The making of

The topic of unconscious or 'well, it's not gonna kill me, is it?' acquisition of hazardous substances through food has been around for a while. Most of us eat fertilizers and pesticides on our fruit and vegetables, pop a few genetically modified bits in-between and then just do hormones and antibiotics in the steak. To focus on meat, why are hormones and antibiotics used so widely in the production of meat, should we be careful about consuming them, and if so, how can we avoid them in our food?

As much as I don't want to get activist here, but I can't help posting this video from Pleix. It may not be new, but it's quite to the point...



Sex hormones are often used in animal diets because they are an easy way to increase the animals' production of muscles and fat without having to give them more feed. Although the amount of hormones acquired through meat consumption cannot be measured in an accurate manner, as by the end of the processing one cannot tell the difference between the animals' natural and artificial hormones, there is a lot to think about when it comes to having those extra amounts of hormones floating in our bodies. Oestrogen has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer and to fertility problems in men. Progesterone has been shown to increase the development of ovarian, breast and uterine tumours in laboratory animals. And testosterone has been linked to prostate cancer in men. There have also been concerns about the acceleration of breast development among children in countries that allow hormone use in dairy production. Another concern is that hormones administered to animals could be passed with their feces and as a result have an effect on water and plants. Hormone use in meat production has been banned in the EU and does not allow imports of such meat into the area.


Like hormones, antibiotics make animals gain weight and therefore increase the meat industry's profits. They are commonly administered sub-therapeutically to increase the weight of the animals and also to preven the diseases that the conditions of factory farming can bring on. Some antibiotics administered to animals are also used to treat human illnesses. Long-term usage of such antibiotics can effectively make the bacteria within the animals immune to the antibiotics. If a person ingests such bacteria with the meat and gets ill, the bacteria will continue being antibiotic-resistant. Another larger-scale concern here is the arms race between bacteria and drug innovation that can lead to us having around diseases that we cannot treat appropriately. So far the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in meat has been banned in several countries in the EU and imports of such meat are not allowed into the UK.

The UK seems a fairly safe zone for both hormones and antibiotics in meat, but the US continues a much more robust use of these substances in their meat production. I guess the safest bet is to buying organic or going vegetarian.

The rise of vegetarianism?

Through the past year I've been having ups and downs in my vegetarianism. A few nights back I went to see 'The fast food nation' and it put me right back on track. I think this was the first movie I've ever seen that used the images of animal treatment on big screen and well, it worked. I support some cases of animal activism, but have always avoided looking at the pictures and videos they display in the streets - I've seen them once and don't really need a repeat. Having been 'forced' to see them again last night put me back in touch with some of the reasons why I used to be more strict about my diet.

I think everyone should read the book 'Guns, germs and steel' (or see the movie, as I lazily did). The author, Jared Diamond, sets out to explore the roots of inequality in the world's distribution of wealth today and I think has a some good points to his thesis. He starts his analysis at the point before the rise of the great civilizations and walks the reader through the development of human societies around the globe. In his thesis a society's success boils down largely to 'geographical luck' - lands that were home to most nutritious crops and most easily domestic-able animals had the winning card in the history, as they were able to produce enough food to allow a percentage of a community's individuals to not farm the land, but develop new technologies, skills, philosophies and culture. From then on, the colonization came with Euroasians' technology, animals, foods, and their immunity to diseases acquired from their long cohabitation with domesticated animals - their attributes made colonization a relatively 'smooth' process. Diamond's theory sheds light into histories of lands like Africa and societies such as the native Americans and Australians. This is not to say that his arguments fully explain the phenomenon of the rise of the modern-day West versus say China or India, which is altogether a more complex issue and perhaps depends more on cultural, economic and technological advancements.

In the developed countries, food is no longer a problem. Agricultural technologies and widespread distribution on the market has led to an ease in both providing and acquiring nutrients. True, humanity got where it is largely because of how they harvested animals, but you would think that at least in the highly developed parts of the world, societies will soon reach a level in which they can substitute meat nutrients with the variety of foods they provide. The shopping cart is one of the easiest ways to send a message to the providers around the world - a consistent message on what people want can steer production and marketing around the world. Also, through human history force and violence has become less and less acceptable in most societies - both towards other nation states and to members of the same communities. Penalties such as cutting off thieves' hands are no longer in the books, except in certain fundamental societies. Perhaps this lessening in accepting of cruelty not just to humans, but also to other creatures such as the animals we farm is going to be the way to go a 1000 years from now. Maybe in another 1000 years (if our lovely kind is still there) people will look back at factory farming and think of it as today we think of stoning women for adultery?

p.s. I don't want to send another bulk email about this, but my photo site is actually supposed to be at http://web.mac.com/paulinadavis rather than at the link i sent out in the 'just making sure...' email...sorry for the confusion everyone.