June 6, 2013
Researchers at Loma Lima University have published a study entitled “Should We All Be Vegetarians?” that concludes a vegetarian diet reduces:
• Death rates
• Risk for multiple chronic diseases
• Metabolic syndrome
• Diabetes mellitus
• Ischemic heart disease
By studying 73,308 Seventh-Day Adventists with questionnaires about their dietary habits, 5 groups were identified:
The analysis showed that the vegetarian group was consistently older, married, drank less alcohol, smoked less cigarettes, exercise more and weighed less.
The study explained: “Some evidence suggests dietary patterns may be associated with reduced mortality, but the relationship is not well established.”
Michael Orlich, lead author of the study said : “In the medical community, there is an increasing attention to diet in disease prevention, and a growing appreciation for the role of dietary patterns in managing disease.”
The study began in 1974 and measured the mortality rates within the groups and compared them to each other.
Interestingly there was no differential with relation to death cue to cancer between the vegetarian and non-vegetarians.
The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has found that vegetarians are at a lower risk than their counterparts to:
• Heart disease
• Colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers
The AMA concluded that “a vegetarian diet, like any healthy diet, must be well planned in order to help prevent and treat certain diseases.”
In 2010, the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) released a study that urged the populations to turn to a vegetarian diet to save world hunger, reduce poverty and reduce the impact of climate change.
The report stated: “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
There is a trendy push toward environmental vegetarianism which is the choice to eat sustainable forms of food.
Studies supporting the global move toward vegetarianism showed that:
Orlich commented : “People should take these kinds of results into account as they’re considering dietary choices.”
Scientists have come closer to developing the first edible laboratory-grown meat. Dr. Mark Post has created a five ounce hamburger from stem cells derived from a cow.
Post explained: “Let’s make a proof of concept, and change the discussion from ‘this is never going to work’ to, ‘well, we actually showed that it works, but now we need to get funding and work on it.”
The UN has been making a case against the continued practice of cultivating livestock for consumption under the claim that they are unsustainable and using precious resources.
In 2006, the FAO published a report entitled, “Livestock’s Long Shadow” that described how cows are damaging the planet with their methane emissions. The FAO says that cows are responsible for 18% of CO2 in the atmosphere. When burning coal to transport and process the meat is added to the massive amounts of fertilizer necessary to feed them, they have been deemed unsustainable.
The report states that livestock are responsible for thousands of acres of land being deforested which adds to pollution.
Cows overgraze the land to depletion and even cause acid rain.
Human eating habits have to be curbed because it is claimed that 55 square feet of rainforest is destroyed for each quarter pound hamburger that is produced. Therefore humans should be encouraged to eat vegetables; and insects as an alternative to protein.
Mainstream media decries that “cows’ farting and burping must be brought under control because they’re causing global warming problems.”
Even more articles maintain that: “The emissions produced by [cows, pigs, sheep and goats] contain a nasty mix of many gasses, among them methane. Though carbon dioxide is the first gas that comes to mind when we think of greenhouse emissions, pound for pound, methane is more than 20 times more powerful in terms of its global warming potential. Methane doesn’t linger in the atmosphere quite as long as CO2, and it’s not produced industrially in anywhere near the same quantity, but it does its damage all the same — and livestock toots out a surprisingly large share of it.”