|
  |
|
|
Dying for some meat
A study into diet across Europe has concluded [interim conclusions, the study is ongoing] that a Mediterranean diet is not only good for the heart, but also reduces risk of cancer substantially. The diet consists of a lot of vegetables and fruit, some oily fish, olive oil and very little red meat - red meat having been implicated previously as a cause of cancer, this study confirms it. Yet the EU subsidises meat production, every animal raised earns a handout to the farmer, paid for out of tax. So something that causes cancer [and subsequent huge cost to the health service in treatment] is subsidised so it is affordable in large quantities to people who eat far too much of it [and many of them far to much food overall]. So with one move, removing the subsidies paid to cattle and sheep farmers, the EU could reduce the incidence of cancer, improve the lives of its citizens and reduce the number of animals whose short, stunted lives feed the fatzoid cancerous meat eaters, none of whom have ever given the animals a moment's thought. I would argue that it's karma if flesh eaters get cancer, but I don't see why others should fund a subsidy of their habit. If fruit and vegetables are so good for us, and I believe they are, then why aren't fruit and veg growers subsidised? In Herefordshire, prime meat raising land, so called 'livestock' farmers are raking it in; two holidays a year for a mere smallholder with a few sheep on rented land, new Range Rovers every year for the big sheep and cattle farmers with hundreds of acres, and that's before they sell the animals at market. The same applies all over the country. The result is meat prices are much lower than they should be and too many people eat far too much meat for their own health. So the tax payers pays out twice; once for the meat subsidy and again for the cancer treatment. Joined up thinking needed here. And Monsanto claim their genetically engineered growth hormone is environmentally friendly because it means you get more meat for your fodder, thus less emissions [basically, cattle fart methane at an incredible rate, and cattle farming is a huge emitter of greenhouse gas]. Much more could be saved by people eating less meat however. |
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/49107/story.htm
PLEASE VISIT THE CONTRIBUTOR'S WEBSITE
Fool on the Hill
A blog about the state of the world
www.oneworldnet.co.uk/blog/index.php
|
|
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
The copyright for this content entitled "Dying for some meat " has been specified by the contributor as:
All Rights Reserved
This content may not be copied, distributed or adapted by anyone under any circumstances.
|
 |
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
