RE: what is our stance on global warming?
September 2, 2014 at 7:02 am
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2014 at 7:10 am by jesus_wept.)
(September 2, 2014 at 6:26 am)Aractus Wrote:(September 2, 2014 at 5:39 am)jesus_wept Wrote: They're not using prime cuts of meat for dog food, they're using waste meat which is not fit for human consumption.And who told you that it is not fit for humans? Traditionally, and I'm talking for 200,000 years, organ meat was considered the prime meat, and the muscle flesh was what was fed to the "dogs"/wasted/given to the underprivileged minorities and the women. After 200,000 years of preferring the organ meats, now we in westernised cultures think that the muscle is the you-bute stuff. And that's partly because we bread cattle and pigs to produce an excess of muscle - you can hardly breed them to produce extra organs! So what happens when people come from eastern cultures is they think our meat is shit because we eat the crap left over instead of the prime stuff.
Now with that said, of course you have to be careful because it does contain higher concentration of nutrients including vitamins. But with that said, a diet consisting of eating liver twice a week as opposed to eating beef 7 times a week will give you, roughly, the same healthy amount of vitamins and is probably a lot healthier. It's only if you want to over-consume meat that's when these so-called "not fit for human consumption" organs can be dangerous.
So get your facts straight before claiming that liver and organ meat is not fit for human consumption - provided you eat it in the correct amount it's fine, and the most nutrient-dense food that exists.
You might now be talking about the food they've traditionally been eating for 200,000 years (even though you didn't make that clear), meat which still wasn't killed specifically for dog food and would've been the scraps, but the link you provided as proof wasn't. That was talking about dried dog food.
(September 2, 2014 at 7:01 am)Aractus Wrote: Just because there isn't a demand doesn't mean that humans can't eat the organ meats. The organ meats are better nutritionally, however, if over-consumed you'll give yourself toxic levels of vitamins. If you over-consume fatty muscle meat you'll just get obese but without the toxic vitamin levels. We can't consume the level of organ meat that we expect to eat in western diets, without making ourselves sick. If, however, you are a person that wants to exclusively eat organ meat and not muscle meat then you would be consuming at most 1/3rd of the meat that you would consume if eating muscle. That means you have a lower dependence on meat and consequently a lower ecological impact on the environment. You may also improve your health. Getting more people to do this would therefore be a great way to reduce the volume of meat we consume overall.
Also you can get dog meat that has meat that would be "fit for human consumption" if cooked (remember all raw meat is considered unfit for human consumption). In the EU in fact all pet food by law has to be fit for human consumption, if cooked through.
Perhaps not fit for human consumption was the wrong term to use because people can eat chickens feet and pigs skulls but they dont choose to, but the meat used is still a by-product and none of it was produced for the dog. A fact you seem to be conveniently ignoring.
If I was on a Christian forum I might be accusing you of cherry-picking my argument to create a strawman because the main thrust was that the food is a by-product and humans are the real problem.