Re: your question to the list, below.  I'd still eat meat.  If I could 
hunt and get meat that way, it'd be my first preference.

I learned not too long ago that a bison farm in Wisconsin (where I get 
meat) still uses old methods to raise and slaughter their animals.  It's 
organic, all grass-fed and they surprise the animal at the moment of 
slaughter (which is done by hand in an instant).  I believe the owner 
when she says that they treat the animals with respect and dignity like 
our ancestors did, getting to know them as they grow up.  A local 
chicken farm operates the same way and delivers chickens and eggs to our 
farmer's market each week.  Agreed that large-scale operations do things 
very differently though.

The thing about the fatty acids is that omega 3 and 6, at least, need to 
be nearly in balance - almost 1:1, 1:2 or as close as feasible for 
optimal health.  This is easily achieved in wild caught fish or 
grass-fed meat animals (or free-range fowl).  Taking the omega-3 pills 
is only needed if you eat farmed fish or non grass-fed animals (usually 
fed a non-natural diet of grains, etc., which raises the omega 6 levels 
considerably).

-=mark=-

Mike Horlick wrote:
> Hello Todd,
> 
> There may be pain,suffering and there is death. If you relate this happening to 
> a human being you would say any one of these would surely be unpleasant to 
> say the least.
> 
> It's interesting on how people can get all worked up about the welfare of their 
> pets but can't make the transfer to other animals such as cows/sheep/pigs, 
> etc... Maybe in the paleolithic days and with hunter gatherers, hunting was 
> and is a sacred activity but frankly I don't see that in large scale production of 
> meat. I doubt that in a slaughter-house the people there perform any spiritual 
> rituals before or after doing the deed. Of course, maybe in small organic 
> operations maybe the people there do feel some connection to their "victims". 
> However, given the amount of beef being processed now maybe quick and 
> dirty is only possible and only done in large slaughterhouses. 
> 
> Of course, as you mentioned it is also the way cattle are raised that is 
> disturbing and I realize that aspect could be remedied. 
> 
> Well, maybe enough of that argument. Maybe it's best to just disassociate 
> meat from it's source, the animal. 
> 
> Let me throw this out to you and the other members of the list. 
> 
> If it was possible to create a non-meat food that provided all the nutrients of 
> meat would you switch to it rather to continue eating meat?
> 
> Maybe that's what those vegetarians do now. Try to make up for the 
> differences between meat and fruits/vegetables by taking vitamins and 
> supplements.
> 
> Since I also try to exercise regularly I have also been thinking into looking into 
> those "protein" shakes that I see advertised in muscle magazines and 
> sometimes see in speciality stores. I need to do more research on their 
> ingredients but I assume they are made from milk whey. Definitely, not paleo.
> I guess most people would say why go with a processed food when meat is 
> complete. I'm only looking at the convenience (need to say Kosher) and the 
> cost.
> 
> I've also been looking at the fat aspect of the paleo, low-carb diet. So far 
> from different books and articles it gets a little confusing. It seems everyone 
> agrees on fish oil on being good for its Omega 3 content. Cordain recommends 
> canola and flaxseed oil. Some people discourage canola. I looked a bit at one 
> of Mary Enig books on fat and she recommends coconut nut (and sort of looks 
> down on canola and flaxseed). I doubt coconuts were widely available to our 
> ancestors.   
> 
> With regards to my current diet I'm trying to concentrate on fish and fowl. 
> Before every meal I take an Omega 3 capsule, every other day I eat 1 or 2 
> eggs for breakfast, the other breakfasts I eat almond butter on flaxseed 
> bread. That and some nuts, mainly brazil,walnuts and almonds. For lunch I 
> usually eat a tin of sardines or mackerel with a bit of veggies,some pumpkin 
> and sunflower seeds and a fruit for desert. Mid-afternoon , another piece of 
> fruit. For supper I've been getting my wife to go along with fish/fowl or beef 
> with maybe one meal strictly vegetarian.
> 
> I started this "diet" search looking for a way to help with my osteo-arthritis 
> and I think this diet has helped me. Currently I'm reading one of those Zone 
> books and trying to decipher the science. He mentions maybe borage/primrose 
> oil can help as well.
> 
> Maybe there is someone out there who has experimented with adding these 
> oils to their diet? 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:56:43 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
>>> Hi Todd,
>>>
>>>> I think the point that person made was that whether you eat a carrot or a
>>>> cow, you must kill what you eat.  You cannot sustain your own life
>>>> without
>>>> killing other organisms.  I don't think that's controversial.  But I take
>>>> it that your point is that you find killing carrots less morally
>>>> problematic than killing cows.  Can you explain what you find morally
>>>> problematic about killing cows?
>>> I realize that in order to eat something must be killed. I think there is
>>> a big
>>> difference between killing a plant and killing an animal. I don't believe
>>> there is
>>> any pain and suffering involved in the killing of a plant.
>> Sorry to take so long resuming this discussion.  I asked what was morally
>> problematic because I wanted to be as clear as possible as to what your
>> position is; I wasn't baiting you.  From what you wrote, I take it to be
>> this: killing cows and other sentient creatures is morally problematic
>> because it causes pain and suffering to those creatures.  Is that a fair
>> statement of your view?
>>
>> I notice you mention pain and suffering, but not death.  Was that
>> intentional?  Also, do you regard pain and suffering as different from
>> each other, or just variations?
>>
>> Again, I'm not baiting you.  I think it's important to be clear about
>> these things.  For example, I would make a distinction between pain and
>> suffering.  A person competing in a marathon may experience considerable
>> pain, but it's not clear that "suffering" describes that condition.
>> Suffering seems to involve extended pain and the despair that it causes.
>> For this reason, I'm a bit more skeptical of attributing suffering to
>> livestock.  Indeed, the slaughter of animals may be instantaneous,
>> involving little or no pain at all.  Your moral scruples may be more
>> relevant to the practice of how cattle are raised and slaughtered than to
>> the bare fact that they are killed for food.  Does that sound right to
>> you?
>>
>> Todd Moody
>