I think including some oily fish in the diet is helpful for getting omega-3 fats in the diet. Eating lower down on the food chain, e.g. small fish like sardines, results in less mercury exposure compared to eating larger fish. One can take a supplement such as fish or algae oil in addition to that or as a sole source of omega-3s.
Perhaps more accessible would be Campbell’s newer book “Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition” There he also goes at length into the issue of the limitations of the reductionist scientific (and industrial) approach to nutrition. His credentials are sterling, which helps overcome the fact that his style is s/w abrasive – frequently getting into squabbles.
One author of frequent articles in the Huffington Post, David L. Katz, M.D., M.P.H. offers a, IMO, worthwhile perspective on diet fads. One of my favorites:
“Brawn, Brains, and Grains of Truth”
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/822731
Interesting the 5 - 10% figure was something I was going to mention as I had heard somewhere that a diet with only around ten percent meat products was the most healthy but I just cant remember where it was I heard that.
Good point about the sardines but you can also get more than enough omega 3 and 7 from flaxseed and it’s quite cheap to buy as a supplement. Also has the advantage of not smelling fishy for those that can’t stand the smell or taste.
2 Likes
It is true that one can get omega-3 fats from flaxseed in the form of ALA. However, the body’s conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA, the two oils found in fish and algae oil that have been extensively studied and found to be beneficial, is problematic especially if one eats lots of omega-6 fats. If one eats a mostly vegan diet or something close to it, it may be prudent to cover one’s bases with a supplement. This page goes in depth into omega-3s: Omega-3s – Vegan Health
1 Like
I’m sorry if someone already explained this. Why is there arsenic in rice? Is it a worldwide problem?
Not sure of the exact mechanism but my understanding is that it is a compound naturally produced by rice itself. It is a normal part of the plants chemical structure, hence it doesn’t matter where it’s grown, all rice has a certain (fairly low) amount of arsenic in it.
Different plants take up substances from the soil more or less efficiently, depending on the plant and the substance. That’s why different plant species have different amounts of the various vitamins and minerals in them. The soil a plant is grown in is also important because it is what is in the soil that determines what the plant has the possibility of taking up in the first place.
Rice is especially good at taking up arsenic from the soil, so it is naturally high in arsenic compared to most other plants. If it’s grown in soil with high levels of arsenic, it will take up even more arsenic. That’s why it’s recommended you buy rice that was grown in places with less arsenic, such as California or South and Southeast Asian countries, rather than places with more arsenic, such as the American South and Southeast where arsenic containing pesticides were used liberally in the past and have contaminated the soil.
More info: Arsenic In Your Food Investigated - Consumer Reports
1 Like
It would seem strange from a Buddhist perspective to sponsor torture, murder, and environmental destruction, merely to fulfil cravings for sensual pleasure. We do know very well that we don’t need to eat any meat at all. If you are in Tibet in Winter and there is no other food available, then it becomes more than just about sense pleasures, though even then there is a debate to be had. But for anyone living in any ordinary modern place, and assuming you don’t have a rare medical condition, it’s just about sense pleasures.
So the idea of just wanting to kill and torture ‘a little bit’ is a bit strange from the perspective of Buddhist sīla.
If humans naturally kill each other and steal, would we lack compassion for our fellow human beings by insisting for others to give up killing and stealing?
We can also consider slavery. Would we lack compassion for our fellow human beings by insisting for others to give up taking and keeping slaves?
And again which is worse from the Buddhist perspective - keeping a being as a slave, feeding it, giving it medicine, but of course not freedom? Or, keeping it as a slave, torturing it throughout its life, then murdering it? And doing the same also to all of its future generations, of course.
3 Likes
There might be science behind this:
The best evidence is our teeth: we have biting/tearing/ripping incisors and canines (like carnivores) and chewing molars (like herbivores). Animals with such diverse teeth tend to be omnivores.
Chemically, we lack cellulases or cellulosic symbionts that many herbivores have, and have lots of proteases that carnivores do. But we do have sucrases that let us digest fruits. Humans require vitamin B12 to thrive, which can only come from animal sources or certain bacteria (vegans must supplement their diet). We also require vitamin C, which is present in citrus fruits and organ meat, the latter probably being our evolutionary ancestor’s main source.
Interestingly, we have very powerful livers (the detoxification organ) and a very strong ability to smell rot/decay/decomposition relative to other animals. This suggests we may have evolved as scavengers, eating dead (but not too decayed) carcasses killed by other animals.
Lastly, our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees, are omnivores. The leading theory as to how humans evolved is that we became long-distance runners and hunted food by running it down until it tired, and that our access to meat and protein enabled our brains to evolve further than otherwise. So meat-eating is in our history as well as our DNA and physiology.
How Humans Evolved To Be Natural Omnivores
It’s kind of sad that there aren’t more popular films that promote a balanced diet, that includes a healthy balance of meat, vegetables, fruits, and starches. It seems that the popular diet-related documentaries these days promote veganism, the keto diet, or some other fad or restrictive diet.
If that is the best evidence, then I’m sorry, but you are standing of very shaky ground! Are you now calling camels and horses ‘omnivores’? They, like us, have canines.
If you would like to read more about canine teeth, please see:
and
OK let’s think about this… vitamin C from eating meat? So then let’s look at carnivores. Can you name even one single carnivorous mammal that does not make its own vitamin C? If your logic holds, then we should find that as common, or maybe even throughout, the carnivorous mammal species. But to my knowledge, there is no carnivorous mammal that doesn’t produce their own vitamin C.
In fact the only mammals that don’t make their own vitamin C that I’m aware of, are fruit bats, guinea pigs and anthropoid primates. And guess what - guinea pigs and fruit bats are herbivores.
Also please note that you gave your comment in response to my comment:
And yet your comment neither answers, nor even addresses in any way, my question.
The point of my question was that regardless of whether or not it is considered ‘natural’ to eat meat, I was challenging the view given here that it is unfair to insist for others to give up what is ‘natural’. If it is natural to steal and kill each other, which indeed we see in all societies and also throughout nature, such as in primate societies, then, following the view which was given, it is apparently unfair to insist that people don’t kill humans and steal, just as it is unfair to insist that people don’t torture and murder animals, because it’s ‘natural’.
This reasoning doesn’t really stand up.
2 Likes
The article presents multiple evidences that we are evolutionarily adapted to an omnivorous diet.
The human body also requires nutrients that come from both animal and plant sources, unless one is able to supplement their diet, an option that many people in the world don’t have.
The most important advice that could be given to someone on a vegetarian diet is to supplement their diet with enough protein, B12, iron, and other nutrients that otherwise traditionally come from animal sources.
Well, the two which you specified were very easy to refute. And please remember, that is not even addressing my point, at all. It is a mere distraction from the point.
Anthony Bourdain made the point that people in the third world eat whatever they can get, and don’t have the luxury of choosing a vegetarian diet. When the nutrients in meat aren’t as easily found in other sources, then perhaps we shouldn’t judge, especially if a country eats much less meat than the West does.
The human evolutionary path seems to be a fairly unique one in many respects; humans are weird and wonderful animals in many ways! 
In particular, we seem strongly adapted to cooked food, so much so that diets of entirely raw food seem fairly damaging to human health. Rather than an omnivore perhaps a cooked food omnivore would be more accurate label for us.
The archaeological evidence seems to indicate that ancient humans started to eat a lot more meat and seafood from about 3 million years ago, probably having a diet resembling modern chimpanzees prior to that, which has some, if not a great deal, of meat and eggs etc. A chimpanzee’s diet isn’t very energy dense. It literally has to spend half of its day chewing!
Stone tools could be used to cut up and pound and tenderize vegetables, meat, tubers etc. resulting in less chewing and easier digestion. Then later humans figured out how to make fire (probably about a million years ago). Cooked food was even easier to digest.
Human teeth, jaw muscles, length of digestive tract have all been getting smaller and smaller over all this time. This all freed up a large amount of calories otherwise spent in digestion, and human brains are very calorie intensive (about 20% of calories are burned up by the brain). A popular theory is that a switch to more calorie- and nutrient-rich diet with more meat and seafood and help from tools, and later cooking with fire, freed up time otherwise spent chewing and energy for the development of large brains.
Ancient humans were eating meat and seafood from quite early on. That’s plenty of time for us to be quite well adapted to this. It doesn’t mean we have to eat meat. There are good ethical reasons not to. Though probably care needs to be taken with strict veganism (B12 supplementation and care to get enough iron etc.: humans absorb heme iron far more readily than non-heme iron). While there are many vegetarian castes in India, AFAIK there are no vegan ones.
My own country, Ireland, has the highest incidence in the world (about 97%) of the variant of the LCT gene that allows adults to digest milk and dairy products without lactose intolerance. This gene variant is common in many parts of Europe, particularly NW Europe. Cattle have been raised here for several thousand years (one of the most well-known and oldest Irish mythological tales here, while all sounding very heroic, is essentially a glorified cattle raid! ). A few thousand years is quite short in evolutionary terms. Therefore, having this gene variant must have been particularly advantageous and the ability to easily digest milk and dairy must have been heavily selected for.
4 Likes
Temple Grandin, though not a vegan or vegetarian, has dedicated her life to improving the treatment of farm animals:
Perhaps we can be realistic that a majority of people will not give up meat, and try to make conditions better for farm animals instead.
2 Likes
There is a famous saying in China: “If its back faces the sky, you can eat it”.
Nutritionists generally recommend that people eat no more than four ounces of meat a day . That is the equivalent in volume, approx, to a deck of cards.
You might want to limit your dairy products and eggs too. Some of those foods are worse than meat for your health.