Sacred Cow: The Case for (Better) Meat: Why Well-Raised Meat Is Good for You and Good for the Planet
by Diana Rodgers & Rob Wolf
BenBella Books
They say a book shouldnât be judged by its cover. But in the case of Sacred Cow, the cover reflects quite well what the book is about and the importance of whatâs on the pages inside. Thereâs an image of a cow with a bucolic scene appearing through its body. It shows lush grasses, blue-green mountains, clean streams and a bright blue sky. The implication? The cow is not a disaster for the environment; on the contrary, the cow is a means for cleaning it up. The subtitle of the book is: âThe Case for (Better) Meat.â This makes clear the authorsâ intentions and in case that isnât enough itâs spelled out in the byline (also on the cover): âWhy Well-raised Meat is Good for You and Good for the Planet.â
Based on the cover and the contents, authors Diana Rodgers and Robb Wolf have evidently joined the cause that the Weston A. Price Foundation has been advocating for decadesâspreading the word that meat is beneficial to our health and that of the planet. Rodgers and Wolf push back against the demonization of red meat. Indeed, they had considered âScapegoatâ as an alternate title of the book. They use science to debunk the myths and to prove the point that red meat doesnât deserve its bad rap.
The book is well laid out and exceptionally readable. At the outset, thereâs a âSacred Cow Quick Reference Guideâ with page numbers for the answers to the readersâ most burning questions like 1) âDo vegetarians live longer than meat eaters?â and 2) âDonât cattle emit too much methane?â and 3) âDonât cattle take up âtoo muchâ land?â (Answers, in case youâre curious: 1) âNo significant difference in all-cause mortality.â 2) âThe largest contributors to methane are fossil fuels, fires and wetlands or rice farming.â And 3) âApproximately one-third of the earthâs agricultural land is considered suitable for growing crops. And of this potentially arable land, currently one-third is in use.â)
The book is divided into four parts: the nutritional case, the environmental case and the ethical case for better meat and the What we can do section. Like lawyers in the courtroom, Rodgers and Wolf have clearly done their homework as they logically make their case, point by point. Highlights from each section of the book follow.
The Nutritional case for better meat
The authors explain how âhyperpalatableâ processed foods became a bedrock of the Standard American Diet. During World War II, the U.S. government established farm subsidies to encourage U.S. farmers to produce as much food as possible. By the mid-70s, there was a huge surplus of corn. This corn became high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that was âpumped into every conceivable food: pizzas, coleslaw, meat. It provided that âjust bakedâ sheen on breads and cakes, made everything sweeter, and extended shelf life from days to years.â
This new food-like substance and other grain surpluses made it easy to move toward the low-fat diet that the government began advocating. Rodgers and Wolf make quick work of debunking Ancel Keysâ âSeven Country Studyâ and the World Health Organizationâs recent statement that red meat is âprobably carcinogenic.â
While they obviously disagree with the maligning of meat, itâs worth noting that the authors do not conclude that better meat (ethically raised, without hormones and antibiotics, grass-fed and grass-finished) has actually been proven to be âbetterâ for us! They seemed surprised (and disappointed) that they could not state that unequivocally. The data does not support that conclusion, in their estimation.
However, they do continually emphasize the need for animal foods and animal products in the diet. Like Dr. Weston Price himself, the authors conclude âItâs very clear our ancestors ate animal products, including bone marrow, brains, muscle meat, eggs, dairy, and insects. Thereâs no traditional human culture that excluded animal products.â
Environmental case
In an examination of the impact of cattle on planetary health, Rodgers and Wolf point to the analysis in a 2006 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FA) of the United Nations that has been the source of âMeatless Mondaysâ and countless social media memes that propagate the exaggerated claims that methane from cows is doing more damage than all of the emissions of the entire transportation sector. The report concluded that livestock produce 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. This number was not based on the methane cattle emit. It was founded on everything surrounding the full life cycle of the cattleâthe transportation of feed, of the cattle to processing facilities, of the beef to the stores, etc. The researchers later admitted that it was an unfair assessment of the effect of cattle on the environment but that number (and the negative connotation) became cemented in the public consciousness.
Some simply argue that cattle are eating food that would otherwise go to people. The authors reference a 2016 article from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that indicates that typical cattle over the course of their lives only get 10 percent of their diet from grain. In other words, about 90 percent of what cows eat is inedible by humans.
Cattle do not take up too much land or drink too much water either. As stated earlier, not all land is arable. In other words, cattle and other grazing animals make use of land that Is too rocky, steep or arid to support crops. And when it comes to water, the authors mention that the methodology used to blame cattle for using too much water is flawed because it includes rainwater. In fact, cattle serve to improve the water-holding capacity of the soil so that less water is wasted.
Ethical case
Rodgers shares a personal anecdote in this chapterâthe moment her ten-year-old daughter, Phoebe, realized that itâs impossible to be vegan. Phoebe and her friend went down to the pond and came across a dead sheep. It was a horrific scene: intestines all over the grass, blood and wool scattered everywhere. She was grossed out and quite shaken. She discussed it with her parents. âNature can be cruel sometimes,â Diana admitted, adding, âCoyotes need to eat too.â
Just before bed, Phoebeâs father explained how the soil would benefit from the nutrients in the sheep. âThe bones in the sheep will turn into calcium to grow better kale. Everything dies and comes back again.â Thatâs when it struck Phoebe âThose bones turn into vegetables?â She paused. âSo then itâs impossible to be a vegan! If the soil is living and everything dead comes back to life, then you canât possibly eat without eating something that has died.â This story reminds us of the fact that we are all nourished by animal products, whether we recognize it or not.
Rodgers and Wolf remind us that human beings may be the most compassionate killers on the planet. As Sally Fallon Morell puts it, farm animals are protected and cared for and only have one bad day. Animals in the wild? Well, thatâs another story. A ânatural deathâ in the wild can be one that follows a surprise, stressful attack from a predator, leading to a drawn-out and painful death. Or, if the animal finds a way to survive on its own, in old age its organs may begin to fail or it may go blind or lame. Is this process more humane or ethical? It takes a lot of mental, emotional and psychological gymnastics to conclude that it is.
What we can do
Obviously, to improve our health and that of the planet, avoiding meat altogether is not the answer–not when we know how very nutrient-dense it is. As a matter of fact, Rodgers and Wolf point out that it is unethical to suggest that everyone eat less meat. They cite that 1.62 billion people worldwide suffer from anemia. Since red meat is our most bio-available source of iron, it seems almost immoral to try to persuade people to take it out of the diet. The authors also point out that for many living in poverty, livestock is an asset, lifting them out of hunger and toward independence.
In conclusion, the authors recommend that we âeat like a nutrivore.â In other words, they underscore the need for a nutrient-dense diet, especially one that includes animal products from regenerative farms. The diet they advocate sounds strangely familiar to those who espouse the Wise Traditions lifestyle. (I was pleased to see that they even mention the importance of the âproper preparationâ of grains and legumes!)
Rodgers and Wolf make a convincing case for better meat in this informative tome. I give it a hearty thumbs up. It is a wonderful resource for WAPFers to enjoy and to share with those who will be happy to discover that eating meat can help both them and the planet thrive.
đ¨ď¸ Print post
Leave a Reply