Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:50:48 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="windows-1252" |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:23:43 -0600, Lynnet Bannion <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
For millenia, if not longer, people
>have avoided
>eating animals that are sick or died by themselves. Now, most of the meat
>we get is
> from sick animals; we just don't know it because they're processed
>thousands of miles away out of our sight.
In my reading of anthropological literature, hunters have targeted old, young,
and sick animals as easier to kill, just like other predators. I have always been
a little perplexed why people believe that "grain-fed, sick" cattle are somehow
unhelathy to eat. I agree that grain-fed meat has a different nutritional
profile than grass-fed, but I question the relative health benefits (recognizing
that some people do not tolerate grain-fed meat). I eat mostly grain-fed
meat and have never been healthier.
|
|
|