The Lancet Skewers Itself
Winston Churchill is reputed to have said, “Never give up on something that you can’t go a day without thinking about.” That does generally reflect my attitude toward eating tasty grilled and smoked animals who, bless them, are put on this good earth for that purpose. I have had a lot of fun trying to master the basics of the very popular wood pellet smoker method of barbecuing, and my latest serious challenge is beef brisket. There are apparently about a thousand varieties of Texas-style brisket, and don’t get me started about the heavenly Kansas City burnt ends variety. A little over a year ago on my first swing at it, and after about eleven hours, and a couple of restarts and fits of mis-decision, I turned out a serviceable product with a decent smoke ring, pretty good flavor, and kindly compliments from the crew at work.
More recently, an article in The Lancet inspired me to smoke another brisket, with less happy results. I was introduced to the phenomenon of “meat stall” wherein several hours into the smoking of a larger cut, the internal temperature will plateau, and possibly even cool. This product while excellent in flavor, was definitely tougher, so the question is to start at slightly higher temps, or just press ahead and hope that an eventual higher internal temp will result in enough connective tissue breakdown to reverse the toughness. The journey becomes the destination.
I am grateful to The Lancet for so inspiring me with “One Health: a call for ecological equity,” in which we learn that humans are just a piece of the big picture.
“Modern attitudes to human health take a purely anthropocentric view—that the human being is the centre of medical attention and concern. One Health places us in an interconnected and interdependent relationship with non-human animals and the environment.” I couldn’t agree more. Our back yard is barely a half-acre, and not large enough to sustain the cows, pigs, and chickens I need to get through the year, so I am all about my interdependence with clean water, clean air, good grasses and grains, and the farmers and ranchers that utilize them.
“For example, providing a growing global population with healthy diets from sustainable food systems is an urgent unmet need. It requires a complete change to our relationship with animals.” What? Hold on a sec…
“The EAT-Lancet Commission takes an equitable approach by recommending people move away from an animal-based diet to a plant-based one, which not only benefits human health, but also animal health and wellbeing.” I don’t understand – why would I contribute to the well-being of livestock … just because?
“The COVID-19 pandemic provides an important example of the need for a One Health approach. Analyses of the successes and failures in managing the pandemic have prioritised health systems and the provision of vaccines and antivirals. But understanding the causes of the pandemic demands a broader ecological perspective.” How could moving to a plant-based diet affect the formulation of communist bio-weapons in subpar labs? And not that I’ve tried, but wearing those ridiculous masks would make it tougher to enjoy ribs.
I have had, you will be delighted to know, more consistent success with smoking pork ribs, low and slow. It can’t be overstated how critical it is to tenderness to remove the connective membrane from the bone side of baby back ribs, and spritzing periodically with apple juice really ups the game.
Oh yeah, back to the One Healther’s…
They are arguing that the use of antibiotics in animals has led to the spread of resistant bacteria and resistance genes in animals, leading to “an estimated 1·2 million people [that] died in 2019 from antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections with another 4·95 million deaths associated with bacterial AMR (antimicrobial resistance) globally. Only by applying a One Health approach can action to address AMR be achieved.” The inference being that those millions of deaths were the result of my very great affinity for spicy chicken wings. Really?
The (ahem) meat of this article, um, rests in this paragraph:
“One huge concern is the risk of worsening inequalities as One Health networks are largely situated and resourced in high-income countries. The current One Health architecture of institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments has led to a fragmented, multilateral health security landscape. As the second paper in The Series points out, a more egalitarian approach is needed, one that is not paternalistic or colonial in telling low-income and middle-income countries what they should do. For example, demanding that wet markets be closed to halt an emerging zoonosis might be technically correct, but if it does not account for those who make their livelihoods from such markets, One Health will only worsen the lives of those it claims to care about. Decolonisation (sic) requires listening to what countries say and what their needs are.” It takes real talent to blend in themes of authoritarianism, wealth redistribution, race hustling, and pro-CCP COVID propaganda in the same paragraph, using Marxist veganism as the vehicle, but they pulled it off.
You may be asking, “Conrad, why did you drag us through this foolishness and your gluttony for protein?” The question you should be asking is, “Why is the once relevant and respected Lancet awarding its imprimatur to this ideological conditioning and absurd political bullying?” Once again, establishment medicine is in thrall to the screechy periphery, advocating the subjugation of life’s pleasures as some sort of unattainable panacea and calling it “health.”
I don’t know what Churchill might have said, but I’d wager he had more fun fighting the Nazis than he would have these insufferable do-gooders posing as doctors.
In college I had a lot of crap classes that didn’t teach much. But I had the opportunity to take introduction to logic, which blessedly counted as a math. It was and still is useful. Very. So – the lancet has created a classic logical argument. All animals are equal, humans are animals, therefore eating all animals is wrong. This is solid and a valid argument.
However-
It is equally an argument for cannibalism. If some animals eat some animals (birds eat insects, lions eat zebras, etc.) then eating all animals are equal. Knowing my fellow man, I have no desire to eat their flesh, so I will blissfully stick to traditional meat animals and would welcome a chance to sample your brisket. Just not YOUR brisket.