Sacred Cow
Diana Rodgers, Registered Dietitian
Robb Wolf, Former Research Biochemist
For me, there is no going back to ignorance after reading Sacred Cow, which has deepened my passion for improving our current food system. Since we humans are complex, it is often challenging to navigate emotionally-charged problems logically, however, through massive amounts of research and data, we can take steps towards understanding the components that make up the big picture. In this case, the overarching goal of the book is to bring about awareness of “our relationship with the food we eat and offer a different view on the future of food production,” which they do so by examining the nutritional, environmental, and ethical components of eating meat. While this is not comprehensive, I do want to share a few things that truly stood out to me from each category. If you’re curious, please visit their awesome website (where I obtained all the infographics) at https://www.sacredcow.info/about-sacred-cow
Nutritional Breakdown:
The dark history of junk food. War demands large amounts of resources and in an effort to feed the country and war efforts abroad during WWII, the U.S. government incentivized farmers to produce grain surpluses through subsidies. After the war, however, the government continued to pay for the overproduction of corn and grains, and was notably used as a political ploy for President Nixon’s campaign. With a major excess of corn, the industry had to get creative and decided to turn it into high fructose corn syrup, which was then added to just about everything. And so began the era of “hyper-palatable, shelf-stable, high-profit margin junk food” (pg 18-19). YIKES.
What are we evolved to eat? Throughout our evolution, we humans have thrived being omnivorous because the diversity provides a more nutrient-rich diet. Creativity led humans to use tools for hunting, fire for cooking, and fermentation for improved digestibility, which meant our species did not need teeth or claws in order to eat meat or plants. To no surprise, this adaptation changed our human anatomy. As stated in the book, “our small intestines are longer than the average primate’s, and our colons are smaller [the fiber-fermenting potion of our digestive tract]. This means we are not as able to break down certain plant fibers or other types of bulky plant materials (as our gorilla relatives do so well). Also, with the larger small intestine, we’re adapted to eating nutrient-dense foods like meat and cooked starches because we are able to better absorb the nutrition from these foods. We also have different enzymes than other primates that allow us to digest dense starches and dairy.” (pg. 27-28)
It’s the inside that counts. When taking a look at protein, it should be quickly understood that not all protein is created equal.
“Protein is made up of amino acids (AAs). There are 20 AAs that our bodies utilize, 9 of which are essential, meaning that our bodies must obtain these from food...Animal products contain all the AAs we need, while plants lack one or more AAs, particularly leucine, which is one of the most important AAs for humans. So when food lists “grams of protein” it doesn’t really give you the full story on the spectrum of amino acids.” (pg 86)
Animal products have quite the inventory of vitamins and minerals that sustain our mental and physical health. Moreover, they are highly bioavailable, meaning that the majority of the nutrient can actually be absorbed and utilized by the body. When asking the manager what’s in stock, we find B vitamins, vitamin D, iron, and other minerals such as zinc, magnesium, copper, cobalt, phosphorus, nickel, selenium, and chromium. With these items in our cart, we are less likely to break down our own muscle tissue for protein, experience hair loss and brittle nails or bones, as well as a compromised immune system and neurological function. See below graph for common deficiencies and their effects on brain functioning (pg. 102). Makes me question like the authors did, “If a diet requires supplementation, is it a healthy diet?”
Lastly, and quite critically, animal protein is the most satiating macronutrient largely because of its effect on appetite-regulating hormones. This fact alone has huge implications for the third of the US population that is obese and the 50% of the population who are pre-diabetic. “According to the protein-leverage hypothesis, people will continue to eat food in order to satisfy their protein needs. If the food you are eating is ultra-processed, low in protein but high in calories and carbohydrates, the brain will tell you to continue eating that food until you reach your protein minimum. Because protein is highly satiating, when we increase our protein intake, our overall caloric intake generally reduces'' (pg 37). Get this wild example given: You would need to eat about 600 calories worth of beans and rice (2 cups of black beans and a ½ cup of brown rice) to get the same amount of protein you can get from only 160 calories of beef (3.5 oz sirloin). With obesity and pre-diabetic rates at 33% and 50%, it would be in the best interest of the US population to seek foods that get to the point.
Environmental Breakdown:
Scape-cow is the new scape-goat. Cows have been a target for blame concerning greenhouse gasses (GHG) and climate change. Indeed, they have been the focus for the false accusations claiming cows produce an extremely high rate of methane when in fact, “fossil fuels, fires, and wetlands or rice farming” are the largest contributors, with most emissions coming from energy and transportation. See top panel of infographics for more data and details.
Cycles matter. It is imperative to understand natural cycles. Methane from cows is connected to soil health, which is a key player in fighting climate change considering its ability to store carbon (“soil holds 4x more carbon than trees and about 3x more than the atmosphere itself” pg 143). Compare this to the underground reserves of fossil fuels which are not part of a natural cycle and therefore add new carbon to the atmosphere when extracted. Note*As with everything in life, moderation is needed when grazing grasslands, indicating that, “it’s not the cow, it’s the how” that supports a healthy soil and ecosystem.
“In the case of cattle, they are transforming existing carbon, in the form of grass and other fibrous materials, into methane as part of their digestive process. Methane is then belched out, and after about 10 years is broken back down into water and carbon dioxide molecules. The CO2 and H2O are cycled back to grow more grass, and the cycle continues” (pg 136).
We are a part of nature. It is undeniable that we are part of a wide web and rely on diversity for our own survival. I loved this statement by the authors: “What is perhaps the most fascinating and potentially dangerous about the plant-based hierarchy is that the closer you get to the top, the further you remove biodiversity and the further you remove yourself from nature” (pg 207). The industrial food system destroys diversity, which makes us more reliant upon the industrial agricultural processes. To this, when I think about the Impossible Burger, I question whether it’s the “right way,” considering the “industrial, synthetic chemical row-crop-centric model that entails” (pg 185).
This for that? It has been argued that ruminant beings take up too much of the available agricultural land. However, this argument does not take into account the fact that more than 60% of the land globally cannot be used because the environment may not sustain crop production. The authors ask us to, “Think about all the brittle, dry, rocky, hilly landscapes across the planet. In order to grow large fields of crops, you need fertile soil, enough rainfall or access to water for irrigation, relatively flat land, and the infrastructure to till, harvest, and process the crops that aren't eaten right away. Well-managed cattle and other ruminants can thrive on land where we can’t grow crops, and they are beneficial to the land. There’s much more land suitable for grazing than land suitable for cropping” (pg 159).
Ethical Breakdown
Holy Cow. Religion is a big part of being human and so it should be no surprise that it has influenced our dietary preferences over the years. The “Garden of Eden Diet”, consisting of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and seeds, was pushed by religious reformers who considered meat-eating as impure, heinous, and sinful, something that leads to masturbation and animalistic behavior.
“One of the most influential religious groups to condemn meat in the western world is the Seventh-Day-Adventist (SDA)... In America there are still SDA influences behind our meat-phobic guidelines. Many of the leading authors of the 1988 official position paper on vegetarian diets published by the Association of Nutrition and Dietetics are SDA members, yet this conflict of interest was not acknowledged by the group” (pg 207-209).
To my own disgust, the famous SDA, John Harvey Kellogg, firmly believed that eating meat led to masturbation. This belief drove him to “develop patents on genital cages to stop children from touching themselves, circumcise boys without anesthetic, and was known to pour carbolic acid onto the clitoris of young girls found masturbating. As an extreme precaution he removed the clitoris and labia minora of anyone found to be suffering from ‘nymphomania’” (pg 208). YIKES. BIG TIME.
Western (white) privilege. Domestic animals provide not only ideal nutrition, but financial security. “More than 820 million people are suffering from hunger, and nutrient deficiencies are a serious concern throughout the world. About half of the 767 million people living in extreme poverty depend on raising animals for food or for their income. Is it ethical, then, to tell a hungry or poor person who raises meat that they should avoid meat because a well-fed westerner doesn’t feel it’s okay? Could claiming moral superiority over those who do eat meat be itself an act of extreme privilege and an insult to all people from cultures that have traditionally eaten animal products?” (pg 220). One sad example given is the case of the native arctic population, Yamalo-Nenets, and the food guidelines developed by the Quebec government. Cultural appropriation at its finest, the natives were advised to eat “vegetables, berries and fruits” rather than their traditional foods like venison and fish, which has resulted in absurd rates of obesity, chronic diseases, and anemia. Let me see if I get this right - tropical foods that are full of sugar (nutrient-scarce, high in calories) are being pushed onto peoples in the Arctic who need nutritionally-dense food to survive? Hmm… this does not seem environmentally aware, sustainable, and ethical…
Ending Remarks
When I make decisions, I like to try on different hats (and sunglasses) so I can experience multiple viewpoints. My diet has undergone many changes, which has enabled me to narrow down what is optimal for me. I have practiced vegetarianism and veganism (3 years total) but currently my diet is mainly paleo (with strict stints of Whole30). I acknowledge that what works for me, may not work for everyone and that is okay. However, given the vast amount of data presented within this book, if someone is feeling pressured into avoiding meat/animal products based on the assumption of improved health, environment, and ethical, they may want to reconsider. Lastly, it is imperative that we continue to parse apart complex topics by assessing massive amounts of data so that we can see the whole picture. Amazingly, this book does just that.
“... the vast majority of westernized populations have become divorced from nature. We see nature as a place to visit, not as a system we are a part of. Because of this, many people simply can’t come to grips with the idea that death is inevitable, unavoidable, and important for new life”
“Poster containing the major nutritional, environmental and ethical reasons why cattle are important to our food system”
