Meat vs. PETA: science vs. pseudo-science
PeTA Files
or: http://snipurl.com/3hc0z [juneauempire_com]
Story last updated at 6/30/2008 - 9:45 am
Meat vs. PETA: science vs. pseudo-science
Earlier this week there was an article in the opinion section of the Empire that presented an argument for Americans to eat less meat. It was an interesting article, but the writer made a number of unsupported claims and didn't present the view of the other side of the coin.
Whether it was an opinion piece or not, presenting various claims as fact without some sort of reference lessens the validity of the claims presented. This is the very foundation of pseudo-science of which is regularly presented in most media today.
It was helpful to find at the end of the piece that the author was with PETA, which provided some great free advertising for their cause.
Another good example of pseudo-science in the media is the article on deformed beaks observed in some crows in and around the Juneau area, which presents the supposition that said deformation may be tied in some way to adverse human activity, rather than simply to some natural evolution of the local crow population.
Granted, a headline tying strange-looking crows to some unknown chemical exposure is catchier than "Juneau - home of weird-looking crows." The point is that it would be nice to see some presentation of supported fact in an article, rather than solely the ramblings of pseudo-scientists.
Kenneth C. Ames
Temporary Juneau resident
Principal, SA Development Group
Baltimore, Md.
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that contain signatures by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions at our user agreement page. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Comments containing special characters of %,#,and () will not post. Also new registered readers will need to log off and log back on to post.
Registered readers may rate commments by clicking the
or 
buttons.To report an inappropriate comment or help moderate readers can click the
. Three moderation votes will hide a comment from
future readers.
Reader Comments
Posted by: Alaskabobc at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 10:14:44 am
P-eople E-ating T-asty A-nimals
+ 3 Rating
Posted by: StillBob at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 10:54:53 am
I
didn't see much presentation of fact in THIS letter either. Complaining
that opinion pieces are one-sided...helloooo! That's why they're called
'opinions'.
BTW, suggesting that the crow beak deformation is
due to genetics is just as much pseudo-science as any of the other
explanations. Or does the writer have some basis for that claim?
+ 3 Rating
Posted by: olenorsk at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 11:11:47 am
I'd
just imagine Kenneth Ames would have a great deal MORE criticism if the
writer of the article HAD NOT identified as being with PETA. Sometimes
you just can't please anyone.
And just incidentally, what
purpose did Ames seek in identifying himself as 'Principle, SA
Development Group if not for 'free advertising'?
Geeze.
+ 3 Rating
Posted by: junolocal at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 11:27:24 am
Ames' bulb isn't shining very brightly. The beak deformities are cross-species. It is an environmental thing. Pull your head out, ostrich.
Posted by: junolocal at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 11:43:28 am
102 species with highest reporting in Alaska and Pacific Northwest.
Black Capped Chickadees have the highest reporting rate. http://www.pdxbirds08.org/viewabstract2.asp?AbstractID=4944
+ 1 Rating
Posted by: akadventurer at Jun. 30, 2008 at 12:04:38 pm
Ken, eating less red meat in not "pseudo-science" as you stated. PETA doesn't have to site studies because the information backing their position is so resounding that everyone knows "the truth"... Kinda like the cigarette smoking issue... We no longer have to site studies that prove cigarette smoking is bad for your health. As for eating too much red meat, just look to the American Medical Association, American Heart Assoc, US Dept of Health food guidelines, the list goes on and on. All say that we should reduce our red meat consumption, especially if you have a history of heart disease. However, the big clincher is the amount of greenhouse gasses that pig, chicken, and beef feed lots put into our atmosphere.... Its not "pseudo-science"...
Posted by: alaskabobc at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 12:37:00 pm
God said eat meat,I designed you that way!
Good enough for me!
+ 1 Rating
Posted by: aymondray at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 12:41:45 pm
While
I can't stand listening to PETA or hear anything of their cause because
they are so extreme they lack logical sense I have to say that this
letter is doing the same thing, lacking logical sense.
Is Mr.
Ames a bioligist also? I mean how does he know so much about the
problem crows and other birds are facing in the Pacific Northwest? Does
he relly think the reporter of that article threw in his own words and
tried to sounds scientific? Granted we get a lot of people on this
message board doing the same thing (especially the anti road people),
but it was noted that the bird problem is being studied by SCIENTISTS
and not psuedo scientists.
Eat meat, plants have feelings too.
+ 2 Rating
Posted by: dobieman at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 1:01:04 pm
Sorry to burst your mythological bubble, alaskabobc, but humans were
designed by evolutionary forces over hundreds of thousands of years
(millions, if you include the non-Homo genera as well) to be omnivores.
Look at our dentition, for one thing. Does it have those nice, long
tearing canines you see in true carnivores such as tigers, wolves,
wolverines, etc? No. Instead, it has canines that barely rise above the
plane of the rest of the teeth such as grinding molars. Look at the
jaw...huge muscles for developing tearing, crushing pressures? Nope.
Relatively weak jaws that are good for grinding, again, and chewing but
about the only bones you'll be crunching to any effect are small ones
such as in birds.
We can eat meat and digest it, but we have
evolved along the lines of an omnivore that generally gets by on
vegetative matter with the occasional meaty snack thrown in. Quite
likely a good deal of any meat our ancestors ingested before active
hunting started to appear in the human behavior package was scavenged.
You want to see some real nice canine teeth, look at a chimp's....and
even they are not true carnivores though some of them do hunt now and
then.
Sorry, but while your argument rings soundly amongst the "By God!"
group the facts just don't support your claim.
-2 Rating
Posted by: klmahnke at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 1:35:44 pm
but
humans were designed by evolutionary forces over hundreds of thousands
of years (millions, if you include the non-Homo genera as well) to be
omnivores.
Theory, not scientific proof by those who do not believe in a God.
+ 3 Rating
Posted by: nauticlam at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 3:24:09 pm
Who is to say that evolution isn't God's creation?
Posted by: nauticlam at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 3:27:22 pm
Or better still. Will someone please provide the chapter and verse in the bible that proves evolution is not God's creation or plan.
-3 Rating
Posted by: klmahnke at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 4:24:41 pm
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
(NIrV)
Genesis
1:27 God created man in his oun likeness. He created him in the
likeness of God. He created them as male and female. (NIrV)
Nowhere
in the bible does it say that God created evolution, therefore
evolution is mans misguided attempt at discrediting religion.
God
has given all those who seek the truth, a place to look, the bible. He
has allowed man to find through His word, the answers to the universe,
science, medicine and history. Discoveries all across the globe have
proven the bible to be true time and time again.
For some, the truth shall never be found, for others, it is right in
front of them waiting to be discovered.
+ 4 Rating
Posted by: nauticlam at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 4:49:57 pm
klmahnke
"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"
Genesis 1:27 God created man in his oun likeness. He created him in the
likeness of God. He created them as male and female.
How do either of the above passage preclude or disprove that evolution
is not God's plan?
"Nowhere in the bible does it say that God created evolution."
Nor
does it say anywhere in the bible that God didn't create evolution.
Therefore the presumption that it doesn't exisit is man's misguided
attempt at discrediting the possibility that it exists.
I
think it takes a very small, narrow minded and arrogant individual to
completely discount the possibility that God uses evolution as his
method of creation. I mean think about it for one nanosecond. What a
beautiful and perfect plan to create life.
Posted by: aymondray at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 5:25:13 pm
So anyone like Pork chops?
Posted by: aymondray at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 5:25:39 pm
How about a ham sandwich?
Posted by: ronsch at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 5:41:16 pm
PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of A = Animals
PETA
is using a scientific argument to support it's ethical agenda. They use
the science of why a meat diet may, or may not be, good for you as
support to treat animals "ethically."
Such attempts often lead
to bad precedents and poorer laws. Make sure we do not end up comparing
apples and oranges (or meat versus soy or tofu) in this particular
debate.
And no, I do not feel like providing source citations
right now...You all are mostly intelligent and computer-literate...look
them up yourselves. Either side can find support enough if one looks
hard enough...IMHO
Posted by: nauticlam at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 5:48:54 pm
Will be firing up the grill tonight...very rare caribbean jerk marinated flank steak, crab stuffed mushrooms, corn on the cob, and artesian three cheese garlic bread. mmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by: alaskabobc at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 6:54:13 pm
OK all you biologists!! Please excuse my spelling once in a while.Human's need something on the order of 20 esential amino acids to function properly.The body can produce all but 4 naturley.Those must be obtained by the consumption of meats.That is the natureal order of things.That being said,it is possible to obtain the knowledge of how to combine certain beans in proper proportion that MUST be consumed in conjuction with each other and in doing so nature can be fooled.Not easy and not recomended for the average person.A lot of Vegans end up with malnutrition.People are designed to eat meat,Cows,Chickens,Fish so enjoy without feeling bad about it!
+ 1 Rating
Posted by: vallbay at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 7:05:49 pm
While vegetables are cheap at this time, the other alternative, fish, is going for $14/lb, while rib steaks are just $6/lb. This leaves fish as a splurge. I'll be firing up my grill for steaks.
+ 3 Rating
Posted by: fromdustreturned at Jun. 30, 2008 at 7:33:29 pm
We
are indeed evolved as omnivores, and we have a genetic right and
predisposition to eat meat. We did not evolve to eat white flour,
sugar, and any other highly processed foods or grains. Our meat-eating
genetic heritage, however, is NOT a license to support a meat-industry
that maintains horrifically painful conditions for the animals it
raises and slaughters- that is a moral and ethical obscenity.
The bible also never mentions tuberculosis, computers, or extra-solar
planetary systems, but they exist.
+ 1 Rating
Posted by: slegnawons at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 9:21:09 pm
the bible never said anything about creating a nauticlam either ,
and yet ,,,, here it is every day, no less, no more.
basically
this letter and the article it refers to and most if not all of these
posts are just B.S. meant to sell ones own agenda. Thats all, ya wanna
be a vegetable then feel free to eat them, you wanna be an animal then
feel free to eat them as well. You wanna value your pet lizard above
your kid then join peta. And all those other silly groups claiming that
animals are human too. Niether the bible, nor science has ever shown
any animal, pet, plant, etc to be human other than one and that would
be us. The one responsible for all of this.
Posted by: nauticlam at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 11:28:54 pm
slegnawons...too funny, and I couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by: Alaskabobc at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 11:31:15 pm
slegnawons,
What
I posted about amino acids is 100 percent,indisputable science.Look it
up. It is not my opinion or anyone elses.Just a cold, hard fact!
Posted by: Alaskabobc at
Jun. 30, 2008 at 11:31:16 pm
slegnawons,
What
I posted about amino acids is 100 percent,indisputable science.Look it
up. It is not my opinion or anyone elses.Just a cold, hard fact!
Posted by: StillBob at
Jul. 1, 2008 at 8:31:43 am
Bobc,
you're practicing pseudoscience too. Sure, there are amino acids, and
meat is a complete protein. But you can get them by eating eggs or
dairy products. Soy products are also complete proteins. And combining
vegetable sources together is easy & simple to do - you make it
sound a lot more complicated than it is.
I like meat & fish as much as anyone, but that's because it's a
personal choice, not because we can't live without it.
Posted by: treeluva at
Jul. 7, 2008 at 5:07:43 pm
Ken, Principal with SA Development Group... great free advertising.
You can comment by logging in.