Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking

“Crucially, the researchers found that plant-based proteins, such as those from beans, did not seem to have the same mortality effects as animal proteins. Rates of cancer and death also did not seem to be affected by controlling for carbohydrate or fat consumption, suggesting that animal protein is the main culprit.”



That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette. In a new study that tracked a large sample of adults for nearly two decades, researchers have found that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet — a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking.

“There’s a misconception that because we all eat, understanding nutrition is simple. But the question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well for three days, but can it help you survive to be 100?” said corresponding author Valter Longo, the Edna M. Jones Professor of Biogerontology at the USC Davis School of Gerontology and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

Not only is excessive protein consumption linked to a dramatic rise in cancer mortality, but middle-aged people who eat lots of proteins from animal sources — including meat, milk and cheese — are also more susceptible to early death in general, reveals the study to be published March 4 in Cell Metabolism. Protein-lovers were 74 percent more likely to die of any cause within the study period than their more low-protein counterparts. They were also several times more likely to die of DIABETES.

But how much protein we should eat has long been a controversial topic — muddled by the popularity of protein-heavy DIETS such as Paleo and Atkins. Before this study, researchers had never shown a definitive correlation between high protein consumption and mortality risk.

Rather than look at adulthood as one monolithic phase of life, as other researchers have done, the latest study considers how biology changes as we age, and how decisions in middle life may play out across the human lifespan.

In other words, what’s good for you at one age may be damaging at another. Protein controls the growth hormone IGF-I, which helps our bodies grow but has been linked to cancer susceptibility. Levels of IGF-I drop off dramatically after age 65, leading to potential frailty and muscle loss. The study shows that while high protein intake during middle age is very harmful, it is protective for older adults: those over 65 who ate a moderate- or HIGH-PROTEIN diet were less susceptible to disease.

The latest paper draws from Longo’s past research on IGF-I, including on an Ecuadorian cohort that seemed to have little cancer or DIABETES susceptibility because of a genetic mutation that lowered levels of IGF-I; the members of the cohort were all less than five-feet tall.

“The research shows that a low-protein diet in middle age is useful for preventing cancer and overall mortality, through a process that involves regulating IGF-I and possibly insulin levels,” said co-author Eileen Crimmins, the AARP Chair in Gerontology at USC. “However, we also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid a low-protein diet to allow the maintenance of healthy weight and protection from frailty.”

Crucially, the researchers found that plant-based proteins, such as those from beans, did not seem to have the same mortality effects as animal proteins. Rates of cancer and death also did not seem to be affected by controlling for carbohydrate or fat consumption, suggesting that animal protein is the main culprit.

“The majority of Americans are eating about twice as much proteins as they should, and it seems that the best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins but especially animal-derived proteins,” Longo said. “But don’t get extreme in cutting out protein; you can go from protected to malnourished very quickly.”

Longo’s findings support recommendations from several leading health agencies to consume about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight every day in middle age. For example, a 130-pound person should eat about 45-50 grams of protein a day, with preference for those derived from plants such as legumes, Longo explains.

The researchers define a “HIGH-PROTEIN” diet as deriving at least 20 percent of CALORIES from protein, including both plant-based and animal-based protein. A “moderate” protein diet includes 10-19 percent of calories from protein, and a “low-protein” diet includes less than 10 percent protein.

Even moderate amounts of protein had detrimental effects during middle age, the researchers found. Across all 6,318 adults over the age of 50 in the study, average protein intake was about 16 percent of total daily calories with about two-thirds from animal protein — corresponding to data about national protein consumption. The study sample was representative across ethnicity, education and health background.

People who ate a moderate amount of protein were still three times more likely to die of cancer than those who ate a low-protein DIET in middle age, the study shows. Overall, even the small change of decreasing protein intake from moderate levels to low levels reduced likelihood of early death by 21 percent.

For a randomly selected smaller portion of the sample – 2,253 people – levels of the growth hormone IGF-I were recorded directly. The results show that for every 10 ng/ml increase in IGF-I, those on a HIGH-PROTEIN diet were 9 percent more likely to die from cancer than those on a low-protein diet, in line with past research associating IGF-I levels to cancer risk.

The researchers also extended their findings about HIGH-PROTEIN diets and mortality risk, looking at causality in mice and cellular models. In a study of tumor rates and progression among mice, the researchers show lower cancer incidence and 45 percent smaller average tumor size among mice on a low-protein diet than those on a high-protein diet by the end of the two-month experiment.

“Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancer cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?” Longo said. “Turns out one of the major factors in determining if it does is is protein intake.”



Rollingstone – In The Belly of the Beast

Sarah – let’s call her that for this story, though it’s neither the name her parents gave her nor the one she currently uses undercover – is a tall, fair woman in her midtwenties who’s pretty in a stock, anonymous way, as if she’d purposely scrubbed her face and frame of distinguishing characteristics……

Read more:


Think wool is harmless? Think again.


What would you do if some sick individual tried to cut large chunks of skin and flesh from around your anus?

You would probably kick their anus. And what would you say if the sicko claimed he was just doing his job? You’d say, “Screw your job.”

Every year, industrial wool farmers in Australia (the largest producer of wool in the world) routinely mutilate tens of millions of helpless lambs on wool farms in just this way. It’s called “mulesing,” and it entails removing large swaths of skin and flesh from the area around the anus — and for females, around the vulva as well. (Outraged yet? If not, see the graphic video to the right.)

The practice is defended as an effective means of combating a blowfly infestation called “flystrike,” which sometimes afflicts the unnaturally dense, urine- and feces-encrusted skin folds around the rear ends of Merino sheep. (In Australia, 89% of their 90 million farmed sheep are Merino; most of the rest have some Merino genetic material.) Industry beneficiaries and spokespersons would have you believe that mulesing is simply meant to benefit the sheep from a distressing and possibly deadly pest that has always afflicted sheep in Australia and New Zealand. 

End of story. Nothing to see here.

Or not. As is so often the case, examination of the facts tells a more sinister tale. Flystrike only afflicts farmed sheep, not wild sheep, in Australia. Why? First, the Merino is not native to Australia and is easy prey for the native blowflies. Second, the industry has engineered the Merino to have ever-increasing amounts of wool-bearing skin, thus increasing wool output and profits along with a more attractive target for blowflies. This unnaturally high skin surface area creates very high densities of skin folds, which lead to an extreme overabundance of heat-,



Buying wool directly supports cruel practices such as mulesing, castration, tail-docking, and ear-punching. Meanwhile, industrial wool farming is energy-inefficient, land- and water-intensive, and highly pollutive.


Wool industry investigation. Yes, narrated by Pink:
Here, a lamb allowed to live in peace:
moisture-, and excrement-trapping — but profitable — wool. Of course, it also creates very miserable sheep, even when they aren’t being assaulted by handlers and shearers. And with each breeding generation, the industry favors those sheep with the densest skin folds, thus ensuring that each successive generation will be even more vulnerable to flystrike — thereby perpetuating what they want us to believe is the “need” for mulesing. 

In sum, wool producers created the flystrike danger for sheep, and now use it as an excuse to inflict further cruelty on these sensitive, innocent creatures. For the industry, what really matters is that more skin folds entails more skin area per sheep, which entails more wool per sheep, which entails higher profit margins. That’s the bottom line (literally). If they have to mutilate innocent creatures along the way, well, they’re obviously willing to do that.

Amid threats of global boycotts of mulesed wool in the early 2000s, the industry in leading-producer Australia promised in 2004 to implement a mulesing alternative by 2010. In typical fashion, they reneged at the last moment. Not that their proposed solutions would have made things much better. The industry’s leading “alternative” to mulesing involved harsh clips secured so tightly around the anus of lambs that bloodflow would be cut off to a large area of skin, leading the skin to literally die and fall off. Some alternative, right?

What about wool from sheep that haven’t been mulesed?

First thing to note is that we presently have no way of knowing whether or not mainstream wool items contain wool from mulesed sheep. There isn’t any labeling to that effect — and in fact, since the wool from millions of sheep gets mixed up during transport and manufacture, it seems pretty likely that the wool items you see in stores contain mulesed sheep’s wool.

Still, let’s say we could be sure. While we can agree that non-mulesed sheep have it a little better, it’s kind of like saying it’s better to have a single-bed cell in prison. Sure, it is better than sharing a cell. But you’re still in prison. 

Of course, prison is a cakewalk compared to being harvested. Nearly all wool-farmed sheep are tail-docked and castrated (if male), and their ears are hole-punched. Meanwhile, sheep handlers and shearers are cruel to the animals in all other kinds of ways — and why wouldn’t they be, since mutilation is in the job description? According to an individual who spoke with PETA:

“[T]he shearing shed must be one of the worst places in the world for cruelty to animals … I have seen shearers punch sheep with their shears or their fists until the sheep’s nose bled. I have seen sheep with half their faces shorn off …”

The truth is that industrial animal farming is an inherently exploitative and neglectful process. Animals are treated as commodities — not the sensitive creatures they actually are. As a part of that, millions of sheep perish every year on large wool farms due to the disease and individual neglect that occur when animals meant to roam freely are squeezed together. Adequate health and veterinary care for ailments deemed less-than-immediately-critical is non-existent. And, at the end of their “productive” lives, they’re shipped to slaughter — commonly to countries where they don’t even have nominal animal protection or welfare standards. (See the very graphic video above, which reveals the horrifying, gruesome fate for millions and millions of “spent” sheep each year.)

Meanwhile, the environmental effects of wool farming are catastrophic. Indeed, any animal farming, compared to plant farming, is extremely inefficient and wasteful. It’s a logical imperative. On the one hand, you can cultivate plants and feed them to humans and other animals that already exist. Or, on the other, you can breed hundreds of millions of new animals,which requires vast amounts of land and water, both to house and hydrate the sheep and to cultivate the massive amount ofplant food required to feed them. These hundreds of millions of sheep then produce astronomical amounts of excrement and bodily waste, deeply contaminating local environments and expelling climate change agents like methane and carbon dioxide. Add to all of this that in many countries, including leading-producer Australia, sheep are non-native, which makes them a special kind of threat to local ecosystems. (According to the Australian wool industry, sheep were introduced in 1788 by arriving Europeans.) Animal farming necessitates all of the environmental costs of plant farming, and then it multiplies them.

The bottom line.

Buying wool supports cruel industry practices such as mulesing, castration, tail-docking, and ear-punching. Industrial wool farming is also energy-inefficient, land- and water-intensive, and highly pollutive.

This Journalist is Launching Drones

If all of these industries had nothing to hide, why are they up in arms about this? If you cannot be transparent and show the truth to your end consumers, you are flat out lying. And if hiding the truth wasn’t enough, marketing any animal product as “happy” or “humane” is wrong and should be forbidden! 


Here is the article:

This Journalist is Launching Drones to Expose Factory Farm Abuse (Video)

I had the pleasure of talking with Abby Martin last night on her show Breaking the Set. We looked at new laws backed by the agriculture industry which make it illegal to photograph animal cruelty and environmental abuses on factory farms, and why that prompted me to get creative for my next investigation.

On Kickstarter, I’m raising money to buy drones for aerial photography of factory farms. As Abby noted, this is the first journalism investigation of its kind, and the industry is already up in arms about it.

I met the original fundraising goal in just 5 days, and now I’m expanding the project—I hope you’ll consider donating, and sharing it with friends!

Check out the full video below…