Meatonomics Read online

  Hitting Below the Belt

  In 2008, the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) launched a campaign to educate people about the health dangers of processed meats. As a matter of fact, dozens of studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals establish that eating processed meats is linked to cancer.23 But rather than address this copious research, AMI responded with a press release designed to deflect attention from the underlying science. The release's main theme was evident from its title: “Media Needs to Check Background of Pseudo-Medical Animal Rights Group and Cease Coverage of Alarmist and Unscientific Attack on Meat Products.”24 Such an ad hominem, or to-the-man, personal attack is a logical fallacy that ignores the merits of the message itself. Stanley Cohen, professor of sociology and author of the book States of Denial, calls this a denial technique used by those who:

  try to deflect attention . . . to the motives and character of their critics, who are presented as hypocrites and disguised deviants. Thus the police are corrupt and brutal, teachers are unfair and discriminatory. By attacking others, the wrongfulness of [one's] own behavior can be more easily repressed or lost to view.25

  AMI is no stranger to this tactic. In another example, the trade organization issued a press release in 2001 responding to a petition that various groups had filed with the USDA asking the agency to enforce the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Rather than address the petition's many eyewitness accounts of inhumane practices in the slaughter process, which were signed under penalty of perjury, AMI attacked the petitioner organizations themselves. “It is important to note,” said AMI, “that the credibility of some of the petitioners is in serious doubt.”26

  AMI is not alone in seeking to deflect attention from legitimate, anti-industry messages by questioning the messengers' motives, credibility, or integrity. In the next chapter, we'll see further evidence of institutional efforts to marginalize those whose messages could harm industry. For example, animal agribusiness has persuaded Congress and most state legislatures to pass legislation that brands those who interfere with factory farms as “terrorists.” This is a powerful method not only of curbing activism, but also of discrediting activists and their message.

  Protein Preaching

  Is animal protein a life-enhancing elixir? From a young age, we're taught it fosters health, growth, vitality, virility, and sometimes even weight loss. The alternative to getting plenty of it, we're told, could be protein deficiency. Never mind that the typical American has never had—nor ever will have—protein deficiency and has little idea what its symptoms might be. We've heard of it, we're scared of it, and whatever the heck it is, we don't want it.

  Spurred by the most basic force of meatonomics—the drive to sell more meat and dairy—animal food producers use our protein fears to their advantage. For example, a beef checkoff website suggests when deciding how much meat to eat, we go beyond the bare minimum needed to “prevent protein deficiency.”27 Elsewhere on the site, we're warned:

  HEALTH ALERT: Sarcopenia.

  Sarcopenia is a condition associated with a loss of muscle mass and strength in older individuals. . . . While there is no single cause, insufficient protein intake may be a key contributor to this condition.28

  The key phrase here is may be. In fact, the research linking sarcopenia to protein deficiency is spotty and inconclusive. A 2001 study published in The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine found simply, “Decreased physical activity with aging appears to be the key factor involved in producing sarcopenia.”29

  We're regularly bombarded with protein messages like these. How accurate are they? What are the health consequences of following them? Because protein is such an important nutrient, and emerging research presents an array of new findings on the subject, it's worthwhile to assess the protein messages that influence our consumption habits.

  Where Do You Get Your Protein?

  Here's something to chew on: a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread contains more protein (14 grams) than a McDonald's hamburger (13 grams). Many consumers think plant foods contain little protein—in any case, not enough to meet our daily needs. But a closer look suggests the animal food industry may be overhyping animal protein in ways that are clinically unsupported.

  For humans, the best guidance on protein requirements is contained in a 284-page report produced jointly by the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO).30 According to this report, an adult needs 0.66 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day.‡ For a 170-pound adult, this is about 50.8 grams of protein per day. An omnivore could fill this quota with just one chicken breast and one drumstick per day, although among American consumers, such restraint is rare. Males between twenty and fifty-nine, for example, typically consume more than 100 grams of protein daily—twice the level recommended by WHO.31

  With 50.8 grams of protein (adjusted by individual body weight) as a rough daily target, we can evaluate the meatonomics claim that it's hard to obtain adequate protein without eating animal foods. Consider these surprising protein equivalents, courtesy of the USDA: a baked potato contains as much protein as a hot dog, 2 ounces of peanuts equals a chicken pot pie, and ounce-for-ounce, roasted pumpkin seeds have more protein than ham. As table 2.2 shows, many plant foods contain protein at levels equal to the same or even larger amounts of animal foods.32

  TABLE 2.2 Protein Equivalents in Animal and Plant Foods33

  In fact, every fruit, vegetable, nut, seed, or grain we put in our bodies has protein—in most cases, at surprising levels. You like to kick back with a Budweiser? A can of beer contains 2 grams of protein. A basic salad doesn't seem hardy enough to add a bit of muscle? A cup of romaine contains a gram of protein. In fact, calorie for calorie, green vegetables like kale, broccoli, and romaine lettuce contain twice as much protein as steak.34 As one team of experts noted, “It is difficult to obtain a mixed vegetable diet which will produce an appreciable loss of body protein.”35

  A recent poll found that nearly 16 million Americans are vegetarian (that is, they eat no meat) and of these, nearly 8 million are vegan (that is, they eat no animal products whatsoever).36 Yet there is no clinical evidence that members of either group suffer from protein deficiency. In fact, a number of commentators note that protein deficiency is largely associated with caloric deficiency, and for anyone consuming sufficient calories, adequate protein is not a concern.37 In a report that is the basis for the USDA's protein recommendations, the National Academy of Sciences downplays the risk that people on a plant-based diet lack sufficient dietary protein. According to the National Academy, “available evidence does not support recommending a separate protein requirement for vegetarians.”38

  Nevertheless, the animal food industry promotes the message that plant protein is lower in quality than animal protein. One industry website advises, “All proteins are not created equal. High-quality animal protein . . . helps fuel a healthy, active lifestyle.”39 Such claims that animal protein is “high quality” and “healthy” are central to the industry's protein dogma, and for that reason, they merit a closer look.

  Chapter 6 contains a detailed look at the effects of animal-based foods on our physical health, and the economic consequences that flow from these health issues. But if you want an appetizer, consider the results of a large number of studies on the effect that animal protein has on cancer growth, discussed in the 2004 book The China Study. The main finding from these many studies, according to lead author T. Colin Campbell, is that “nutrients from animal-based foods increased tumor development while nutrients from plant-based foods decreased tumor development.”40 This remarkable set of studies, funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations, lasted more than nineteen years and spawned more than one hundred scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

  I asked Gregory Miller of the National Dairy Council about Campbell's finding that animal protein, particularly the protein casein in milk, prom
otes cancer. According to Miller, who has a PhD in nutrition, Campbell's research shows “if you feed [animals] a good healthy diet with a high-quality protein, the cancer thrives, and if you feed them a diet that's not as good, it doesn't thrive. It's about good nutrition.” In other words, animal protein promotes cancer because of its high quality, and plant protein does not promote cancer because of its poor quality. If this isn't enough to make you curious about the so-called “quality” difference between animal and plant foods, there's even more to it. For additional discussion of this and other topics in meat and nutrition, see Appendix A.

  The Meaning of Is

  With an avalanche of emerging research showing that Americans routinely consume unhealthy amounts of meats and other animal foods, animal agribusiness is under pressure. Remember Bill Clinton philosophically—and awkwardly—questioning the meaning of is in front of TV cameras? Like Clinton and so many others do when the heat is publicly on, the animal food industry painstakingly contorts its words to sidestep mounting problems.

  To be fair, industrial communicators may not intend to mislead or deceive consumers. But frequently their messages are based on data or research that is flawed, out of date, or easily manipulated. Let's reflect on the shaky origins of much of our current thinking on protein consumption. America's obsession with animal protein has its roots in the work of an obscure German scientist who died a century ago. Carl von Voit, a chemistry professor at the University of Munich in the late 1800s, promoted a set of dubious protein recommendations that profoundly influenced the dietary attitudes and habits of Western civilization. Voit based his advice on the amount of protein eaten by men in various professions, such as “well-paid mechanics” and those “at hard work.”41

  But the key flaw in Voit's scholarship was his assumption that because people did consume a certain amount of protein per day, they should consume that much. As a result, his conclusions were based not on how much protein was healthy, but simply on how much his subjects ate. As a biographer noted, one of Voit's favorite research subjects was his longtime assistant, “a robust man, blessed with a robust appetite, and for this reason, it is said, Voit's well-known dietary standard for a healthy man at moderate work is generously high.”42

  Voit also opposed plant-based diets because he believed protein was most digestible when obtained from animal sources.43 But in fact, the opposite is often true. For example, according to UN/WHO, the protein in soy, farina, peanut butter, refined wheat, wheat flour, and wheat gluten is more readily digestible than that in meat or fish.44

  To understand the kind of diet Voit advocated, consider the 150 grams of daily animal protein he recommended for “hard workers.” Relying on the USDA's 19th-century estimates of animal foods' protein content, a hard worker might have eaten half a chicken for breakfast, two half-pound steaks for lunch, and a one-pound slab of cod for dinner. The Voit Standard was attacked by contemporary nutritionists who argued that a healthy portion of daily protein for adult males was 40 grams, not 118 or more.45 Nevertheless, the Voit Standard found wide adoption and acceptance in the United States and other Western countries where, because people already ate a lot of meat, the high standard fit the existing model like a well-tailored suit.

  Although the protein levels first urged by Voit have been revised downward over the years, his superlative emphasis on animal protein—and lots of it—continues to serve as a guiding nutritional principle in the United States. Considering that much of American nutritional policy grew from such shaky foundations, is it any wonder today's consumers are confused about what—and how much—we should eat?

  Food for Thought

  The animal food industry engages in an aggressive, systematic messaging campaign designed to boost demand for its products. Because the bare facts are usually damaging and likely to hurt sales, the industry often makes its case with ad hominem attacks, sponsored research studies, and false or misleading messages.

  Objective data frequently refutes and exposes this routine industry whitewashing. Case in point: research published by the USDA and the National Academies establishes that Americans eat much more animal foods than we should and that a plant-based diet supplies ample protein.

  The animal food industry often seeks government support to lend credibility to the false or misleading information it disseminates. For example, although the swine flu started in pigs, industry pressure led the USDA to publicly deny this notion. And while the evidence shows that California cows are anything but happy, the California Department of Food and Agriculture seeks to dispel this idea in order to help dairy farmers sell more product.

  † In fact, influenza is just one of many infectious diseases that start in animals and spread to humans. Other infectious, zoonotic diseases include avian flu, bubonic plague, cholera, dengue fever, Ebola, herpes, HIV, leprosy, measles, SARS, smallpox, tuberculosis, West Nile virus, and yellow fever. H. Krauss et al., Zoonoses: Infectious Diseases Transmissible from Animals to Humans (Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2003).

  ‡ The USDA also issues recommendations regarding protein consumption, although its guidance is substantially higher. The agency recommends 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram per day, which works out to 61.7 grams for a 170-pound adult or about 20 percent more than UN/WHO. I use the UN/WHO recommendations because they're more consistent with current research and less likely to be influenced by industry (see chapter 4).

  3

  Sausage Making and Lawmaking: Influence in the Political Process

  The idea for this book grew out of an email exchange I had a number of years ago with the dean of a prominent law school. I sent him a link to a short film showing conditions on factory farms. I had just seen the film for the first time myself and was curious what he would think of the images of animal abuse. He wrote back that the treatment of animals in the video was deplorable—and almost certainly illegal. But here's the twist: because he believed it was illegal, he also judged it atypical and therefore, basically irrelevant. As I explored the subject, I found that many share the learned dean's assumption—including most federal lawmakers. My own congressman, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), assured me in response to a similar query that “animal cruelty is not only wrong, but against the law.”1

  In civilized society, it is a basic principle that animal cruelty is illegal. Yet as Ronald Reagan cautioned those who would accept too much on faith: “Trust, but verify.” As a lawyer, I was interested in legal support for the principle many of us take for granted—that cruelty to farm animals is, in fact, illegal. What I learned in my research surprised me.

  In fact, decades of aggressive lobbying by industry groups have yanked the teeth out of dozens of state and federal laws that once protected both consumers and animals. The concerted legislative effort involves much more than just changing anti-cruelty laws. Those who produce and sell animal foods have also been remarkably successful at passing laws that prevent us from investigating, criticizing, or suing them. Industry leaders even go so far as to assert these measures help consumers. In reality, these laws mainly serve the animal food industry and thus, like so much in meatonomics, are simply about the money. This chapter explores how the forces of meatonomics press state and federal lawmakers across the United States to protect industry, and the consequences for American consumers and farm animals.

  How to Get to Washington

  If Mr. Smith wanted to go to Washington today, he'd need almost $7 million to get elected. Since 1960, the cost to win US office has increased tenfold (in inflation-adjusted dollars).2 Not surprisingly, as campaign costs have grown, the sums spent on access to those in office have also increased. Organizations increased the annual amounts they spent to lobby Congress between 1983 and 2010 by a factor of thirty-five, and registered lobbyists have multiplied tenfold since 1976.3 Advocates for the disenfranchised or unprotected, like the poor, minorities, animals, and the environment, lack the budgets to spend in these lavish ways; nearly all the organizations that spend big money on lobbying are businesses or t
rade groups that represent businesses. Take an imaginary stroll down Washington DC's K Street, where most of these influence machines are located. Nineteen of the top twenty lobbying spenders in 2010 were business interests who spent as much as $157 million per group that year to sway lawmakers.4 (The one nonbusiness group in the top twenty was the AARP.)

  The animal food industry is just one of many special interests to capitalize on this massive change in spending and influence, but it stands out because its efforts have been particularly successful. Most significantly, costly legal restrictions that once applied to its production units—farm animals—have been largely swept aside. Today, at both the state and federal level, legal protection for farm animals is scant, poorly enforced, and largely irrelevant. To put it bluntly, farm animals “have no legal protection at all,” according to David Wolfson and Mariann Sullivan, lawyers who have explored the issue in an article titled “Foxes in the Hen House.” “As far as the law is concerned,” wrote Wolfson and Sullivan, farm animals “simply do not exist.”5

  If this development surprises you as much as it did me, you may wonder, as I did, what it means and how it happened. The answer starts with one of the fundamental principles of lawmaking—the quid pro quo, or this for that, that pervades the American legislative process at both the state and federal levels. While a legislator's express agreement to sell a vote is illegal, it's completely legal to vote for a measure just because a donor likes it. It's a subtle—and for most critics, frustrating—distinction.

  Money Talks

  Jesse “Big Daddy” Unruh, the late speaker of the California Assembly and a larger-than-life character, was outspoken on the issue of lobbying and influence. “If you can't drink a lobbyist's whiskey, take his money, sleep with his women, and still vote against him in the morning,” said Unruh, “you don't belong in politics.” (Big Daddy was clearly a man of principle!) But despite such admonitions, and perhaps even acting with the best of intentions, legislators often respond to contributions by doing what the donors want. It's basic human nature—people have a hard time accepting a gift and not reciprocating. In one study of this phenomenon, those who received a can of Coca-Cola as a gift purchased twice as many raffle tickets from the donor as those who got no gift.6