Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?

[Lesley Campbell]

I think the problem with focussing on corn or wheat or rice or lentils  
is that vegetarians don't eat beans and rice alone. We eat a diversity  
of foods and essential nutrients come from that diversity, just like  
cows or goats or sheep eat (when produced in non-industrial situations).
:)

On Sep 9, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Nancy E. Karraker wrote:
Yes, I read a lot of background info when I was younger and know  
that it makes
biological sense. The truth is that I don't manage anything. I eat  
some tofu,
lots of beans, and lots of fruits, vegetables, and root crops. I  
will challenge
any of the HCB editors to a game of one-on-one basketball to  
demonstrate how
healthy I am. :) Of course the biology of what you say makes sense,  
but it
practicality the fact that I don't get all the amino acids seems not  
to matter
much. Not sure why. I think other vegetarians would agree.

N.

Quoting malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>:

here is a quick article that briefly discusses amino acid  
deficiencies
in plants.  Of course, you must manage your diet very carefully, but
lys, trp, and met are the key AA of importance here.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/147/3/954

I tried to find further references, but simply do not have the time.

M

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Lesley Campbell <l...@rice.edu>  
wrote:
Hello everyone,

While I'm more than happy to agree that the amount that ecologists  
travel
(relative to the average earth resident) is an outrageous  
disaster, and
I'm
happy to agree that curbing travel has a far larger impact on one's
ecological footprint than curbing the consumption of animal  
products, the
statement that humans cannot survive on a plant based diet is  
clearly
false.
Humans do not require any animal-derived amino acids (although  
they are
certainly tasty!). If it is not proof enough that there are entire
cultures
(with reasonable life-spans) that eat strictly vegetarian diets,  
just
survey
the academic literature on vegetarian (vs non-vegetarian) health.
Vegetarian
diets do require humans to consume foods differently than non- 
vegetarians
but they are not impossible, nor unhealthy. Unfortunately, most  
people
switch to a vegan diet with little education in nutrition and end up
rapidly
depleting essential nutrients that come from food the normal North
American
doesn't use regularly.

Here's an abstract of a the first comparative study of vegetarians  
and
non-vegetarians I pulled up on Web of science. It looks as if  
Buddhist
vegetarian nuns are just as healthy (if not more) as non-vegetarian
omnivores.

Body composition and nutrient intake of Buddhist vegetarians (2009)
Lee, Yujin, Krawinkel, Michael.
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION &#160; &#160;18(2):  
265-271
Abstract: We described the body composition and nutrient intake of
Buddhist
vegetarians and compared the data with that of omnivores in South  
Korea.
Vegetarian subjects were 54 Buddhist nuns, who adhered to a  
vegetarian
diet
in accordance with Buddhist teachings. We compared these finding  
with a
group of 31 omnivore Catholic nuns who shared a similar lifestyle  
but
different dietary pattern than those of the Buddhist nuns. All  
subjects
completed the estimated three-day dietary record. Body composition  
was
determined by a segmental multi-frequency-bioelectrical impedance  
analysis
method. No height difference between the dietary groups existed  
but the
vegetarians had a significantly higher body weight, fat free mass,  
body
fat
and body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) than the omnivores. The median  
BMI of
both vegetarians and omnivores fell in the normal range (22.6 vs.  
20.7
kg/m(2)). In vegetarians, body fat was inversely correlated with the
duration of vegetarianism (p for trend = 0.043). The long duration  
group
of
the vegetarians had lower body fat than the short duration group  
(12.1 vs.
15.0 kg, p = 0.032). The status of the nutrient intake of Korean  
Buddhist
vegetarians was comparable to that of omnivores, and the intake of  
some
nutrients in vegetarians was more favorable than in the omnivores.

And the most highly cited, manipulative study I could find,  
revealed that
a
vegetarian diet (including dairy products) has beneficial  
consequences for
blood pressure.

A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood  
pressure
(1997)
Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Svetkey LP, Sacks FM,  
Bray
GA,
Vogt TM, Cutler JA, Windhauser MM, Lin PH, Karanja N
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE &#160;336 (16): 1117-1124

Abstract: Background It is known that obesity, sodium intake, and  
alcohol
consumption influence blood pressure. In this clinical trial,  
Dietary
Approaches to Stop Hypertension, we assessed the effects of dietary
patterns
on blood pressure.
Methods We enrolled 459 adults with systolic blood pressures of  
less than
160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressures of 80 to 95 mm Hg. For three
weeks,
the subjects were fed a control diet that was low in fruits,  
vegetables,
and
dairy products, with a fat content typical of the average diet in  
the
United
States. They were then randomly assigned to receive for eight  
weeks the
control diet, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, or a  
''combination''
diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products and with
reduced
saturated and total fat. Sodium intake and body weight were  
maintained at
constant levels.

Results At base line, the mean (+/-SD) systolic and diastolic blood
pressures were 131.3+/-10.8 mm Hg and 84.+/-4.7 mm Hg,  
respectively. The
combination diet reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure by  
5.5 and
3.0 mm Hg more, respectively, than the control diet (P<0.001 for  
each);
the
fruits-and-vegetables diet reduced systolic blood pressure by 2.8  
mm Hg
more
(P<0.001) and diastolic blood pressure by 1.1 mm Hg more (P=0.07)  
than the
control diet. Among the 133 subjects with hypertension (systolic  
pressure,
greater than or equal to 140 mm Hg; diastolic pressure, greater  
than or
equal to 90 mm Hg; or both), the combination diet reduced systolic  
and
diastolic blood pressure by 11.4 and 5.5 mm Hg more, respectively,  
than
the
control diet (P<0.001 for each); among the 326 subjects without
hypertension, the corresponding reductions were 3.5 mm Hg  
(P<0.001) and
2.1
mm Hg (P=0.003).

Conclusions A diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy  
foods and
with reduced saturated and total fat can substantially lower blood
pressure.
This diet offers an additional nutritional approach to preventing  
and
treating hypertension. (C) 1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.


On Sep 8, 2009, at 10:50 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote:

I tend to believe that any absolute answer that is declared an  
end all
answer
is probably not the answer. &#21867;or example, I'm not convinced  
that
everyone
jumping into a vegetarian diet is going to suddenly or even slowly
save the world.
Especially, considering that some of these stats are based on  
unrealistic
estimates.

For example, suggesting that x acres of corn would feed x number  
of cows
and
that would feed x number of people whereas the x acres of corn  
would feed
way
more people is flawed. &#13774;umans cannot survive on a corn diet.
&#21874;ven if
we expanded
this to grains and soybeans, humans cannot survive on a corn- 
soybean
diet.
Why? &#27626;ecause vegetables in general are low in two or three
essential
amino acids
that humans must get in their diet. &#28659;hose amino acids are  
produced
by
animals
and so you must ultimately get them from animals or artificially
produced products.

Furthermore, even if the plant has x amount of lysine for  
example, the
amount in
the plant is not completely biologically available to the human
because we simply
do not have the enzymes for breaking these products down.

Also, outside of feedlots where high-concentrate diets are fed,  
if you
look at
grass fed cattle/sheep/goats you are going to find that these  
animals
are raised
on lands that are not very suitable for food crop production AND  
that
much
of
what they are fed is not human food but rather grasses.  
&#13774;owever,
most
beef is fed out in feedlots and relatively little is raised on  
grass.
Sheep and
goats, however, are virtually entirely fed using areas that would  
not be
used
for any kind of crop farming.

Now, growing row crops such as corn and soybeans is not a one-to- 
one
conversion
to growing horticultural food crops. &#13774;orticultural food  
crops
require
more intensive
care in order for them to have shelf life and for other technical
reasons. &#31949;he seeds
are planted further apart, the rows further apart and the necessary
irrigation and
pest control much more extreme than row crops. &#22050;ther crops  
such as
fruits
waste tons of land in comparison. &#21873;t takes a good 5 years  
before a
fruit
tree
reaches maturity (semi dwarf) and closer to two years for a dwarf.
&#23405;gain,
high use of pesticides is the norm. &#23405;nd what about nuts?
&#23405;ren't
these one of the
wonder foods that will supplant meat in our diet??? &#21655;ell,  
a pecan
tree
takes a
good 15-30 years to reach maturity depending on the hybrid!!!!  
now that
tree
will produce for a good long time, but do you really think a pecan
orchard
is
all that productive?

Overall, we would do well to lower our meat intake for both  
environmental
and
health reasons. &#13774;owever, if we wanted to really do this  
right, we
would all buy
a goat for milk, have it eat our grass and weeds for milk, then  
eat the
kids.

In fact, goat meat is much more in line with human nutrition than  
lamb
and
lamb
more in line than beef or pork.

My wife and I have our own flock of chickens we use for eggs.  
&#21655;e
raise a
couple of pigs each year, and do raise a few meat goats each year.
&#21873;
still
like to eat a nice juicy steak once in a while. &#21655;e raise  
most of
our
vegetables
from the garden, although the weather in East Texas has been anti- 
garden
for
three years strait...luckily, we put away a lot three years ago.

I don't know if what I am doing is making any great contribution  
to the
earth's
environment. &#21873; certainly can't say that I'm setting some  
great
example,
as
who the heck sees what I'm doing anyway? &#13774;owever, I have  
always had
this
idea that pseudohomesteading (my term I invented comparing what  
we do to
the
movement from the 1970s) would be fun. &#22162;o, we are doing it  
because
we
like to live this
way. &#21873;f it wasn't for a pile of student loans and medical  
bills, I
might just go off the
grid and give the world the proverbial phalange, except for the
occassional journal
article I publish, letter to the editor, and maybe even a listserv
post if I kept the
internet for contact with the real world. &#21873; also enjoy  
watching TV,
so it can't go
either. &#23405;nd then there is central air and heat. &#22050;h,  
and
running water.
&#22046;adio,
music, damn....I'm back on the grid and almost hit yupeeville :(

If everyone pics ONE CAUSE and stuck with it, the world would be  
a better
place.
If your cause is recycling, and you do it religiously, and a  
bunch of
other people also do it,
it will have an impact.

But the real problem is that there are a lot of people who do
absolutely nothing, have
absolutely no interest in the health of the environment, and a  
mess of
people who are
actually at war with environmental causes. If even most people  
tried
to do something,
I think you would see an environmental revolution.  
&#21530;nfortunately,
most
people
are consumed by other things and even if they are concerned about  
the
environment,
they really are not engaged in anything of environmental  
importance.

How's that for a completely bleak outlook.
Ask me tomorrow and I may have a more positive slant!


On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Kevin McCluney<kevin.mcclu...@asu.edu 
>
wrote:

I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological  
Society of
America (ESA). &#31949;he theme of this year&#26087; meeting was
sustainability.
&#31949;here
were many great talks on this subject and a few truly  
pessimistic ones.
&#22050;ne
speaker proposed that human beings are, by our very nature,  
destined to
consume and reproduce as much as possible, and despite our best  
efforts,
this will lead to our own demise. &#39224;uring the same talk  
the speaker
also
asked, &#32884;ho is responsible?&#65533; &#13774;e answered his  
question
by saying that we
at
this conference are just as much a part of the problem as anyone  
else.

Is this true? &#21873; know I myself have taken many steps to  
lower my
footprint
and many other ecologists have as well.

For instance, at last year&#26087; ESA meeting in Milwaukee  
there was an
interesting occurrence at local restaurants. &#31949;he first  
night of
the
conference I had a really good veggie burger at one restaurant.  
&#21873;
went
back
later in the week for another. &#31949;he waitress  
apologized&#65533; they
were all
out.
She went on to explain that the manager had heard our conference  
was
coming
to town, so bought extra ahead of time, but ran out of those  
quickly
anyway.
The manager then went to the local grocery store and bought more.
&#33079;ut
alas,
by the time I returned, they had run out of those as well.
&#21867;urther,
when
I
dine with friends at ESA meetings, I often find that more than  
half the
table orders vegetarian entrees.

Why does eating vegetarian matter so much? &#22000;odern,  
industrialized
livestock
production is one of the more environmentally destructive human
endeavors.
It contributes roughly one fifth of all our greenhouse gas  
emissions,
more
than all cars, and these gases are major contributors to the rapid
climate
change we虐e experiencing. &#13778;ivestock production also may,  
in
certain
cases,
be leading to deforestation and destruction of important  
ecosystems, as
well
as to pollution of rivers, lakes, and even oceans. &#21873;n  
addition, we
all
know
that basic ecological principles hold that it takes less  
resources to
raise
plant based food sources than meat based, since energy is lost  
as you
move
up the food chain. &#31949;hus we can feed more people and use  
fewer
resources
on
a plant-based diet. &#23405;ll this caused the chairman of the
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change recently to proclaim that the best thing a
person
could do to reduce their impact on climate change was to eat a  
more
plant-
based diet.

My wife and I haven急 stopped at eating low on the food chain.
&#21655;e&#25369;e
also
joined community supported agriculture, where we buy a share of  
produce
from
a local farm. &#31949;he farmer gets upfront economic security  
and we get
very
affordable, local, fresh organic produce. &#21655;e pay just $18  
per week
for
a
large bag of food. &#23405;t this price we can afford to  
supplement our
diet
with
additional organic items from the grocery store.

We&#25369;e also taken a variety of other steps, from riding my  
bike to
work,
to
offsetting car and air travel through renewable energy from an
independently
certified company, to buying 100% of our electricity from  
renewable
sources
through our local utility for as little as $15 per month.

While we may not be reaching the small ecological footprint of  
those in
many
third world countries, we&#25369;e done our best to come in line  
with our
planet&#26087;
limits while maintaining a decent quality of life.

So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as  
everyone else?
&#23405;re
all ecologists the same? &#21655;hat are the variety of  
lifestyle choices
made
by
ecologists? &#22021;ot only would the answers to these questions  
provide
a
response to the ESA presenter, but I think the answer would be
interesting
to a wide audience. &#21873; propose that ESA conduct a poll of  
members,
asking
questions about lifestyle choices and demographics, comparing  
ours to
that
of the general public. &#21873;f we are not different, this  
would be a bit
of
a
wake-up call. &#13774;owever, if we are different, then perhaps  
some of
our
lifestyle choices would be informative to understanding how to  
achieve a
more sustainable society.

If there is one thing I learned from a cultural anthropology  
course I
once
took, it was that there isn急 just one right way to live.  
&#13774;uman
cultures
throughout the world are very diverse. &#33079;ut, from the  
inside of one
culture
it is often very hard to see other ways to live. &#13778;et us  
not be
trapped
in
our culture, but seek a better understanding of all the ways of  
living,
so
that we might find a more sustainable path.

--
Kevin E. McCluney
Graduate Student
School of Life Sciences
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-4601




--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Associate Professor of Biology
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
Texas A&M University-Texarkana
Fall Teaching Schedule:
Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm;
Forensic Science - &#21655; 6-9:40pm
Office Hourse- TBA

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" &#21655;.S. Gilbert
1990's: &#22000;any fish stocks depleted due to overfishing,  
habitat loss,
&#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; and pollution.
2000: &#22000;arine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution
reduction
&#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and  
may
contain confidential and privileged information. &#23405;ny  
unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. &#21873;f  
you are
not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail  
and
destroy all copies of the original message.


--






--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Associate Professor of Biology
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
Texas A&M University-Texarkana
Fall Teaching Schedule:
Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm;
Forensic Science -  W 6-9:40pm
Office Hourse- TBA

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
           and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution  
reduction
         MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are  
not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.



--
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------

Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 932152801) is spam:
Spam:        https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=932152801&m=a564d138bb18&c=s
Not spam:    https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=932152801&m=a564d138bb18&c=n
Forget vote: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=932152801&m=a564d138bb18&c=f
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS