Negative Chemicals...Woo??

[McCragge]

I am not sure if this is the right forum section for this. If not I apologize before hand.

In any case I run a seperate forum and one of my members had mentioned this

There is also the issue of stress. As all emotions are chemicals produced by the brain, it is not unreasonable to think that an animal that lives it's life under constant stress and chaos will have an excess of these negative chemicals in it's system, which can then be passed on via the consumption of its flesh.

This is in reference to cows and pigs living in corporate farms and what not. But anyway, the statement to me seems wrong. Needless to say I am a bit skeptical of its validity. As I read I am thinking that chemicals produced by the brain, would stay in the brain...but I am not a doctor, so maybe he is right. But I also think, why would these chemicals enter the muscle tissue of the animal, and even if it did, would cooking damage or change the chemicals? Would the digestive acids in our stomachs do that as well. And then, finally, would these negative chemicals have to be transferred to our blood stream and delivered to our brains to make it work? Again I am no doctor, and I would hate to start saying this is a bunch of bull**** without first getting my facts straight. So I thought I would come to the JREF and see what people here thought of it, and maybe direct me to a place where I could research more into it.

Thanks in advance!

McCragge

[steenkh]

I am sure that these stress hormones would not make it through cooking and our digestive system, but they could degrade the animal tissue and make it taste bad. Some people believe they can taste the difference from a happy cow and a stressed cow, or eggs laid by happy hens as opposed to caged hens.

I have been told that a large release of adrenaline just before the slaughter will make the flesh taste sour.

i do not know if all of this is true. I doubt that I can taste the difference. In any case, I doubt that I have ever eaten a cow that did not have a lot of adrenaline in its blood when it was slaughtered.

[drfrank]

I am not sure if this is the right forum section for this. If not I apologize before hand.

In any case I run a seperate forum and one of my members had mentioned this



This is in reference to cows and pigs living in corporate farms and what not. But anyway, the statement to me seems wrong. Needless to say I am a bit skeptical of its validity. As I read I am thinking that chemicals produced by the brain, would stay in the brain...but I am not a doctor, so maybe he is right. But I also think, why would these chemicals enter the muscle tissue of the animal, and even if it did, would cooking damage or change the chemicals? Would the digestive acids in our stomachs do that as well. And then, finally, would these negative chemicals have to be transferred to our blood stream and delivered to our brains to make it work? Again I am no doctor, and I would hate to start saying this is a bunch of bull**** without first getting my facts straight. So I thought I would come to the JREF and see what people here thought of it, and maybe direct me to a place where I could research more into it.

Thanks in advance!

McCragge

To me, this sounds like woo stuff about negative energy after an attempt to transfer it to chemistry.

As far as I know, the only chemical associated with emotion/stress that could be present in muscle tissue would be adrenaline, and that would be the same whether the animals were feeling deliriously happy and in love or terrified.

The rest of the emotional state is mainly dependent on neurotransmitter levels confined within the brain and. Even if you directly ate the brain, the overall amount of neurotransmitter chemicals would be about the same regardless of state: they'd just be bound in slightly different places (i.e. pre-synaptic or post-synaptic).

So, even if you directly ate the brain, I can't see there being much difference in what you ingest. From normal meat, at best, there may be an increase in adrenaline.

That's only the first problem: the next would be whether consuming these chemicals could have any significant effect on your neurobiology. I definitely think the onus would be on them to demonstrate that a given chemical has a negative impact on humans when ingested and will be increased in muscle tissue when the animal is under stress.

[drfrank]

I am sure that these stress hormones would not make it through cooking and our digestive system, but they could degrade the animal tissue and make it taste bad. Some people believe they can taste the difference from a happy cow and a stressed cow, or eggs laid by happy hens as opposed to caged hens.

I have been told that a large release of adrenaline just before the slaughter will make the flesh taste sour.

i do not know if all of this is true. I doubt that I can taste the difference. In any case, I doubt that I have ever eaten a cow that did not have a lot of adrenaline in its blood when it was slaughtered.

I'm believe that the thinking behind McCragge's original quote was that, if the animal had a stressful life, then by eating its flesh we would also become more stressed (which smacks slightly of sympathetic magic). So, although the quality of meat may well be affected deleteriously, this doesn't make the original statement any less bollocks :)

[MRC_Hans]

Some chemicals produced by the brain are stress hormones. They come in complementaries: Some that induce stress (stress, in reasonable amounts is useful), others that relieve stress.

You could call this postitive and negative chemicals.

None of them have an effect when eaten (not to mention being cooked), however, a stressful life for a meat animal, apart from ethical issues, impacts meat quality. It does not make us stressed, however.

Hans

[Aepervius]

If I pay 30€ for a very good T bone steaks and i get minor quality I certainly feel very stressed ;).

[Overman]

An exceptional book on the subject of stress effects on the brain and body is entitled "Why zebras don't get ulcers" and is a great read. It is written in a very cool whitty fashion and brings everything back to everyday life issues.

Many off these chemicals go into the bloodstream.

There are also many chemicals and compounds that affect the body profoundly even in the smallest doses.

However, It remains woo because there is no support to those chemicals in the brain being "negitive".

In fact they would most likely be "healthy" chemicals that are helping the animals cope with the stress.

All of which doesn't matter one bit. Because when I eat steak or bacon, the only thing going on in my brain is a whole mess of endorphins because that s*** tastes great!!!

Check out that book though its a great read!

[NeilC]

Stress appears to be connected with the deposit of chloresterol in humans so maybe it's possible that stressed out meat might have a worse fat profile?

[Pup]

Coincidentally, I've just been reading up on neurotransmitters, nutritional supplements that affect them (generally amino acids), and stress.

There's a good article here. http://www.trauma-pages.com/vanderk4.htm It's about prolonged stress in the human brain and how it changes the brain/body chemically, but much of it would apply to similar animal brains, and some is based on animal experiments.

However, I can see no indication that eating the flesh of a stressed animal would make any noticeable difference in the consumer's neurotransmitters, negative or positive. And even if it did, it would seem that we're best adapted for eating that kind of meat anyway, seeing as how wild animals hunted and slaughtered with crude tools are the food we developed on, not placid cattle grazing peacefully until the moment they're instantly killed.

[casebro]

Insulin needs to be injected to be functional. Why? Because it's a protein based hormone, and can't make it through the digestive tract without being broken down to it's build-block amino acids. The same goes for other hormones. Including adrenaline- note, it is injected for shock, not given orally.

Aand, subjectively, with ever more more modern farming techniques, hasn't our life span increased? Doesn't it continue to increase? SOoo, more beneficial chemicals must be getting through, not more bad ones?

[JohnF_73]

There's an advertisement that uses that sort of thinking, for milk... showing cows being massaged by sqirrels.. and trying to tell the viewer that happier cows give better milk.

I'll believe it when I see a real squirrel massaging a cow.

Not before.

[NeilC]

Aand, subjectively, with ever more more modern farming techniques, hasn't our life span increased? Doesn't it continue to increase? SOoo, more beneficial chemicals must be getting through, not more bad ones?

I don't think this is much of an argument since there are many other reasons why our lifespan has increased and lifespan is not the only measure of health.

[NeilC]

There's an advertisement that uses that sort of thinking, for milk... showing cows being massaged by sqirrels.. and trying to tell the viewer that happier cows give better milk.

I'll believe it when I see a real squirrel massaging a cow.

Not before.

It's quite possible that stressed cows output milk with a different makeup. i can think of a number of evolutionary reasons why this might be the case. They certainly pass on chemicals in their milk. You can buy Night-time milk from cattle which has high amounts of melotonin in it - sold to help you sleep.

Japanese Kobe beef is made from cattle who are given a happy life (as well as a diet of beer, daily massage amongst other things) - they believe the happy animal produces better beef. Who knows?

Re: evolution - sure we are partly evolved to eat hunted/stressed animals but that doesn't rule out stress having a negative effect on food entirely. It's possible we evolved to cope with stressed meat but that doesn't mean it is optimally healthy. Also it could be the case that the meat that is only recently stressed is not the same as meat from an animal which has been stressed it's whole life.

[JPK]

Good morning.

Of course we know this is true!!! Look at the great lengths the meat industry is going through to prevent us from eating meat from MAD COWS!!!
JPK

[Rolfe]

There are a lot of aspects of stress which will affect meat quality, including the acid-base balance of the animal. And there are a lot of hormones and so on involved in the stress response which will be present in the bloodstream. However, even if some of these constituents make it through the cooking process, it's vanishingly unlikely you'd get enough in a normal serving of meat to affect a human. And after all, for millennia, all meat eaten by humans would have been very stressed indeed (think, hunting), so it's not exactly unnatural, is it?

It's true that unstressed animals produce the finest meat, but to think you'd catch stress by eating a stressed animal does indeed smack very much of sympathetic magic.

Rolfe.

[McCragge]

Wow, once again you guys come through. Thank you again. I will look into that book you had mentioned. :)

I thought it sounded a bit woo to me as well. I don't know...it is sorta like when you are trying to type a word you are not sure how to spell, and it just doesn't look right. Well that is how I felt with that statement.

It is great to be able to come to a place and find out if I am just being overly skeptical or if infact the above statement is far-fetched.

Thank you guys again

McCragge (lurker mode back on)

[Lynx2174]

closest thing I can think of as a negative chemical for the brain is something that causes hyperpolarization across the synapse. so, like beer. and prozac. mabye if the animal was on a bunch of depressants, it could affect you if you ate it raw, but I severely doubt any kind of naturally occurring chemical related to the nervous system which is created by animals taken in the amounts you'd find naturally would have ANY effect at all. I'd look more to the muscle makeup of the animal for any signs of differing taste caused by lifestyle

[MRWiffen]

I've always heard that animals with high stress grow slower and produce less milk. All farms would try to keep the stress to the lowest possible level since it would be cheaper to produce meat and milk. To feed an animal only to have the energy from the feed go into producing stress hormones along with the change in actions is not very cost effective.

[Ladewig]

As far as I know, the only chemical associated with emotion/stress that could be present in muscle tissue would be adrenaline, and that would be the same whether the animals were feeling deliriously happy and in love or terrified.


My biology is weak, so I have to ask. Being in love releases adrenaline?

[aggle-rithm]

There was a case a number of years back when a certain geographic area began to experience high incidences of thyroid disfunction. They finally traced it to two factors: Increased consumption of extra-lean hamburger meat, and a certain slaughterhouse that had switched from kosher to gentile, and was allowing thyroid matter to be ground up with the neck meat (which is used to make the extra-lean hamburger). A quick experiment using the contaminated meat and a control sample showed that this could indeed cause the problem.

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but I saw it on TV, so it must be true! Anyone have any more information on this?

[Mongrel]

It's quite possible that stressed cows output milk with a different makeup. i can think of a number of evolutionary reasons why this might be the case. They certainly pass on chemicals in their milk. You can buy Night-time milk from cattle which has high amounts of melotonin in it - sold to help you sleep.

Splossy, Ben Goldacre covered this on his Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/?p=111) column. Not good I'm afraid

[drfrank]

My biology is weak, so I have to ask. Being in love releases adrenaline?
Never felt a rush and had your heart pound when you're with someone? :v:

[NeilC]

Splossy, Ben Goldacre covered this on his Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/?p=111) column. Not good I'm afraid

I can't really comment on NightTime milk specifically but I must say that Ben is also guilty of Bad Science. All he did was ring then and was told the melotonin levels were not as high as tablets. He doesn't know the amount. He also says that the reason why the melotonin is raised is because they milk them in the morning - the producers say that they have specially bred a herd with high levels.

He says "This milk, I would say, is milk". So "he would say" - with no real evidence, no trial, no test. I'm not sure if they are guilty of bad science of just hype marketing.

Not that it really matters. I was only mentioning it as an example of how chemicals can be passed down in animal products.

[skooob]

White veal and foie gras are examples of unhappy animals being tastier than happy ones.

[casebro]

Aand, what about the monkey delicacy in South East Asia? They beat a monkey to death, over several days, before eating. Supposed to be very tender. Does it lead to criminal behavior from the consumers?

[Ladewig]

Never felt a rush and had your heart pound when you're with someone? :v:

It never felt like leaning over too far on a ladder and having the ladder fall out from under me.