless you buy more expensive organic or grass-fed vegetables and animal products, you shouldn’t bother. Our message becomes one for the relatively well-off, instead of a message for everyone.

Spring grazing in western Oregon

The evidence strongly suggests that the epidemic of obesity and related metabolic diseases should be laid at the feet of the high-carbohydrate-low-fat experts and not at agriculture's. Many desire to “return to a simpler time.” Something in the paleo message may tap into that desire. But how “paleo” can one be when one isn’t actually doing the hunting and/or gathering? How are we going to deal with today's problems, not the least of which is a massive and growing world population? The solution to today’s problem cannot be found in going back, we must go forward. The good old days weren't necessarily all that good. In order to go forward we need to consider the language we’re using.

What do the phrases “eat real food” or “all things in moderation” actually mean? Just how does one convert such feel-good messages into actual practice? “Sustainability” is in danger of becoming such a meaningless term, if it hasn’t already. Too often the bounds on the system are defined to the advantage of the one promoting their own approach. As I researched the material for my post on hormones, nitrites, and antibiotics, I ran across statements to the effect that the use of improved genetics, high concentrate finishing, subtherapeutic antibiotics, and hormone implants in beef cattle resulted in greater meat production from fewer animals and that, since this represented an environmental benefit, it was more “sustainable.” On the other hand there are the piously environmental, those for whom “being green means eating organic veggies and recycling the wine bottles.” (Rosen, 2010) They are green “so long as it doesn’t affect their home heating, TV viewing, or car driving.” (Rosen, 2010) 

Thanks to folks like Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, Gary Taubes, Tom Naughton, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Dr. Jay Wortman, Jimmy Moore, and organizations like the Metabolism Society I now understand the fallacy of the thinking exemplified by Brownell and others. I’ve come to understand how our misinformed environmental understanding has influenced policy, debate and awareness in our society. And I’m developing a greater awareness of just how greatly the vegetarian ethic has influenced the thinking of the experts and the consumers. The irony is the likelihood that our easy access to so many high quality animal products at such low cost is, in fact, agriculture’s great blessing and offers the likely solution to today’s epidemic of chronic diseases.

“A liberal meat supply has always been associated with a happy and virile people and invariably has been the main food available to settlers of new and undeveloped territories. Statistics show that per capita meat consumption decreases with density of population.” (Romans and Ziegler, 1974)

References:

Brownell, K. D., 2002. The Environment and Obesity. In Eating Disorders and Obesity, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Handbook. C. G. Fairburn and K. D. Brownell. The Guilford Press. New York, NY.

Diamond, J. 1987. The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. In Discover Magazine. Accessed at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race, July 1, 2011 

Lott, D.F. 2002. American Bison: A Natural History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Park, Robert. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, inc. New York, NY.

Pearson, A.M., and T.A. Gillett. 1996. Processed Meats. Chapman & Hall. New York, NY

Romans, J.R., and P.T. Ziegler. 1974. The Meat We Eat. Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc. Danville, IL

Rosen, N. 2010. “Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True Independence in Modern America.” Penguin Books. New York, NY.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2008. Briefing Rooms: Food CPI and Expenditures: Table 7. Washington, DC. Accessed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm, June 18, 2011.

What is Grass Based Health?

Animals make us human.

Temple Grandin

. . . the Andamanese believe it is the possession of fire that makes human beings what they are and distinguishes them from animals.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. 1922.

The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social Anthropology.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1

So, what does barbecue make us?

With his new opposing thumb and his king-sized cranium,

Man sallied forth with grace and savoir faire.

With Promethian desire he soon discovered fire,

And arson but a single step from there.

The wheel and gasoline, to the full-sized limousine,

Music, art and law are but a few,

But name what can compare to the artistry so rare of

the sparerib that has met the barbecue.

from The Big Band Theory. Mark Graham.2

I recently had the opportunity to attend the 7^th Annual Cattlemen’s Workshop in La Grande, Oregon. It was a wonderful opportunity to connect with the region’s beef industry and learn from the ranchers, industry and University folks who were there. One lesson I learned is that “Grass Based Health” means something to everyone, but it may not mean the same thing to everyone. So I thought it was time to define what I mean by the phrase.

Grass Based Health is the concept that pasture-based livestock production systems are better for the animals, better for the farmers and ranchers, better for the land, and better for the communities they are a part of than the alternative livestock production systems. I’ll be covering all of these topics in future posts. But the fundamental principle of Grass Based Health is that our diet ought to be grass based, not grain based. Understanding and accepting this premise then forces the consideration, and re-consideration, of many other topics as well.

It’s obvious (or it ought to be!) that we lack the herbivores’ specialized ingestive and digestive anatomy that permits them to utilize cellulose. We depend on various animals to convert cellulose, the most common organic compound on Earth[3], into animal fat and high quality, complete protein. The majority of feed units consumed by all domestic livestock (beef cattle, dairy cattle, hogs and poultry, sheep and goats, horses and mules, and “other”) in the US in 1970 came from forage (54.4% of all feed units, 36.1 and 18.3 percent from pastured and harvested forage, respectively).[4] I’ll simplistically refer to all forage as “grass” from now on. A grain-finished steer spends most of his life eating grass, and is only fed grain as a portion of its diet during the finishing phase. Even then, its ration still contains grass. So, even today meat and dairy products can be described as “grass based.” I do believe that there is vast room for improving the production and utilization of grass in pasture-based production systems, and I’ll address that in future posts. 

Terms like “grass-fed,” “free-range,” “pastured,” and “organic” are all used to market food today. Quantitative and qualitative differences have been determined between grass-finished and grain-finished meats. Similar differences have been determined between the milk from dairy cows grazing pasture compared to those housed in confinement systems. Just how important are these differences? Future posts will deal with this subject, too. I am concerned, however, that the claims some make for these products are over-stated. Without addressing the biggest insult to human health – an oversupply of readily digestible refined carbohydrates – is the consumer likely to realize any of these benefits? (see What's the Limiting Factor?)

It is beyond dispute that the “natural” diet of mankind is one that is much higher in animal products and much lower in carbohydrate than what our current “experts” advise us to eat. The archeological evidence provided in the fossil record and the testimony of anthropologists concerning various hunter-gatherer cultures provides significant evidence regarding our ancestor’s diet. The ancients who 19,000 years ago produced the awe-inspiring Lascaux cave paintings in present-day southwest France were paying homage to what gave them sustenance – the auroch, the ancestor of our modern European cattle.

Loren Cordain (2000) published an analysis of the diets of hunter-gatherer populations whose diets had been assessed by anthropologists.[5] One in every five of these 229 populations subsisted on almost entirely hunting or fishing. More than 85 percent of their calories came from meat or fish, with some groups thriving entirely on meat and fish. Only 14 percent of these groups got more than half their calories from plant foods. Not a single one of these populations was exclusively vegetarian. 

Today we understand the need to avoid obesity and the chronic diseases that are associated with being overweight. The “experts” tell us that we can accomplish these goals by eating less and exercising more, and by eating diets that are low in fat and high in carbohydrates. Animal products must be restricted, according to this advice. In response to the expert’s recommendations, as published in the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, the American caloric intake averages 15% from protein, 33% from fat, and the balance from carbohydrates. In contrast, Cordain’s hunter-gatherers’ diets were high to very high in protein (19 to 35 percent of calories) and high to very high in fat (28 to 58 percent of calories). Several of these populations obtained as much as 80 percent of their calories from fat. 

There is an abundance of evidence documenting the oft-repeated experience of isolated populations who exhibited none of the various “western diseases” until the introduction of sugar and white flour to their diets (see Grass and Cancer, Good Calories, Bad Calories, and Why we Get Fat and What to Do About It, among other sources). The scientific research and observational data so strongly supports the fattening carbohydrate hypothesis and explains the phenomenon of metabolic syndrome that all but those with a vested interest ought to be convinced that the lipid hypothesis should never have been adopted as the basis of public health policy in this country, or anywhere else. And this flawed “conventional wisdom” about weight loss and what constitutes a healthy diet has contaminated all of science. Not just nutrition and human health, but disciplines as seemingly unrelated as soil conservation. I’ll write about that in the future, too.

At the end of the introduction to his newest book, Gary Taubes writes:[6]

In the more than six decades since the end of the Second World War, when this question of what causes us to fatten – calories or carbohydrates -  has been argued, it has often seemed like a religious issue rather than a scientific one. So many different belief systems enter into the question of what constitutes a healthy diet that the scientific question – why do we get fat” – has gotten lost along the way. It’s been overshadowed by ethical, moral, and sociological considerations that are valid in themselves and certainly worth discussing but have nothing to do with the science itself and arguably no place in a scientific inquiry.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets typically (if not, perhaps, ideally) replace the carbohydrates in the diet with large or at least larger portions of animal products – beginning with eggs for breakfast and moving to meat, fish, or fowl for lunch and dinner. The implications of that are proper to debate. Isn’t our dependence on animal products already bad for the environment, and won’t it just get worse? Isn’t livestock production a major contributor to global warming, water shortages, and pollution? When thinking about a healthy diet, shouldn’t we think about what’s good for the planet as well as what’s good for us? Do we have a right to kill animals for our food or put them to work for us in producing it? Isn’t the only morally and ethically defensible lifestyle a vegetarian one or even a vegan one?

These are all important questions that need to be addressed, as individuals and as a society. But they have no place in the scientific and medical discussion of why we get fat.

It is understandable that Taubes would limit his argument, especially in this book which was envisioned as a simplified and focused discussion of the causes and treatment of obesity. Taubes is to be commended for acknowledging the broader ramifications of this subject and stating that, while he’s aware of these issues he would not address them. But there’s an implication in his statement that I’d like to dispute. 

I believe that we can address, scientifically, the questions regarding the impacts of animal agriculture on “the environment,” including the issues of anthropogenic global climate change (“global warming”), water quality and water quantity. The effort will show that this science is as muddled as Taubes found the disciplines of diet, nutrition and human health to be. Some of this muddle is the result of dietary dogma contaminating the discussion. If you believe that eating animal products is bad for you, it’s easy to imagine that belief impacting your perception of environmental issues. If your environmental beliefs are informed by the incorrect 18^th and 19^th century image of pre-Columbian North America as an “unspoiled wilderness,” then activities by man to transform the environment are necessarily seen as degradation. If you’ve never thought of the impacts of field-crop agriculture and horticulture, it might be possible to remain ignorant of the fact that greater soil erosion occurs in annual cropping systems that in perennial pasture-based animal production systems. Pasture-based livestock production systems protect surface and ground water quality. Credible science supports the role of well-managed animal agriculture in not only protecting but actually improving the environment. Future posts will discuss these issues. This, too, is what I mean by Grass Based Health.

In the Introduction to his book, Meat: A Benign Extravagance, Simon Fairlie makes the following statement:[7]

I am not overly concerned with questions of dietary health, nor do I take any interest in the diet and dentition of our remote ancestors.

Only someone not convinced of the fundamental requirement for animal fat and protein in the human diet could label meat an “extravagance!” Fairlie’s book is one of many I’m working my way through. His book apparently is having an impact. Folks who’ve been committed to vegetarianism are being swayed by his argument that animal products can be produced in ways that are sustainable. Glad to hear it. I remember being told almost twenty years ago that animal agriculture had no place in “sustainable agriculture.” “Organic” and “sustainable” were once synonymous with vegetarian.

My initial arguments with Fairlie’s thesis are that:

• The vast majority of the earth’s surface is best suited for producing grass for grazing.
• A significant portion of the “grain” that is fed to livestock are by-products like brewer’s grains and oil meal. These are not suitable for humans, and not utilizing them as livestock feeds would increase the cost of the primary products.
• The field and horticulture crops are the “extravagance,” not the animal products. And they are far from “benign.” Soil loss through erosion and soil organic matter depletion, and water quality degradation, fossil fuel use, petrochemical inputs, wildlife impact – all of these are greater in annual cropping situations than in perennial pasture-based livestock production systems. And that list does not include the impact these crops have on the human health and the cost of treating the resulting diseases.

Consider diabetes: Diabetes is one of the western diseases, now understood to be part of metabolic syndrome. The US population today is approximately 312 million people, 76.9% of whom are adults (approximately 240 million). According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 105 million adults in the US have diabetes or prediabetes (26 million with diabetes, 79 million with prediabetes), as diagnosed with hemoglobin A1c.[8] Thus diabetic and pre-diabetic adults represent 44% of the US adult population. The increase in those with pre-diabetes, now equal to 1 in 3 US adults, represents a 39 % increase since 2008. The recommended plant-based diet can hardly be called benign! The CDC estimates the direct and indirect costs of diabetes at $179 billion annually. The recommended plant-based diet can hardly be called sustainable, either.

I sometimes hear those in the low-carb / Primal / Paleo community refer to “agriculture” negatively. It is important to remember that the farmers and ranchers – the people who actually steward natural resources to produce our food - have been taken in by the same official dietary guidelines as the rest of us. They are challenged by the same chronic health problems the rest of us face. They need to hear this alternative to the conventional wisdom. The average age of farmers in the US is just over 57 years.[9] Sustainability implies longevity, but the intergenerational transition of the current production models have been difficult to achieve. Is there an alternative? There can be no sustainability without profit. In western Oregon, traditional dairies are finding it difficult to break even while pasture-based dairies are making a profit. Dairymen from Europe and New Zealand have been looking at the potential for grass-based dairying in the US. Some have done more than just look. Americans spend less, as a percent of their income, on food than any other industrial country. And we spend more on medical care. We can pay our farmers or we can pay our doctors. Payin’ our doctors hasn’t worked out all that well. That, too, is what Grass Based Health is about.

Finally, if meaningful change is going to happen in our nutrition policies and all that they influence it will have to begin at the grass roots. Individuals will have to learn on their own what we should have been taught since the 1960s. They will have to apply this information to their own lives and obtain the thoroughly predictable results – improved health and weight loss. They will then pass the word along to their families and friends, some of whom will listen and adopt this appropriate way of eating and living. And so it will spread until we reach the tipping point. A grass roots movement. But "Grass Roots Health” was already taken (and a worthwhile effort that is, too, regarding the role of vitamin D in preventing chronic diseases!). 

So now you know I called this blog “Grass Based Health,” what I mean by that phrase, and some of what I’ll be writing about in future posts.

---

[1] From Wrangham, R. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York, NY

[2] Mark Graham. 1979 in The Mark Graham Songbook: Twenty-Five Originals From the Forked-Tongue Demon. Mark Graham. 1991.

[3] Cellulose. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[4] Meath, M. E., D. S. Metcalfe, R. F. Barnes. 1973. Forages; The Science of Grassland Agriculture. The Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

[5] Cordain, L., J. B. Miller, S. B. Eaton, N. Mann, S. H. Holt, and J. D. Speth. 2000. “Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios and Macronutrient Energy Estimations in Worldwide Hunter-Gatherer Diets.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Mar;71(3):682-92.

[6] Taubes, G. 2011. “Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It.” 2011. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. pp 11-12

[7] Fairlie, S. 2010. “Meat: A Benign Extravagance” Chelsea Green Publishing Co.

[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes and Prediabetes in the United States 2011. Atlanta, Ga.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[9] http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Operators/Characterists/07-M124-RGBChor-largetext.pdf