Ellen White’s Call to Abstain from Meat: How Relevant is it Today?
Vegetarianism is an integral part of the Adventist Health Message. A number of statements in Ellen White’s writings either directly or indirectly contend that a diet free of animal flesh leads to a healthier life. Several scientific studies conducted in the past few decades confirm that vegetarian diets are associated with prevention of chronic health conditions including coronary heart disease, some cancers, diabetes, arthritis, and obesity. Interestingly, these diseases comprised a major health problem not only in developed countries. According to the World Health Organization and the World Bank, chronic diseases in low income and lower middle income countries account for about 70 percent of all chronic diseases diagnosed in 2005. It is imperative to point out that the reasons given by Ellen White why members of the Remnant Church were to give up eating flesh of animals isn’t limited to the health aspects of vegetarianism. Let us consider several statements in which she encourages abstaining from eating the flesh of animals for other reasons: “Think of the cruelty to animals that meat eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with which we should regard these creatures of God!” (MH p. 315) “Flesh was never the best food; but its use is now doubly objectionable, since disease in animals is so rapidly increasing. Those who use flesh foods little know what they are eating. Often if they could see the animals when living and know the quality of the meat they eat, they would turn from it with loathing.” (MH p. 313) “Often animals are taken to market and sold for food, when they are so diseased that their owners fear to keep them longer. And some of the processes of fattening them for market produce disease. Shut away from the light and pure air, breathing the atmosphere of filthy stables, perhaps fattening on decaying food, the entire body soon becomes contaminated with foul matter.” (M.H. 314) “Animals are often transported long distances and subjected to great suffering in reaching a market. Taken from the green pastures and traveling for weary miles over the hot, dusty roads, or crowded into filthy cars, feverish and exhausted, often for many hours deprived of food and water, the poor creatures are driven to their death, that human beings may feast on the carcasses.” (CD&F p. 385) “It is impossible for the flesh of any living creature to be wholesome when filth is its natural element and when it feeds upon every detestable thing.” (MH p. 314) “Upon their settlement in Canaan, the Israelites were permitted the use of animal food, but under careful restrictions which tended to lessen the evil results. … Only such animals could be used for food as were in good condition. … By departing from the plan divinely appointed for their diet, the Israelites suffered great loss. They desired a flesh diet, and they reaped its results. They did not reach God’s ideal of character or fulfill His purpose.” (MH p. 312)
These and other statements found in Ellen White’s writings offer at least five reasons, other than better health, why we should not eat the flesh of animals. These reasons include: inhumane treatment of animals, spread of diseases among animals, poor quality of meat, bad transportation conditions, and questionable fattening methods. Of course Ellen White’s statements were made at least 100 years ago. Are these statements relevant to contemporary Seventh-Day Adventists?
In order to answer the above question we ought to start with background information about agricultural farming. Raising animals for meat has changed dramatically in the second half of the 20 century. Previously, farm animals were raised naturally, eating what and how the Creator intended. Cattle were walking freely on pastures, grazing on grass. Chickens were walking around farms, picking up warms and grass. Though we occasionally see farmers who raise animals in this way, this type of farming is now rare. Rather, most animals are raised according to the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) model. There are at least two major differences between this model and traditional practices.
In CAFO, animals are confined in small feedlots or houses where tens or hundreds of thousands of animals are being raised at any given time. Food and water are brought to these animals and excrements are removed by human employees. These animals are cramped in such small areas that they virtually can not move or even turn. Many develop muscular dystrophy as a result of this restricted movement; further, muscular dystrophy development is often exacerbated by consumption of a very high protein diet and growth hormones and/or growth promoters, which enable rapid growth of the animals’ bodies. Unfortunately, the development of their legs can not keep up and often the animals’ legs can not support the weight of their bodies. These two factors often lead to animals becoming lame. Clearly, the living conditions and feeding practices used in the CAFO model can be described as cruel.
The second major difference between traditional farms and CAFO involves what the animals eat. Grass is the natural diet for cattle. In CAFO, cattle can not graze because no grass grows where the cattle are confined. Although grass or hay could be brought to cows kept in CAFO, the bulk of the cows’ diet comes in a form of corn, soybean, and wheat. This high protein diet contributes to the rapid growth rate of these animals. Moreover, this diet causes a variety of digestive problems. When cows eat grass, a diet designed for them by the Creator, they produce gas as a by product of a high content of raphage. They expel the gas by belching. When they are on a diet largely composed of corn, soybeans, and wheat, the cows still produce a substantial amount of gas but they have difficulty belching. Thus, the gas produced becomes trapped, which in turn causes bloating. At times, the problem is so severe that the animals may have difficulty breathing and even die of asphyxiation. The “artificial” diet given to ruminants triggers other digestive track problems. For example, it causes higher than normal acid synthesis, which may result in acid indigestion, which subsequently may lead to rumenitis (inflammation of the wall of the rumen, the largest of the four stomachs). Other problems associated with the high protein diet include liver abscesses (caused by certain bacteria, a result of rumenitis) and feedlot polio (this condition is characterized by paralysis which results from a destruction of vitamin B-1, a result of acidosis).
Digestive diseases of cows fed a high protein CAFO diet are not the biggest problem that consumers should be concerned about. Even though this diet is already high in dietary protein, livestock in CAFO are additionally given concentrated protein powder. This product, made in rendering plants, is composed of two key ingredients. First, rendering plants purchase parts of slaughtered animals that are not used for meat. These parts include intestines and their contents, heads, hooves, horns, bones, and blood. Second, rendering plants purchase dead animals. Since animals living in CAFO are kept in small, confined areas, their living conditions make them susceptible to a variety of infectious microbes such as E-coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter. Consequently, thousands of these animals die before they are ever ready to be sold to slaughterhouses. Rendering plants also shop for euthanized pets, such as dogs and cats, and road kill. It is estimated that approximately 40 billion pounds of dead animals are processed in rendering plants each year. The rendering plants boil, grind, and dry the surplus parts and dead animals to make concentrated protein powder, which they sell to farmers.
In addition to concentrated protein powder, CAFO animals are fed fish meal and blood meal. Fish meal consists of ground dead, unwanted fish/sea food catch. Blood is obtained from slaughterhouses from killed animals. Of course animals such as cows were created to be herbivores not carnivores. This unnatural diet results in disease. For example, Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) was caused by a feeding the flesh of dead animals to herbivores. Mad Cows Disease is just one of a category of diseases commonly called Transferable Spongiform Encephalopathy. A human disease from the same category of diseases called Varient-Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease has been linked to human consumption of animals affected by Mad Cow Disease.
If you are already alarmed by what you read about the ingredients of concentrated protein powder, you must know that the disturbing story of animal feeding practices in CAFO does not end there. On a daily basis, animals grown for meat are given a variety of antimicrobial agents (antibiotics), growth hormones, growth promoters, and arsenic (chickens are given arsenic in their food to kill parasites that live in their intestines). There are two basic reasons for feeding animals these agents: prevention or treatment of infectious diseases and growth promotion. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that approximately 25 million pounds of antibiotics are given to livestock annually; this accounts for approximately 70% of all manufactured antibiotics. Animals fed antibiotics grow faster than those raised without antibiotics. Yet microbes exposed to antibiotics develop resistance to these agents. Antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious food safety issues in the US and in other countries. Scientists from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention call it “one of the world's most pressing public health problems” because antibiotics to which microbes develop resistance are ineffective in treating humans who develop microbial poisoning. Microbes are already resistant to a number of antibiotics including streptomycin, tetracyclines, and penicillin, and fluoroquinolones. Dara Corrigan, Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, states: “Recent studies have demonstrated that antimicrobial resistance among foodborne bacteria, primarily Salmonella and Campylobacter, may cause prolonged duration of illness, and increased rates of bacteremia, hospitalization, and death. Other studies have determined that the majority of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella and Campylobacter infections in developed countries are due to antimicrobial use in food animals, … Therefore, … adverse human health outcomes are associated with resistant bacteria due to the use of antimicrobials in food animals…”. Scientists fear that microbes may soon develop resistance to other antibiotics such as vancomycin, an antibiotic that is considered a treatment of a “last resort”. Researchers have already isolated an enterococcus bacteria resistant to vancomycin. Development of resistance to vancomycin by other types of microbial agents is only a matter of time.
As I indicated earlier in this article, growth hormones are a staple addition to the diet of animals such as cows. US cattle are fed oestradiol 17, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate (it may be interesting to point out that any use of these hormones has been banned in the European Union for a number of years now). Scientists believe that hormone use in animal feeding may lead to a variety of human health problems including disruption in consumer's hormone balance, developmental problems, interference with the reproductive system, development of cancer, and early onset of puberty in girls. Perhaps the most controversial of the above listed hormones is oestradiol 17, which is positively associated with breast cancer. The use of hormones in animal feeding is also associated with greater concentration of these chemicals in lakes and rivers located near CAFO establishments. Studies that assess the impact of the presence of growth hormones in lakes and rivers report that “wild fish are being nailed by polluting hormones, males becoming somewhat feminized and females somewhat masculinized.” According to Earl Gray Jr. from the Environmental Protection Agency male fish just downstream of the feedlots not only “produced less testosterone” but also "had a significantly reduced testis size.” Could the effect of the use of growth hormones in animal feeding at least in part explain human infertility problems in the United States?
I do not know exactly what Ellen White had in mind when she said that “… if they could see the animals when living and know the quality of the meat they eat, they would turn from it with loathing.” (MH p. 313) Is it possible that this statement and others like this one are even more applicable now than in her time? “It is impossible for the flesh of any living creature to be wholesome when filth is its natural element and when it feeds upon every detestable thing.” (MH p. 314) Even though she referred in this statement to the feed of pigs I am personally convinced that the feeding practices of clean animals raised in CAFO can accurately be described as “detestable” and “filth[y].” Is it possible that today Seventh-Day Adventists should consider questionable fatting practices such as the use of artificial diet, concentrated protein powder, antibiotics, and growth hormones, as a reason for giving up eating meat? You decide.
Roman Pawlak, Ph.D., RD
Assistant Professor of Nutrition
East Carolina University
References:
United States General Accounting Office. Report to Congressional Requesters. Antibiotic resistance. 2004. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf
Raloff J. Hormones: Here's the Beef. Environmental concerns reemerge over steroids given to livestock. Science News Online. 2002(January 5);161(1)p. 10
Greger M. U.S. Continues to Violate World Health Organization Guidelines for BSE. 2004. http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/greger12304.cfm
Union of Concerned Scientists. Food and environment. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/antibiotics_and_food/
Comments