Skip to content

Sometimes you have to wonder.

October 26, 2015

The World Health Organization  (WHO)’s latest cause is to do away with processed and fresh red meat (sorry pork folks, but until the color was bred out of it, pork was red too), especially any meat that is preserved. Fresh is not OK by their standards, but it’s better than processed. Or so they say, after reviewing 800 studies done by other people.

But really, preserved (also known as processed) meat is a class 1 carcinogen, like arsenic?

So eat only fish (from oceans and rivers that are fouled with radioactive waste, chemicals and every type of garbage known to man?) or presumably chicken or better yet don’t eat meat at all.

How in the name of all that is holy did we ever manage to evolve from leaf and bug eating pre-humans to homo sapiens?

Salting, smoking, curing and drying meat were the world’s only methods of preserving meat for millennia, and fish and other meats were also preserved that way. It must have worked because the human race is still here.

In fact, given  estimates that the world’s population is forecast to hit 9 Billion by  2050, maybe it worked too well, given that world hunger is a problem already.

By the way…how long will it take for 9 billion people to eat all the chicken and fish, if they are our only source of meat?

That’s not to say that anyone should make a habit of eating only cured meats. A nice fresh steak or chop tastes better than its frozen counterpart, and a meatless meal can be tasty too. As with everything else, the key is moderation.

Any food that is processed with chemicals to preserve it is certainly not very healthy either. Just look at your latest pound of hamburger, and watch the pink slime ooze out of it as it cooks. Talk about unhealthy. And of course there is the mystery meat they put in TV dinners and frozen entrees. Ugh.

On the other hand, spoiled meat isn’t too good for you either. That’s why we learned to preserve it.

Ideally, we could turn back to our roots and start hunting our own wild game again (with atlatls, spears and bows and arrows of course), killing and eating just what we could consume at the moment.

Except of course there aren’t enough places for wild game or even free-range fed beef, goats, pigs and sheep to forage, and somehow it has become socially unacceptable to kill anything, even if it is trying to kill you.

In fact if you think about it, maybe NOT striving to live forever is a far more natural state for  the world’s continuing existence than our obsession with preserving all life at all costs.

Think about it. If we didn’t eat meat, would the world be taken over by the animals? All those deer, bear, cows, pigs and the so-called lower mammals would either have to be killed or allowed to starve if we intend to remain the number one species.

This is slightly tongue-in-cheek commentary is not meant to make light of the pain and suffering that accompanies cancer, or any other disease.

But given the fact that the scientific community’s so-called objectivity was long ago suborned by money and politics, you have to wonder just how valid these compilations of other bought-and-paid-for studies really are.

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: