CHAPTER VIII
Why Do We Do It?

A word about nutrition—do you really care?

“We are not just killing Mother Earth; we are killing ourselves.
Earth will be here long after we are gone.”
—Blackfoot tribesman

CERTAINLY, THERE IS NO MYSTERY as to whether meat, dairy, and food derived from animal parts is good for your health; it is not. This is not just my opinion. Meat is factually not healthy for you, and there is an exhaustive amount of peer-reviewed literature that supports this. Additionally, numerous health organizations, such as the American Dietetic Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, Physicians for Responsible Medicine, and many others, all recognize the health benefits and advantages of a plant-based diet and have supporting statements to indicate this. Then the question remains, why are the vast majority of people still eating meat? Why do we do it? The answer lies in a complex web of interactions that results in a continued tunneled belief that it is still healthy for you, despite the facts. You may wonder why I’ve included a chapter on nutrition in this book, which is meant to be about global depletion. The answer is simple: no book on global depletion would be complete without some mention of how the food we choose to eat causes profound depletion of our health.

First on the list is heart disease—the number-one cause of death in the United States—which accounts for more than one million heart attacks and 500,000 deaths every year.105 Many studies have found that lifelong vegans have a nearly 60 percent reduced risk of death from heart disease.¹⁰⁶ The American Dietetic Association has declared that a vegetarian diet reduces the risk of many chronic diseases and conditions, not only heart disease but also including cancer, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.¹⁰⁷ They further conclude: “Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, and cholesterol, as well as higher levels of fiber, magnesium, potassium, folic acid, and antioxidants, such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have lower death rates from heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes, and lower prostate and colon cancer.” It is now widely known that vegetarian diets can even reverse heart damage already present.¹⁰⁸

Then, there is cancer. The American Cancer Society (ACS) has as its number-one recommendation, on nutrition for cancer prevention, to eat a diet “with emphasis on plant sources.”¹⁰⁹ This is supported by numerous studies that show that individuals who do not eat animal products have a 50 percent less likelihood of developing many cancers. The ACS and researchers at Yale have found that meat-based diets can cause cancers of the stomach, esophagus, colon, prostate, and lymphoma.110 People who eat hot dogs, sausages, and other cured meats have a 70 percent increase in pancreatic cancer.¹¹¹ The World Cancer Research Fund goes further and recommends a plant-based diet, listing fruits and vegetables as “convincing/probable risk reducers for cancer of the bladder, breast, cervix, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, larynx, liver, lung, mouth, pharynx, ovary, pancreas, rectum, stomach, and thyroid.”¹¹² Clearly, animal products eaten as food significantly increase one’s risk of numerous disease states, such as the three largest causes of death—heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes—as well as many forms of cancers.¹¹³ Eating meat and dairy also increase one’s chances of contracting kidney stones and kidney disease, gallstones, and osteoporosis.¹¹⁴ The obvious effect of all of this concurring information is the need for a change in dietary choices.

While there is much to be said about all nutrition issues as they relate to food choices and risk factors, let’s look more closely at the relationship of the consumption of meat and dairy products to osteoporosis, as this represents an area of gross public misinformation and a subsequent state of being unaware. Despite what the dairy industry wants you to believe by its massive multimillion dollar ad campaigns, milk and milk products do not “build strong bones,” and they will not prevent osteoporosis. In fact, numerous studies have shown that it is more a problem of limiting calcium loss than it is of increasing calcium intake. Countries that consume the highest amount of dairy products, such as Switzerland and the United States, have some of the highest incidence of osteoporosis, while other countries, such as in Africa and Asia, where virtually no dairy products are consumed, have the lowest rate of osteoporosis and hip fractures. While genetics and hormonal interaction may have roles, the principal reason for these findings may reside in the simple truth that individuals who consume high amounts of animal protein and dairy products are at a risk of depleting their calcium stores, regardless of how much calcium they consume. Animal protein found in all meat products has sulfur-containing amino acids, such as methionine, and large quantities of phosphorus, both which have been found to impair calcium balance. While you may think eating more protein in the form of meat and dairy is healthy, it actually is not. Your body cannot store any excess protein, and it must be excreted by the kidneys. During the elimination process of this, and in the attempt to balance excessive phosphorus from animal sources, calcium from your body is needed and used; thus, the unlikely loss begins. Beef and chicken, for instance, have phosphorous-to-calcium ratios of 15:1, while most vegetables have ratios averaging near 1:1, allowing for a much healthier calcium balance. Green leafy vegetables, such as kale, have quite a bit of calcium, which is as absorbable as that of meat and dairy products but without the baggage of excessive phosphorus and sulfur-containing amino acids. Eating kale may not provide you with a “milk mustache,” and you may never be aware of its benefits through television or magazine advertisements, but it will create a healthier calcium balance for you and be much better for our planet than eating any meat or dairy product.

If animal products are killing us, why do we still eat them? The answer is quite frustrating and is wrapped in multidimensional levels. First, although there is a massive amount of supportive information in journals as ample validation, much of this information is passed over or overtly suppressed. Why? Because this information is controversial. In fact, I feel that this information is most controversial and damaging to the powerful industries and corporations that currently have the ability to suppress it—or to make life miserable for anyone who attempts to publicize it. Second, most individuals do not believe (or do not want to believe) that those meatballs that their mother or grandmother used to make were actually unhealthy or that eating them contributes to a number of debilitating diseases. To be honest, those very same meatballs (and similar animal products) consumed over a number of years may well have been one of the largest reasons for Grandma’s death.

Milk—as much as you may want to believe otherwise—is not healthy for you either. A vast amount of evidence reveals problems with milk’s protein, sugar, fat, contaminants, and lack of nutrients. Milk should no longer be recommended or considered required for growth or health benefits, as many organizations now recognize that it is unhealthy for consumption, due to the many health risks. It has been shown that milk contains numerous allergens, bovine growth hormones, and chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, DDT, and others).115 Some studies have documented as many as seventy-three contaminants found in any one milk sample.¹¹⁶ It is also now understood that cow’s milk causes asthma, food allergies, and chronic constipation, particularly in children.^117,118 For these reasons, the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends that no cow’s milk be given to infants under one year of age.¹¹⁹

It is interesting to note that the majority of individuals in the world are lactose intolerant, meaning they are unable to digest milk and other dairy products. In 2000, findings in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association revealed that “approximately 75 percent of the world’s population has lost the ability to completely digest lactose after infancy.” For these individuals, consumption of any dairy products causes stomach upset, bloating, and distress. In the United States alone, those who are lactose intolerant include 83 percent of African Americans, nearly 90 percent of Asians, 60 percent of Native Americans, and 75 percent of Hispanics.120 For these populations, milk should not be a dietary option, strictly from a physiological standpoint, as they lack the enzyme to digest it.

The answer to why we keep drinking milk lies in the fact that it has been, and still is, heavily ingrained in us by the dairy industry that it is a “health food” and is necessary for proper growth and bone development, which it is not. The original Food Guidelines and Pyramid that Americans use as a guide to proper nutrition was established by the Dairy Council and USDA years ago, with their own economic motives in mind. This very misleading guide was pushed by these organizations into every school system and home across America. Misleading marketing by the dairy industry still pervades today, with the “got milk” mustache campaign, and sayings such as “Milk gives you strong bones,” and now, “You can even lose weight by drinking milk.” As pointed out earlier, perhaps the public could be enlightened to the fact that milk does not give you “strong bones,” as well as to all the documented ill effects that drinking milk presents.

The meat industry is even more involved with misleading the public that their animal products provide health benefits. This is despite the fact that there now is an enormous amount of medical and epidemiological studies that implicate animal products as a cause of cancer of the colon, rectum, stomach, prostrate, and breast.121 Also, all meat has cholesterol and saturated fat, too much of which your body does not want or need. Many meat products, when cooked, have cancer-causing heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.¹²² Additionally, no meat of any kind will give you fiber, antioxidants, phytonutrients, or many vitamins or minerals that you need for optimal health. The scientific evidence against eating meat is indicting. Yet people still eat it because of cultural/social implications and misleading marketing. They simply cannot get themselves past the following hurdles:

•  Not being given the correct information

•  Being exposed to repeated misinformed messages in the media and advertisements, as well as having their mentoring physicians misguide them

•  Having an awareness that all their friends and neighbors consume animal products

•  Being emotionally constricted by the historical/cultural influence that their mothers, grandmothers, etc., ate this way

Cumulatively, these hurdles just become too much for the average person to overcome; it’s simply too heavy to push aside and to do the right thing.

I believe most people truly do care about their own health, but because of lack of proper information, only a few of them also truly care about the health of our planet. Of these, still fewer people have open minds to the extent that they not only care about their health and that of our planet, but they also have the ability to be enlightened when encountering new truths. Now, of this very small percentage of the human population, only a few are willing to seek proper change. Along the way, this process is constrained by numerous social, cultural, and political hurdles. One of the primary reasons I decided to write this book was to provide truths that will empower more people by giving them the proper information, so that there will be an increase in numbers overcoming these barriers. Then, ultimately, change will take place.

Let’s look briefly at the first step in this journey, which is caring about your own health. Many studies show that, in general, people care about their own and their family’s health. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), however, found that people generally do not care enough about their health to actually implement change for themselves. The CDC 2009 obesity study, in particular, is alarming in three ways: First, the findings are in direct contrast to the public opinion that people do care about their health. Second, the statistics themselves indicate that Americans are becoming more obese and disease-prone. Third, and even more disconcerting, the report indicates that diet is the major contributor to health decline, but it does not elaborate on meat and dairy or their roles as principal factors to this relationship.123 Obesity rates in adults have doubled over the past twenty years, while the rates for those between ages six and nineteen years old have tripled. Another shocking finding is that 25 percent of children, ages five to ten years, have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or other early warning signs for heart disease, with one in ten teenagers having advanced fibrous plaques in their arteries.¹²⁴ The report further indicates that 70 percent of diseases and four out of six of the leading causes of death in America are “diet-related.”125 This and other reports by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the USDA conclude that eating less meat and dairy could prevent yearly medical costs, ranging between $87 billion and $143 billion.¹²⁶

What follows now is a simple overview of my journey and experiences with finding healthy alternatives to fast food and the many years spent researching the depletion of our health. At the very onset of this experience in 1976, I began to understand the reality of global depletion as it relates to food production and our everyday choices.

From 1976 through 2000, I exhaustively researched the fast-food industry, the eating patterns of Americans, the corporate objectives of the largest players (McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s), nutrition, the ecology of our diets, marketing patterns, and the evolution of fast-food availability. I did this because I saw the desperate need for a new approach. It was obvious that public demand for food in a quick-service venue would only escalate as society became more and more fast-paced. It was also quite clear that the current fast-food corporations that generated billions of dollars in revenue could not care less about our health or the health of our planet, regardless of their marketing façades. It became obvious to me that a healthy fast-food alternative business should be created—one with at least as many franchised outlets as those already in existence from the “Big Three.” Right? If we, as a nation, can support 51,000 units that serve unhealthy food, we should certainly and eventually be able to support at least the same number of units serving healthy food. The path seemed simple—an outlet should be created where only the healthiest food possible would be offered and where education and improvement of the health of our planet would be at the core of the business ethic. This was obvious. Well, disappointedly, I found out that although it was obvious to me, it certainly was not obvious to too many others.

From 1983 to 1998, I traveled around the country, speaking to CEOs, entertainers, politicians, and venture capitalists, explaining why this concept needed to be developed. During one presentation with a venture capital company, a member said, “Dr. Oppenlander, because you do not have an operational business to demonstrate that this would work, why don’t you put up one yourself, and then come back to us for mezzanine [second level] money?” In 2000, I launched “Ope’s—fast food the world can live with.” This was a wonderful quick-service restaurant that offered just what was needed. It offered not only those foods that tasted delicious and were created in an artisan fashion using sustainable methods, but also that would be healthy for the customer and the environment. Through our restaurant, I wanted no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no hormones, no pesticides or herbicides, no heterocyclic amines, no inefficiencies or burdens on our environment, so no animal products were used—only vegan and organic. We had oil-less French “fries”; chocolate, vanilla, and fruit shakes; seven different burgers; six single-serve pizzas; and nine varieties of our trademarked “Stuffed Sandwiches.” We also served salads, soups, and trademarked cookies. Everything was served to the customer less than five minutes after placing the order, and it was organic and sustainable. We developed team management and production protocols, and streamlined all food products and systems of operations. Additionally, proceeds were placed back into the business, with a large percentage donated to causes that would improve our environment globally.

We were privileged to have developed a loyal following of appreciative patrons, but my concept of having this business available for the entire world fell short—we simply did not have the number of people in our area at that time who appreciated this type of food. I learned that it was a matter of geography but also of enlightenment. Not enough people were at a level of understanding to really care about improving their health and the health of our environment. Initially, this was disappointing, but it provided the impetus for me to develop a deeper understanding of those mechanisms that affected public food-choice awareness and for me to help facilitate much needed change.

In 2002, I closed the restaurant to move attention to our production facility, which concentrated on producing our trademarked organic signature items: Ope’s Organic Burgers, Ope’s Organic Stuffed Sandwiches, and Ope’s Organic Cookies. These items are sold to special retail outlets, hospitals, and universities. Along with their delicious gourmet taste, all of our Ope’s items provide an opportunity to improve your own and our planet’s health.

Through the combination of these experiences over the years, I have observed the interesting and very frustrating behavior patterns of Americans with regard to food choices, pathways of information and marketing of food, and the future perspectives.

Since 1987, I have lectured to numerous hospitals and school systems regarding the health benefits of a plant-based diet. Developing enlightenment with regard to food choices and creating change in those locations, although improving, continues to be challenging. Students, for example, are quite receptive to new information and how it might apply to them or our planet. Those in a supervisory position, however—those who actually can make proper decisions to invoke change—simply are not as receptive. They are either set in their ways and unwilling to become enlightened, or they are too passive and unable to commit, or they are overwhelmed by the political, social, and cultural issues such change may create.

All too frequently, I would conclude a presentation at a university, and a committee of ten or twelve student representatives unanimously would agree to incorporate the products my company offered. They recognized and appreciated that these products are plant-based and healthier for them and the environment. But weeks, months, or sometimes years later, none of our products would have been ordered, because the single individual who acted as food purchaser for the university would not take the steps to change. This was primarily because the purchaser was out of touch with the benefits of this type of food or was politically influenced by larger food providers. Sadly, this scenario was found repeatedly at most universities in Michigan and elsewhere across the Midwest. Interestingly, these are exactly the locations where healthier food products and information should be provided. Why? Because these same students are our future leaders and change-makers, and because the Midwest—and Michigan, in particular—is the area of the country where you’ll find the some of the unhealthiest states, with alarming rates of obesity, adult-onset diabetes, heart and cardiovascular disease, and some diet-related forms of cancer.

Alarmingly, the situation is the same with hospitals, where you would think only the best diet, with the most up-to-date science behind it, would be available. Given the revered status in which we have placed these institutions and physicians, certainly they should be doing the right thing with regard to diet and your health—but they are not. Some of the unhealthiest food available is offered and supported by physicians and dieticians and is found in all hospitals. Additionally, some of the most unaware and narrow-minded individuals in decision-making positions regarding food choices are found within the hospital setting. The frustration was never greater than when I found myself repeatedly offering our food products at the University of Michigan Hospital, products that were requested by the vast majority of their medical students. But the administrators and food purchasers simply could not grasp the idea or move forward with a food item that would be the healthiest offering for their customers and the healthiest for the planet, and which was their first 100 percent organic product. They also could not imagine how these new items could be procured outside of the normal chain of business vendors.

Ultimately, most hospitals did briefly offer our products but only after years of my meeting with them, and after years of many vocal and enlightened medical students insisting that change was in order. The irony of this situation is that while I was struggling with educating and convincing the administrators that ours (or similar organic, plant-based products) were necessary, the hospital at University of Michigan continued to promote and support an in-building unit of Wendy’s! You read that correctly. The University of Michigan built and promoted a Wendy’s franchise in their hospital, adjacent to their main cafeteria, for all their students, faculty, patients, and visitors, while at the same time struggling to justify purchasing the organic and healthy food items that my company could provide.

Today, the University of Michigan has evolved to the point where the Wendy’s unit has been eliminated, but there continues to be a severe inadequacy in providing truly healthy foods for its students, staff, faculty, and visitors. This inadequacy is fueled by a vivid dysfunction in the systems involved with their food procurement. In early April 2010, I met the Director of Food Purchasing for the entire university to discuss the disparity in what the students needed and wanted with regard to food choices and what they really were receiving from the university; I also provided a proper base of enlightenment for them. As I entered the hallway in a building on campus that led to the room where we were to meet, I stepped over a three-foot diameter rubber poster embedded in the floor, which stated: “Be part of the Blue Planet Movement”—this was a campus-wide initiative that encouraged the UM community to do things daily to improve the environment. At the same time, on the homepage of UM’s website, there was a photo of their university president, Mary Sue Coleman, with the following message:

The University of Michigan takes its responsibility of protecting and preserving resources very seriously, and every contribution can make a difference. I challenge everyone in our community to think about how even the smallest efforts will work to make our great institution even greener.

—U of M president, Mary Sue Coleman

Save energy. Save the planet. The difference starts with you!

Great message, right? Well, let’s look more closely at this. Following a more than hour-long discussion with the director, this is what I learned:

•  He did not understand that food choices play one of the largest roles in the global depletion of our resources.

•  He did not know that eating plant-based foods requires substantially fewer resources than eating animals or that plant-based foods are generally much healthier for the students. (In fact, he was eating a burger from McDonald’s as we began the meeting.)

•  There is no program in place to provide ongoing education for the Director of Food Purchasing, his staff, the educators, or administrators of UM regarding the role of food choice in nutrition and sustainability.

•  He thought the word “sustainability” meant “nutrition.”

•  He did not understand the ecologic or general health benefits of foods grown organically, and there is no program established whereby organic foods are even considered for purchase.

•  He was confused as to the concept of buying locally. To my question of “Do you feel there are reasons and benefits for you to purchase food produced locally or by Michigan businesses? And therefore do you and the UM have any specific programs in place to accomplish this?” The response was, “Yes, we buy some things from UNFI [United Natural Foods, Inc.].” I reminded him that UNFI is a distributor, not a local food producer; that it is based in Iowa; and that is does not carry any locally produced or grown food.

•  The Director of Food Purchasing and UM have no policy or program for establishing proper allowances for pricing margins for organic and/or locally produced foods, and they have falsely thrown them into the category of potato chips, soft drinks, and candy bars in terms of retail pricing, economic gain to the university, and need for customer enlightenment.

Now consider that message from President Coleman. The “difference” she urges actually should start with her and with her staff, the administrators, the faculty, and the Director of Food Purchasing. This gross dysfunction is seen not only at UM but also at the majority of our learning institutions across the country. Those at the top, who are making policies and decisions, are disconnected from the reality of what occurs with their food choices. They owe it to their community to establish continuing-education programs and an accurate awareness base for themselves first, before they ask students to “make a difference.” The gap between what leaders are saying and the needs of all they serve is filled with layers of lack of enlightenment, irresponsibility, and resistance. Perhaps once they make an effort to understand what “sustainability” and “green” really mean, in terms of our food choices, then change in the right direction can occur.

There is another reason why individuals have not stopped eating meat and adopted a healthier plant-based way of eating. This reason is pervasive and is equally discouraging because many people do not care—they think that they are impervious to the effects of eating animal products. It’s the attitudes of “It will never happen to me” and “I won’t care until it happens to me.” I have witnessed many patients, friends, and relatives who have gone through the typical sequencing of eating unhealthy foods, with a large percentage of those foods being animal products—hamburgers, hot dogs, steaks, pork chops, bacon, chicken, turkey, fish, etc. They have eaten these foods day after day after day, over a period of many years. Then, not so mysteriously, they gain weight and develop one or more diseases—diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney or heart disease, or cancer. Eventually, they sustain a life-threatening heart attack or undergo life-changing surgery. They may suffer and die at an earlier age than normal. Many of these individuals feel this occurs because of genetics, which may be true to some extent, but no matter what the genetic predisposition to a certain disease state may be, I can assure you that eating animal products in any form will substantially raise the likelihood that you will contract and suffer from one of these debilitating diseases.

I have even witnessed extreme examples of this with my patients and friends who have eaten meat their entire lives. Some have contracted colon cancer at ages forty-five to fifty and have undergone multiple or extensive surgeries. Yet they then continue to eat meat, even after I presented them with the book Surviving Cancer by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which cites numerous studies and conclusions that eating meat can and does cause colon cancer, as well as other types of cancer. This, to me, is an excellent example of just how powerful our cultural, social, political, and media influences have been—and obviously still are—regarding the inappropriate perpetuation of the myth that eating meat is good for you. People are dying because of this.

Now, let’s talk about the physicians in whom we put our trust. A primary reason why people think meat is good for them is because their doctors believe it is healthy and convey that myth. And because doctors are the keepers of our health, we must follow.

Although consumption of animals for food is expected to double over the next two decades, there are stark differences in meat consumption between countries; for example, it’s eleven pounds per person per year in India as compared to the United States, which consumes meat at the rate of 270 pounds per person per year.127 The World Health Organization (WHO), Tufts University researchers, the PCRM, and others have consistently recommended lower intake of animal fat and red meat due to a clear relationship of various diseases (cardiovascular, diabetes, obesity, certain types of cancer) with the consumption of animal products.¹²⁸

Livestock products are also more susceptible to pathogens than other food products and have a capacity to transmit diseases from animals to humans. The World Organization for Animal Health estimates that 60 percent of human pathogens and 75 percent of recent emerging diseases are zoonotic—living on or in animals. Many human disease have their origins in animals (such as common influenza and smallpox) and others—such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and many internal parasitic diseases such as those caused by tapeworm, threadworm, and others—are transmitted through the consumption of animal products. Avian flu, Nipah virus, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (“mad cow”), bovine encephalitis, E. coli, salmonella, shigella, Campylobacter, and H1N1 (swine flu) are all associated with handling and consumption of animal products for food.

The wide overuse of antibiotics in animals has caused many bacteria that now affect humans to become antibiotic-resistant. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health report that 96 percent of Tyson chicken flesh (Tyson is the largest producer of chickens in the world) is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter bacteria.¹²⁹ USDA studies have found that 66 percent of all beef samples were contaminated with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.130 Toxic levels of arsenic are commonly found in chicken flesh.¹³¹ Fish have been found to have levels of PCBs and mercury, thousands of times higher than those in the water in which they live.¹³²

USDA inspection reports reveal that on average, one out of eight turkeys served on Thanksgiving is infected with salmonella, and Campylobacter causes the second most commonly reported food-related illness.¹³³ Reports also showed that more than 50 percent of samples of meat from pigs (pork products) were contaminated with Staphylococcus.¹³⁴

Dairy products contain a wide variety of contaminants, including chemicals and hormones. Milk contains natural hormones and growth factors that are produced within a cow’s body and also synthetic hormones, such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) or insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1).¹³⁵ Additional contaminants found in milk samples and other dairy products include antibiotics, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins. When consumed, any of these toxins can build to levels that eventually may harm the immune, reproductive, and other systems, as well as leading to the development of cancer.

A word must be said here about the H1N1 (swine flu) virus and epidemic. On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization escalated the alert to a level four (out of a possible five), due to worldwide concern for a possible pandemic. Many people died, numerous others were infected, and it spread quickly throughout a number of countries. As it should have been, news of the outbreak and what was being done about it was front and center on every conceivable media format. This is a wonderful example of timeliness and how well information on an important topic can be disseminated in a very short fashion. It is also a perfect example of just which information is really told to us. For instance, with a story of this magnitude, we know of the first few people who died from swine flu in the small town of La Gloria in Oaxaca, Mexico. We know of the generally rapid response of readiness and formal statements by the United Nations, WHO, President Obama, and other world leaders. We have been reassured of the stockpiling of a proper amount of vaccinations, and we even know of certain organizations’ desire to change the name of the virus. I find it interesting that we have not been told how and why the virus exists, which conditions help foster the development of these types of viruses, and what we should do to remedy the situation. Regardless of what becomes the official statement by investigators regarding the cause, it will most likely be a clouded version of the fact that it all began in overcrowded pig farms in that area of Mexico, which is run by a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world.136

Pigs are highly susceptible to both avian and human influenza A viruses; they are commonly referred to as “mixing vessels,” in which viruses commingle, swapping genes along the way; then new strains emerge. It is thought that pigs have been the intermediate hosts responsible for the last two flu pandemics, in 1957 and 1968.¹³⁷ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to one-half of pigs on modern farms have evidence of the H1N1 virus.¹³⁸ Thousands of pigs are crowded and confined in sheds, stacked to the point where the animals are continuously inhaling and recirculating airborne fecal matter, methane, ammonia, and pathogens. Antibiotics are commonly given to treat and prevent devastating outbreaks within feedlots, but influenza viruses are resistant to antibiotics. Once a pathogen like the swine flu virus emerges, it is then spread by farm workers and by the transport of pigs to other locations.

In the United States alone, over 320,000 pigs are slaughtered for food every day, which drives the continual operation of congested livestock farm lots.139 In the Mexico town near the Veracruz Mountains, where this recent outbreak began, more than 450 residents had complained of severe respiratory and flu symptoms weeks before the outbreak and confirmed swine flu virus strain, which affected and eventually killed a four-year-old boy there.¹⁴⁰ The focus of all our attention, therefore, should not be on which schools to close, when to wear masks, who should be vaccinated, who should be allowed to travel Mexico, or what to call the virus. The majority of our efforts should be on divulging the real reason behind this epidemic, which is the factory farming of massive amounts of pigs in filthy, confined conditions that promote the development of viruses that can cause infectious diseases in humans. And the reason this happened is because of our demand for meat products. Those pigs are here, living in those conditions and developing viruses, only because people want to eat them. Therefore, I find it incongruous that there has been such a movement to remove the name “swine,” and major efforts have been made to assure the public that this virus has nothing to do with pork products and that they are entirely safe to continue eating. Well, the virus has everything to do with pork products. The movement to remove the name swine is propelled by the USDA and world pork producers, and although it is true that the H1N1 virus may not be contracted directly by eating pork, the production of pork is precisely the ultimate reason that the swine flu virus exists. So while the pork industry is encouraging people to continue eating pigs, it is the eating of pigs that is the problem—this is exactly what the public needs to be told so that the problem can be resolved.

This completes the portrait of what I consider to be global depletion of our own health. Food choices are implicated, and you have the ability to change that.