What do you think?
Rate this book
Sacred Cow: The Case for (Better) Meat: Why Well-Raised Meat Is Good for You and Good for the Planet
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY BESTSELLER
We're told that if we care about our health—or our planet—eliminating red meat from our diets is crucial. That beef is bad for us and cattle farming is horrible for the environment. But science says otherwise.
Beef is framed as the most environmentally destructive and least healthy of meats. We're often told that the only solution is to reduce or quit red meat entirely. But despite what anti-meat groups, vegan celebrities, and some health experts say, plant-based agriculture is far from a perfect solution. In Sacred Cow , registered dietitian Diana Rodgers and former research biochemist and New York Times bestselling author Robb Wolf explore the quandaries we face in raising and eating animals—focusing on the largest (and most maligned) of farmed animals, the cow.
Taking a critical look at the assumptions and misinformation about meat, Sacred Cow points out the flaws in our current food system and in the proposed "solutions." Inside, Rodgers and Wolf reveal contrarian but science-based findings, such as:
• Meat and animal fat are essential for our bodies.
• A sustainable food system cannot exist without animals.
• A vegan diet may destroy more life than sustainable cattle farming.
• Regenerative cattle ranching is one of our best tools at mitigating climate change.
You'll also find practical guidance on how to support sustainable farms and a 30-day challenge to help you transition to a healthful and conscientious diet. With scientific rigor, deep compassion, and wit, Rodgers and Wolf argue unequivocally that meat (done right) should have a place on the table.
It's not the cow , it's the how !
We're told that if we care about our health—or our planet—eliminating red meat from our diets is crucial. That beef is bad for us and cattle farming is horrible for the environment. But science says otherwise.
Beef is framed as the most environmentally destructive and least healthy of meats. We're often told that the only solution is to reduce or quit red meat entirely. But despite what anti-meat groups, vegan celebrities, and some health experts say, plant-based agriculture is far from a perfect solution. In Sacred Cow , registered dietitian Diana Rodgers and former research biochemist and New York Times bestselling author Robb Wolf explore the quandaries we face in raising and eating animals—focusing on the largest (and most maligned) of farmed animals, the cow.
Taking a critical look at the assumptions and misinformation about meat, Sacred Cow points out the flaws in our current food system and in the proposed "solutions." Inside, Rodgers and Wolf reveal contrarian but science-based findings, such as:
• Meat and animal fat are essential for our bodies.
• A sustainable food system cannot exist without animals.
• A vegan diet may destroy more life than sustainable cattle farming.
• Regenerative cattle ranching is one of our best tools at mitigating climate change.
You'll also find practical guidance on how to support sustainable farms and a 30-day challenge to help you transition to a healthful and conscientious diet. With scientific rigor, deep compassion, and wit, Rodgers and Wolf argue unequivocally that meat (done right) should have a place on the table.
It's not the cow , it's the how !
320 pages, Hardcover
First published July 14, 2020
482 people are currently reading
3582 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
August 18, 2020
I'm a little scared to write a review for this book for fear of the "vegan-crowd" coming after me. But, I think this book contains important/relevant information and it's definitely a "game-changer".
Diet and nutrition are topics I truly enjoy learning about. I have read everything from The China Study to The Omnivore's Dilemma to all of Joel Salatin's works. I have seen Forks Over Knives, What The Health, and The Biggest Little Farm documentaries...if it's a nutritional science book or documentary, I have read or seen it--not joking.
I WAS a vegetarian for 12+ years in my adolescent and young adult life, got sick with a gluten-intolerance that I am convinced is undiagnosed Celiac, and had to drastically change my diet. Since then (2012), I have been eating a mostly (80%) paleo diet because it is what makes me feel my best and thrive. But I always had conflicting feelings about the environmental impacts of my diet and those concerns grew as I was taking my graduate-level environmental and ecology classes. Everywhere I turn it's: "meatless Mondays", "One Meal A Day", "eat vegan for the planet" and I love that this book shows eating meat can actually be better for the environment than being a vegan. That's great because I have always said grass-fed beef is a superfood and you can pry my grass-fed Ribeyes from my cold-dead hands : )
Having said all that, this book did not provide me with any "new" information. That is not a diss on the authors, but rather just shows the level of my own research about meat-eating in terms of health and the environment. What this book does well though is it takes an unbiased approach in terms of health, the environment, and the ethics of meat-eating and puts it all in one place. (It's extremely hard to find unbiased scientific information out there about grass-fed cattle and carbon sequestration). It's also hard to find all three aspects of meat-eating (ethic, environmental, and health) all in one place. Many sources address only 1 or 2 of the 3. This book assembles all that information in one very easy-to-read format, with graphics that are AMAZING and help you further understand everything. I almost wish some of the graphics were larger colored foldouts. I personally eat only grass-fed beef, but I was a bit surprised to see that Diana and Robb concluded (health-wise) it was nearly identical to conventional beef, showing to me their true unbias-ness.
I also appreciate their long bibliography at the end and have plans to read some of that literature they cited--you know, just for fun : )
Overall, I loved this book and all of Diana and Robb's work. I have been recommending this book to all my friends and family and I can assure you that I will be watching the documentary when it comes out. I just wish this information was more popular in a day and age where every celeb is praised for being a vegan.
Diet and nutrition are topics I truly enjoy learning about. I have read everything from The China Study to The Omnivore's Dilemma to all of Joel Salatin's works. I have seen Forks Over Knives, What The Health, and The Biggest Little Farm documentaries...if it's a nutritional science book or documentary, I have read or seen it--not joking.
I WAS a vegetarian for 12+ years in my adolescent and young adult life, got sick with a gluten-intolerance that I am convinced is undiagnosed Celiac, and had to drastically change my diet. Since then (2012), I have been eating a mostly (80%) paleo diet because it is what makes me feel my best and thrive. But I always had conflicting feelings about the environmental impacts of my diet and those concerns grew as I was taking my graduate-level environmental and ecology classes. Everywhere I turn it's: "meatless Mondays", "One Meal A Day", "eat vegan for the planet" and I love that this book shows eating meat can actually be better for the environment than being a vegan. That's great because I have always said grass-fed beef is a superfood and you can pry my grass-fed Ribeyes from my cold-dead hands : )
Having said all that, this book did not provide me with any "new" information. That is not a diss on the authors, but rather just shows the level of my own research about meat-eating in terms of health and the environment. What this book does well though is it takes an unbiased approach in terms of health, the environment, and the ethics of meat-eating and puts it all in one place. (It's extremely hard to find unbiased scientific information out there about grass-fed cattle and carbon sequestration). It's also hard to find all three aspects of meat-eating (ethic, environmental, and health) all in one place. Many sources address only 1 or 2 of the 3. This book assembles all that information in one very easy-to-read format, with graphics that are AMAZING and help you further understand everything. I almost wish some of the graphics were larger colored foldouts. I personally eat only grass-fed beef, but I was a bit surprised to see that Diana and Robb concluded (health-wise) it was nearly identical to conventional beef, showing to me their true unbias-ness.
I also appreciate their long bibliography at the end and have plans to read some of that literature they cited--you know, just for fun : )
Overall, I loved this book and all of Diana and Robb's work. I have been recommending this book to all my friends and family and I can assure you that I will be watching the documentary when it comes out. I just wish this information was more popular in a day and age where every celeb is praised for being a vegan.
October 16, 2020
“Sacred Cow: The case for mispresenting vegans and studies: How to use propaganda to sell our products to reader who don’t think critically by the end of the book”
I'm so glad I didn't have to buy this book to read it, it's absolute garbage. Why did I read this book as a vegan? Because I believe most people have something valuable to add to the discussion. I don’t believe in being biased. Unfortunately, I did not do my research with these authors and believed the raving reviews – I barely gained knowledge from this book. Most studies referenced to are not even interesting. I’ve learned more effectively from carnivores diet people than from this book. Incredible waste of time unfortunately. This book is a huge propaganda book that leads to Chapter 17 where they want you to buy more of their products.
One could write a mini-book about everything the authors got wrong. It would be harmful if this book got more attention from more people who don’t review the studies and claims made in the book. I wonder what some of the authors of referenced studies would think if they saw how their studies were being misrepresented. The book is a mix of full-truths, half-truths, information manipulation and cherry-picking. First time I read a book like this and I’m disgusted. One problem I found with the book is that the authors are discussing themes/areas in which they are not even knowledgeable and it’s painfully obvious for someone who is well-read.
The case this book makes is that vegans and vegetarians have healthy life choices that leads to prolonged life expectancy in accordance with Blue Zones – but when it comes to food, then they are dead wrong! That is the one thing that those damn vegans/vegetarians got wrong!
“Chapter 17 - Selling our products and services” If you have gotten that far, then, know that everything stated in all 16 chapters have been completely forgotten. Here is a summary of Chapter 17: “Remember how fruits, avocados, coconuts, nuts, legumes, vegetables, etc were all extremely terrible because vegans/vegetarians eat them and it causes massive damage to the earth in the previous chapters? Yes, include that in your diet – it’s actually good for you. Oh, and buy our products and services! As long as you follow our diet, you can completely forget about all previously stated ethical and environmental implications of these foods. Monocrops? Erosion? Pesticides? Nitrogen fertilizers? Nevermind that, those were only relevant when we were bashing vegans/vegetarians – you should just concentrate on buying our products! Visit our websites, buy our books and guides. We are objective, truly. Oh, and don’t forget to buy our products.”
Misrepresenting vegans and vegetarians: In the book they intend to make the case that vegans support monocrops, pesticides, earth erosion, Monsanto, ultra-processed foods, etc. This is so damn ridiculous and untrue. How can the authors point fingers at 2-4% of the population and blame them for all the damage caused by this? Where are these monocrops going? To livestock! Wake up!? Why is it the fault of 2-4% of the population? Are the readers and authors idiots? Do they really think the top people in these businesses are vegan/vegetarian or stand to gain much from the 2-4% population? Vegans are not saying that ultra-processed mock-meat should replace meat. I guess these authors have had absolutely no contact with vegans.
Also, vegans are an elite apparently. Wow, exciting – I have yet to meet them! And extremely spiritual as well? Interesting – I have not yet meet those too. I’ve never seen a book with so many lies to be honest. It’s scary how they are portraying vegans and vegetarians. I’m sure the authors would be pretty good at producing Nazi propaganda if they wanted to. The only chapter missing is stating how they are vermins that need to be exterminated.
This book bashes vegans saying how they lack nutrients and are malnourished. I’ve met many fit vegans who have been vegan for 10-20 years – maybe they are ghosts and I’m a medium? Shouldn’t they be dead? For all those years, they have faced death on daily basis and survived. Isn’t it also weird that are extremely few professional athletes follow such diets as being sold in this book? The majority only follow such diets seasonally to cut weight, not as a diet that give them nutrients to compete… You will find many athletes that follow a seasonal plant-based diet during competition. I guess these top athletes and their nutritionist have no idea what they are doing apparently – I guess these athletes also unknowingly dance with death on daily basis.
Both me and my partner have better values for minerals and vitamins than the average person - we don't even take supplements. Just like meat eaters who don’t take supplements. How is this possible? The book was written in 2019-2020, yet refer to misinformed and malnourished vegans the 90’s or before. The reason we don’t need supplements is because vegan goods are already supplemented! Just like how livestock receive supplements, so meat eaters are also second-hand supplementing – exactly as modern vegans. Please stop using old studies to project what is outdated as the reality of today. That staircase of spiritualism is also ridiculous – I know no vegans who believe that shit. Those people are the ex-vegans and stopped being vegan long ago because of how fucked up their ideas were.
The authors state how you should skip ultra-processed foods and sugar. That’s exactly right! This improves your health. But a few chapters back, when vegans did that to improve their health, it was wrong – how dare they do that to better their health, right? The book keeps doing this over and over again while stating how they are being objective. What’s OK for meat eaters is not OK for non-meat eaters.
In Chapter 6, the first reference, there is a table about bioavailability of protein. It is mentioned that they did not take inhibitors into account, but they did! Read the whole study - not the parts that you use to make construct lies.
Subsidies benefit the meat industry in a big way… not vegans.. So why lie about it? With the background of the authors, they should know this. Vegans are only 2-3% of the population, remember? Most of the crops go to livestock, remember? Statements like that make me think that the authors are intentionally lying about most of what is written.
Propaganda: they state how vegans use propaganda while using studies funded by the meat industry. The sugar, oil, meat, dairy and tobacco industries are the biggest propaganda producers because of the huge profits. How exactly do vegans fit in here?
Studies: “American Diabetes Association” sponsored by Kraft, Dannon, Oscar Mayer. NutriRECS who has been funded by ILSI (Cargill/Beef, Monsanto, McDonalds/Meat, Nestle/Dairy, AgriLife/Cattle, Coca-cola/sugar, etc) for stating that sugar isn’t bad for you. And the studies are done by epidemiologist. In the case of the sugar study, they did not disclose the conflict of interest and for the meat one they repeated hiding it. That study they referenced to has been per-reviewed and heavilty criticized. They released that study because of the film “The Game Changers” in order to create confusion and defuse all claims in the movie. Don’t believe me? Read about it. This is propaganda, but it’s fine, right? Excellent idea to put a heavily criticized study in the book. To be honest, I couldn’t believe it when I saw this study listed as a reference. Proves how partial and unknowing the authors are. Epidemiology studies were bashed, but when used to prove how meat is good, then it’s fine apparently. This book is full of contradictions. It is quite sickening.
The study with the park cattle. It is a paid study where they do not explain how they got to the figure of carbon sequestration. In this study they show that mock-meats harm the environment less than all meat types except theirs. I guess it was not convenient to state this in the book though. It’s sad how the authors use parts from the different studies that fit their bias.
All of the contributors to the book except perhaps university professors stand to gain from this book. That’s not strange to be honest, but I’d be ashamed to have been listed in such a book with so many lies. I’m sure NutriRECS and ILSI would applaud you though.
Using Tsimane to make a point how meat doesn’t cause illnesses is dishonest. Especially since the prominent theory is that it is their specific genetics that may be the answer to that. They age slower than the average person. I guess the authors knew this, but decided how it would be genius to use this to create a false reality. I’m surprised the authors know about Blue Zones, but they completely forgot to mention the other Blue Zones where they have a significantly reduced meat consumption. Interesting. Wait a minute? Also, why didn’t the authors mentions Eskimos who predominantly only eat animals? Oh, right, they had cardiovascular diseases.. interesting.. I guess it would not fit this book where cherry-picking is the method of collecting studies.
Did the authors read the study of the Kenyan school? 40-60% of the children had anemia and they were malnourished and lacked micronutrients such as iron, zinc, Vitamin B12, calcium and Vitamin A. Why are picking a study that does not represent the reality of modern vegans? The meat group had added protein in the form of meat-powder (3 times more protein), the milk group had an added glass of cow milk (twice as much protein), and the “vegan” group had additional oil to make up for the calory intake. OIL! Their meal was very poor in protein and these children were malnourished! If they can’t meat their quota for protein intake, then the outcome is obvious. Did the authors read this study before referencing to it, or is it just another lie?
This book even goes as far as to mention the bible. Guess what? As stated in the Bible, there is Eden where meat was not eaten. Shouldn’t this be the goal of a Christian? The word “meat” has been wrongly translated. Look it up. What is true is that Jesus was not against feeding people with fish. So pescatarian would be OK if one can’t go vegan as in Eden. What’s also true is that Noah states that God was OK with eating meat, but he also stated that child rape and murder was OK. So if you go by Noah’s words, I guess, you should also be ok with child rape and murder? Right.. I forgot that this book poorly looks into things and cherry picks. Never mind.
"The real threat to human health and the planet is industrially produced food." Exactly, so why are you promoting the opposite? Why did it become ok to eat chicken, fish, pigs, cattle, etc in the last chapter if this is your message?
The ethics chapter is a disaster. It does not mention fish. Search for “ghost fishing” and read about it. There is no doubt that omnivores cause more death than vegans. Monocrops and crops raised for animals also cause death, but somehow, when it is animal feed, those monocrops don’t cause any harm and death. Most of these monocrops exist to feed animals! When 2-3% of the population buy goods from supermarket that come from monocrops, then it is a grave sin though, and it causes death to all animals and insects. What about the 97-98% who do the same though? What about the 70-75% of land that is used to feed animals? Come on – how can a book be so ridiculous…?
What it gets right - regenerative farming is amazing. Permaculture is amazing. It doesn't absolutely have to involve cows though as is the idea they are selling to you through Allan Savory. The projects in India, Jordan/Nile area, and China did not use ruminants to transform the deserts. It also gets some other things right, but this book would only be one or two chapter long if they reduced it to that. The cons of this book strongly outweighs the pros.
This book is propaganda – lies on top of lies in order to sell more of products.
I'm so glad I didn't have to buy this book to read it, it's absolute garbage. Why did I read this book as a vegan? Because I believe most people have something valuable to add to the discussion. I don’t believe in being biased. Unfortunately, I did not do my research with these authors and believed the raving reviews – I barely gained knowledge from this book. Most studies referenced to are not even interesting. I’ve learned more effectively from carnivores diet people than from this book. Incredible waste of time unfortunately. This book is a huge propaganda book that leads to Chapter 17 where they want you to buy more of their products.
One could write a mini-book about everything the authors got wrong. It would be harmful if this book got more attention from more people who don’t review the studies and claims made in the book. I wonder what some of the authors of referenced studies would think if they saw how their studies were being misrepresented. The book is a mix of full-truths, half-truths, information manipulation and cherry-picking. First time I read a book like this and I’m disgusted. One problem I found with the book is that the authors are discussing themes/areas in which they are not even knowledgeable and it’s painfully obvious for someone who is well-read.
The case this book makes is that vegans and vegetarians have healthy life choices that leads to prolonged life expectancy in accordance with Blue Zones – but when it comes to food, then they are dead wrong! That is the one thing that those damn vegans/vegetarians got wrong!
“Chapter 17 - Selling our products and services” If you have gotten that far, then, know that everything stated in all 16 chapters have been completely forgotten. Here is a summary of Chapter 17: “Remember how fruits, avocados, coconuts, nuts, legumes, vegetables, etc were all extremely terrible because vegans/vegetarians eat them and it causes massive damage to the earth in the previous chapters? Yes, include that in your diet – it’s actually good for you. Oh, and buy our products and services! As long as you follow our diet, you can completely forget about all previously stated ethical and environmental implications of these foods. Monocrops? Erosion? Pesticides? Nitrogen fertilizers? Nevermind that, those were only relevant when we were bashing vegans/vegetarians – you should just concentrate on buying our products! Visit our websites, buy our books and guides. We are objective, truly. Oh, and don’t forget to buy our products.”
Misrepresenting vegans and vegetarians: In the book they intend to make the case that vegans support monocrops, pesticides, earth erosion, Monsanto, ultra-processed foods, etc. This is so damn ridiculous and untrue. How can the authors point fingers at 2-4% of the population and blame them for all the damage caused by this? Where are these monocrops going? To livestock! Wake up!? Why is it the fault of 2-4% of the population? Are the readers and authors idiots? Do they really think the top people in these businesses are vegan/vegetarian or stand to gain much from the 2-4% population? Vegans are not saying that ultra-processed mock-meat should replace meat. I guess these authors have had absolutely no contact with vegans.
Also, vegans are an elite apparently. Wow, exciting – I have yet to meet them! And extremely spiritual as well? Interesting – I have not yet meet those too. I’ve never seen a book with so many lies to be honest. It’s scary how they are portraying vegans and vegetarians. I’m sure the authors would be pretty good at producing Nazi propaganda if they wanted to. The only chapter missing is stating how they are vermins that need to be exterminated.
This book bashes vegans saying how they lack nutrients and are malnourished. I’ve met many fit vegans who have been vegan for 10-20 years – maybe they are ghosts and I’m a medium? Shouldn’t they be dead? For all those years, they have faced death on daily basis and survived. Isn’t it also weird that are extremely few professional athletes follow such diets as being sold in this book? The majority only follow such diets seasonally to cut weight, not as a diet that give them nutrients to compete… You will find many athletes that follow a seasonal plant-based diet during competition. I guess these top athletes and their nutritionist have no idea what they are doing apparently – I guess these athletes also unknowingly dance with death on daily basis.
Both me and my partner have better values for minerals and vitamins than the average person - we don't even take supplements. Just like meat eaters who don’t take supplements. How is this possible? The book was written in 2019-2020, yet refer to misinformed and malnourished vegans the 90’s or before. The reason we don’t need supplements is because vegan goods are already supplemented! Just like how livestock receive supplements, so meat eaters are also second-hand supplementing – exactly as modern vegans. Please stop using old studies to project what is outdated as the reality of today. That staircase of spiritualism is also ridiculous – I know no vegans who believe that shit. Those people are the ex-vegans and stopped being vegan long ago because of how fucked up their ideas were.
The authors state how you should skip ultra-processed foods and sugar. That’s exactly right! This improves your health. But a few chapters back, when vegans did that to improve their health, it was wrong – how dare they do that to better their health, right? The book keeps doing this over and over again while stating how they are being objective. What’s OK for meat eaters is not OK for non-meat eaters.
In Chapter 6, the first reference, there is a table about bioavailability of protein. It is mentioned that they did not take inhibitors into account, but they did! Read the whole study - not the parts that you use to make construct lies.
Subsidies benefit the meat industry in a big way… not vegans.. So why lie about it? With the background of the authors, they should know this. Vegans are only 2-3% of the population, remember? Most of the crops go to livestock, remember? Statements like that make me think that the authors are intentionally lying about most of what is written.
Propaganda: they state how vegans use propaganda while using studies funded by the meat industry. The sugar, oil, meat, dairy and tobacco industries are the biggest propaganda producers because of the huge profits. How exactly do vegans fit in here?
Studies: “American Diabetes Association” sponsored by Kraft, Dannon, Oscar Mayer. NutriRECS who has been funded by ILSI (Cargill/Beef, Monsanto, McDonalds/Meat, Nestle/Dairy, AgriLife/Cattle, Coca-cola/sugar, etc) for stating that sugar isn’t bad for you. And the studies are done by epidemiologist. In the case of the sugar study, they did not disclose the conflict of interest and for the meat one they repeated hiding it. That study they referenced to has been per-reviewed and heavilty criticized. They released that study because of the film “The Game Changers” in order to create confusion and defuse all claims in the movie. Don’t believe me? Read about it. This is propaganda, but it’s fine, right? Excellent idea to put a heavily criticized study in the book. To be honest, I couldn’t believe it when I saw this study listed as a reference. Proves how partial and unknowing the authors are. Epidemiology studies were bashed, but when used to prove how meat is good, then it’s fine apparently. This book is full of contradictions. It is quite sickening.
The study with the park cattle. It is a paid study where they do not explain how they got to the figure of carbon sequestration. In this study they show that mock-meats harm the environment less than all meat types except theirs. I guess it was not convenient to state this in the book though. It’s sad how the authors use parts from the different studies that fit their bias.
All of the contributors to the book except perhaps university professors stand to gain from this book. That’s not strange to be honest, but I’d be ashamed to have been listed in such a book with so many lies. I’m sure NutriRECS and ILSI would applaud you though.
Using Tsimane to make a point how meat doesn’t cause illnesses is dishonest. Especially since the prominent theory is that it is their specific genetics that may be the answer to that. They age slower than the average person. I guess the authors knew this, but decided how it would be genius to use this to create a false reality. I’m surprised the authors know about Blue Zones, but they completely forgot to mention the other Blue Zones where they have a significantly reduced meat consumption. Interesting. Wait a minute? Also, why didn’t the authors mentions Eskimos who predominantly only eat animals? Oh, right, they had cardiovascular diseases.. interesting.. I guess it would not fit this book where cherry-picking is the method of collecting studies.
Did the authors read the study of the Kenyan school? 40-60% of the children had anemia and they were malnourished and lacked micronutrients such as iron, zinc, Vitamin B12, calcium and Vitamin A. Why are picking a study that does not represent the reality of modern vegans? The meat group had added protein in the form of meat-powder (3 times more protein), the milk group had an added glass of cow milk (twice as much protein), and the “vegan” group had additional oil to make up for the calory intake. OIL! Their meal was very poor in protein and these children were malnourished! If they can’t meat their quota for protein intake, then the outcome is obvious. Did the authors read this study before referencing to it, or is it just another lie?
This book even goes as far as to mention the bible. Guess what? As stated in the Bible, there is Eden where meat was not eaten. Shouldn’t this be the goal of a Christian? The word “meat” has been wrongly translated. Look it up. What is true is that Jesus was not against feeding people with fish. So pescatarian would be OK if one can’t go vegan as in Eden. What’s also true is that Noah states that God was OK with eating meat, but he also stated that child rape and murder was OK. So if you go by Noah’s words, I guess, you should also be ok with child rape and murder? Right.. I forgot that this book poorly looks into things and cherry picks. Never mind.
"The real threat to human health and the planet is industrially produced food." Exactly, so why are you promoting the opposite? Why did it become ok to eat chicken, fish, pigs, cattle, etc in the last chapter if this is your message?
The ethics chapter is a disaster. It does not mention fish. Search for “ghost fishing” and read about it. There is no doubt that omnivores cause more death than vegans. Monocrops and crops raised for animals also cause death, but somehow, when it is animal feed, those monocrops don’t cause any harm and death. Most of these monocrops exist to feed animals! When 2-3% of the population buy goods from supermarket that come from monocrops, then it is a grave sin though, and it causes death to all animals and insects. What about the 97-98% who do the same though? What about the 70-75% of land that is used to feed animals? Come on – how can a book be so ridiculous…?
What it gets right - regenerative farming is amazing. Permaculture is amazing. It doesn't absolutely have to involve cows though as is the idea they are selling to you through Allan Savory. The projects in India, Jordan/Nile area, and China did not use ruminants to transform the deserts. It also gets some other things right, but this book would only be one or two chapter long if they reduced it to that. The cons of this book strongly outweighs the pros.
This book is propaganda – lies on top of lies in order to sell more of products.
July 1, 2020
Sacred Cow gets five stars because it addresses the elephants in the room:
The false narratives around cows and the environment.
The false narratives around cows vs "plant-based" diets.
The false narratives around conventional agriculture vs regenerative agriculture.
Cows are amazing animals and are indeed sacred. This book explodes the myths and breathes truth into the lies that poison public debate about cows.
It covers critical questions about our health and planetary health:
Is meat a healthy food?
Are cattle bad for the environment?
Do cattle use too much water?
Is eating meat immoral?
What's our best move in how we treat cows in the future?
Diana Rodgers and Robb Wolf give thoughtful well-researched answers to these and many other cow questions. There's a lot to chew on here (pun intended).
If you read just one book on nutrition and the environment this year, Sacred Cow should be the one.
Five stars. Two green thumbs way up.
The false narratives around cows and the environment.
The false narratives around cows vs "plant-based" diets.
The false narratives around conventional agriculture vs regenerative agriculture.
Cows are amazing animals and are indeed sacred. This book explodes the myths and breathes truth into the lies that poison public debate about cows.
It covers critical questions about our health and planetary health:
Is meat a healthy food?
Are cattle bad for the environment?
Do cattle use too much water?
Is eating meat immoral?
What's our best move in how we treat cows in the future?
Diana Rodgers and Robb Wolf give thoughtful well-researched answers to these and many other cow questions. There's a lot to chew on here (pun intended).
If you read just one book on nutrition and the environment this year, Sacred Cow should be the one.
Five stars. Two green thumbs way up.
February 20, 2021
As a beef-eating dietitian, I was interested to hear these authors' perspectives, but gained little from this book. There were a handful of topics they represented well, but these were overshadowed by so many problematic explanations and examples. The nutrition sections were a mess - misrepresented information, cherry picked studies, and half-truths presented as gospel. The book reads like a web article that serves primarily as confirmation bias for those who want to justify their preferred way of eating.
July 25, 2020
Regenerative agriculture is our best hope for healing our health and the planet. If many people read this book and take it seriously, maybe we can save the world.
January 19, 2021
I'm going with a solid 2.5 stars here. This book cries out for a podcast where the author/s are forced to speak side by side with Jonathan Saffron Foer ("We Are the Climate"), or one of the experts whose studies on meat and climate and nutrition he attempts to debunk. I do not have the in-depth knowledge of such studies to really evaluate the claims by Rodgers and Wolf in this book, but I heavily suspect them of cherry-picking data, misrepresenting many of the conclusions of studies presented in footnotes, and selectively applying their rationales. As several others have pointed out, for one example, they neglect to mention that much of the industrial monoculture crops which they correctly decry as ecological disasters in the U.S. exist purely for the purpose of feeding the livestock--while instead the authors describe the ecological and nutritional failure of this monoculture system as a point against eating a vegetarian diet.
But where the authors went overboard and jumped off a cliff was in the morality section. They begin by arguing that our fear/avoidance of death in this society (which I certainly agree is an existential tragedy of our times) is the reason we cannot accept the slaughter of animals for our food. They go on to talk about how brutal death can be among animals in nature (although they later say that most of these brutal deaths involve picking off the weak and old animals). They conclude, "If our goal is to end needless suffering, let's consider more 'humane' ways we humans can end life instead of leaving it up to the hands of 'nature.'" So... because animals kill each other in sometimes not pretty ways, humans should step in and mass-produce animals for eating and kill them more humanely. Seriously?? Needless to say, the authors are dismissive of cultures and religions which hold deeply spiritual beliefs about the immorality of killing animals, esp cows, for human food. The title of the book, "Sacred Cow," is itself a rude insult to those, particularly Hindus, who in fact believe the cow to be sacred and respect cows' lives.
While I am deeply skeptical of much of the information presented in the book, I suspect there is some truth to it as well. The number of people on Goodreads and Amazon who loved the book and gave it 5 stars itself attests to people's great attachment to eating meat, as well as huge distrust in yet another issue where the progressive intelligentsia is perhaps unfairly--perhaps failing to acknowledge the complexity of it all-- attacking a fundamental premise of the lives of so many in the US. Rather than dismiss it, I would like to see more attention focused on the questions raised by the book, which means healthy debates and exchange of analysis, further studies, articles, podcasts, PBS/NPR shows, etc etc. I'd love to read an article by Jonathan Saffron Foer responding to many of the issues in Sacred Cow.
But where the authors went overboard and jumped off a cliff was in the morality section. They begin by arguing that our fear/avoidance of death in this society (which I certainly agree is an existential tragedy of our times) is the reason we cannot accept the slaughter of animals for our food. They go on to talk about how brutal death can be among animals in nature (although they later say that most of these brutal deaths involve picking off the weak and old animals). They conclude, "If our goal is to end needless suffering, let's consider more 'humane' ways we humans can end life instead of leaving it up to the hands of 'nature.'" So... because animals kill each other in sometimes not pretty ways, humans should step in and mass-produce animals for eating and kill them more humanely. Seriously?? Needless to say, the authors are dismissive of cultures and religions which hold deeply spiritual beliefs about the immorality of killing animals, esp cows, for human food. The title of the book, "Sacred Cow," is itself a rude insult to those, particularly Hindus, who in fact believe the cow to be sacred and respect cows' lives.
While I am deeply skeptical of much of the information presented in the book, I suspect there is some truth to it as well. The number of people on Goodreads and Amazon who loved the book and gave it 5 stars itself attests to people's great attachment to eating meat, as well as huge distrust in yet another issue where the progressive intelligentsia is perhaps unfairly--perhaps failing to acknowledge the complexity of it all-- attacking a fundamental premise of the lives of so many in the US. Rather than dismiss it, I would like to see more attention focused on the questions raised by the book, which means healthy debates and exchange of analysis, further studies, articles, podcasts, PBS/NPR shows, etc etc. I'd love to read an article by Jonathan Saffron Foer responding to many of the issues in Sacred Cow.
March 11, 2024
This book should honestly be used in high school classes as an example of all sorts of logical fallacies - it was so frustrating to read, which was annoying because I did want to learn about their arguments but I just couldn't get past the mental gymnastics and misdirections they try to do to make their points.
October 8, 2020
Until about 18 months ago, I was a dedicated vegetarian. I believed, as do many people, that meat is raised in an inhumane fashion and is an environmental disaster. I also had ethical objections to killing animals, believing that an animal should not have to die in order to feed me. I eventually veered away from pure vegetarianism for reasons that had more to do with "life is too short" than any compromise of these values, and always felt a bit conflicted in my choice to return to eating some meat (though only fish and fowl).
But over the years I had also been hearing some whispering going on in the press and elsewhere that perhaps I had gotten this wrong. At first, it was just a suggestion that perhaps I did not have my facts quite straight about the environmental impact of raising meat versus growth of food crops. Then the idea that water usage by animals raised to be eaten was far lower than that used for growing crops, especially water-intensive foods such as rice and almonds. Then came the book The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, Michael Pollan's tour de force describing the importance of meat-producing animals in sustainable agriculture and I was nearly won over, but not quite.
Now comes Sacred Cow, which puts the final nail in the coffin of my vegetarian pretensions. There simply is no conceivable argument beyond the purely religious to think that eating in that way is superior to the diet of an omnivore. Vegetables are important to a rounded diet and add flavor and dash we could not get elsewhere. Fruits, nuts, beans, and such add variety and taste. But for nutrient-dense food that is environmentally sustainable and efficient, I have become convinced that meat is king.
I am aware that this runs counter to many of the dominant narratives in our culture, many of which informed my own decision-making regarding the eating of meat. If you are operating on the belief that meat is environmentally unsound, uses more resources than vegetables, is wasteful of water, is a polluting endeavor, is inhumane in every case, or morally unjustified, I encourage you to read this book with an open mind and at the very least challenge your most cherished beliefs.
Which, I will admit, can present a problem. I have wondered before, when reading books such as these, if they don't all share the same ghost writer. Or perhaps there is a universal template for how they are written. In any case, they all seem to have approximately the same tone, a certain wry humor combined with knowing certainty that seems designed to annoy those who disagree with them. There is a defensiveness here that undermines that certainty and leaves rather a bad taste in the reader's mouth.
Another issue with this book is that the authors are clearly arguing on two fronts, with two entirely different audiences in mind. The first audience is that of the meat skeptic like me who needs to see facts and figures, to be convinced of the efficacy of meat as a food source. But the other audience is the hardcore, evangelical vegan who would like to see all meat-eating done away with, and the authors become quite strident when addressing them. The problem as I see it (since I am of the first group and, even in the midst of my insistence on vegetarianism saw the second group as odd and extreme) is that the arguments are not truly parallel, though they do overlap quite a bit. So we get caught up in this bigger fight when all we want is the facts on the consumption of meat.
I also think the authors occasionally overstate their case, or engage in hyperbole or generalization in areas where there is more subtlety than they wish to acknowledge. At one point, for instance, they state, "Simply put: increase protein, keeping calories the same, work out, and you will likely lose weight". Would that it were that simple. They say that "plants actually can block the absorption of minerals" without providing any source for this assertion. At one point (the beginning of Chapter 8), they claim to be laying out objective criteria for assessing the quality of any food source, and while they do well with the first three points, the fourth is a blatant attempt to indict the evangelical vegan crowd, a far from objective measure. In the same chapter, they ask
Here's the thing, though: they don't need to do this. Even with my annoyance at their tone, my skepticism about their conclusions, my assumption of their bias, and my preconceived notions, I was nonetheless convinced they are essentially correct in their assessment. I don't know that I will rush out and get a nice, bloody steak, but I will certainly be pondering red meat as a part of a well-balanced diet, well-balanced not only for me, but for the planet and all the creatures living in it, even those which must die to produce it. I hope that this book will be read with an open mind by many people, who will then have the information they need to make an informed choice.
But over the years I had also been hearing some whispering going on in the press and elsewhere that perhaps I had gotten this wrong. At first, it was just a suggestion that perhaps I did not have my facts quite straight about the environmental impact of raising meat versus growth of food crops. Then the idea that water usage by animals raised to be eaten was far lower than that used for growing crops, especially water-intensive foods such as rice and almonds. Then came the book The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, Michael Pollan's tour de force describing the importance of meat-producing animals in sustainable agriculture and I was nearly won over, but not quite.
Now comes Sacred Cow, which puts the final nail in the coffin of my vegetarian pretensions. There simply is no conceivable argument beyond the purely religious to think that eating in that way is superior to the diet of an omnivore. Vegetables are important to a rounded diet and add flavor and dash we could not get elsewhere. Fruits, nuts, beans, and such add variety and taste. But for nutrient-dense food that is environmentally sustainable and efficient, I have become convinced that meat is king.
I am aware that this runs counter to many of the dominant narratives in our culture, many of which informed my own decision-making regarding the eating of meat. If you are operating on the belief that meat is environmentally unsound, uses more resources than vegetables, is wasteful of water, is a polluting endeavor, is inhumane in every case, or morally unjustified, I encourage you to read this book with an open mind and at the very least challenge your most cherished beliefs.
Which, I will admit, can present a problem. I have wondered before, when reading books such as these, if they don't all share the same ghost writer. Or perhaps there is a universal template for how they are written. In any case, they all seem to have approximately the same tone, a certain wry humor combined with knowing certainty that seems designed to annoy those who disagree with them. There is a defensiveness here that undermines that certainty and leaves rather a bad taste in the reader's mouth.
Another issue with this book is that the authors are clearly arguing on two fronts, with two entirely different audiences in mind. The first audience is that of the meat skeptic like me who needs to see facts and figures, to be convinced of the efficacy of meat as a food source. But the other audience is the hardcore, evangelical vegan who would like to see all meat-eating done away with, and the authors become quite strident when addressing them. The problem as I see it (since I am of the first group and, even in the midst of my insistence on vegetarianism saw the second group as odd and extreme) is that the arguments are not truly parallel, though they do overlap quite a bit. So we get caught up in this bigger fight when all we want is the facts on the consumption of meat.
I also think the authors occasionally overstate their case, or engage in hyperbole or generalization in areas where there is more subtlety than they wish to acknowledge. At one point, for instance, they state, "Simply put: increase protein, keeping calories the same, work out, and you will likely lose weight". Would that it were that simple. They say that "plants actually can block the absorption of minerals" without providing any source for this assertion. At one point (the beginning of Chapter 8), they claim to be laying out objective criteria for assessing the quality of any food source, and while they do well with the first three points, the fourth is a blatant attempt to indict the evangelical vegan crowd, a far from objective measure. In the same chapter, they ask
How can anyone seriously propose that it's in our best interests to stop raising and eating animals and instead cover every inch of farmable land with the same three crops?as if those are the only two options. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Here's the thing, though: they don't need to do this. Even with my annoyance at their tone, my skepticism about their conclusions, my assumption of their bias, and my preconceived notions, I was nonetheless convinced they are essentially correct in their assessment. I don't know that I will rush out and get a nice, bloody steak, but I will certainly be pondering red meat as a part of a well-balanced diet, well-balanced not only for me, but for the planet and all the creatures living in it, even those which must die to produce it. I hope that this book will be read with an open mind by many people, who will then have the information they need to make an informed choice.
August 22, 2020
Excellent read
This book does an excellent job of articulating the different problems and proposing sound solutions. I really appreciate all of the research data as well so that you can verify the author's claims.
This book does an excellent job of articulating the different problems and proposing sound solutions. I really appreciate all of the research data as well so that you can verify the author's claims.
January 14, 2021
This book omits a lot of data on factory farming and output in the environment from raising beef. What is most absurd is that it uses hypothetical alternatives that name what the case would be if there was no cattle at all. What value does that add at all? I was hoping to hear a clear argument on what the answer is with meat, whether it's limiting our intake or changing how beef is produced, but this book instead makes the case for no meat at all OR meat in every diet when there needs to be some middle ground. Also the title is misleading, it says well-raised meat is better for you but then in the first section states that grass fed small farm beef does not show a difference in nutritional value than that of your factory farmed beef. I was most looking forward to the chapter title "Does cattle take up too much land?". We know a substantial portion of land (including the rainforest which they barely mention) is used to raise cattle and to grow food for cattle. Yet instead of giving an answer on how we got here and why, they simply state it is a policy issue and the US does not get beef from outside the US. I feel like that was the largest opportunity to make a case for better meat and they swept it under the rug with a 2-3 sentence synopsis of it's not beef it's policy. Overall a lot of this data is debate-able, and does not move the need on why small farming beef is better for a diet and the environment.
July 28, 2021
I really tried to give this book a fair shot. It breaks down why meat, and beef in particular, is good from a nutritional, environmental, and ethical standpoint. My main beef (sorry, I couldn't resist) with the book is:
- handwaving away studies that contradict their points while presenting other studies or even anecdotes that fit their narrative
- comparing the best case of grass-fed, free range beef used in renewable agriculture with the worst case of plant based diets that include mostly highly processed, industrially produced monocrops
- contrasting a vegetarian Hitler with meat-eating Jewish people. Really?
They do make some good points, which is why this isn't one star, but it just felt both overly-biased and not logically or rigorously presented.
A pretty firm "do not recommend"
- handwaving away studies that contradict their points while presenting other studies or even anecdotes that fit their narrative
- comparing the best case of grass-fed, free range beef used in renewable agriculture with the worst case of plant based diets that include mostly highly processed, industrially produced monocrops
- contrasting a vegetarian Hitler with meat-eating Jewish people. Really?
They do make some good points, which is why this isn't one star, but it just felt both overly-biased and not logically or rigorously presented.
A pretty firm "do not recommend"
January 11, 2023
Me elame huvitaval ajal. Ajal, mil peab välja andma raamatuid, mis veenavad- vaja on magada, vaja on normaalselt süüa ja nüüd siis, süüa nii, et saad toidust kõik toitained, ilma et vajaksid toidulisandeid. Ja need raamatud pole suunatud koolieelikutele vaid täiskasvanutele ning vajadust sellisteks teadmisteks tõestab kõikide nende raamatute müügiedu.
Raamatu stiil on ameerikalikult pisut hüsteeriline, aga lugedes saad ka aru, miks. Näited, mida ta toob, on kohati uskumatud. Meil Eestis on seni(?) veel hästi(?). Vastavalt maailmavaatele oleme me kas mahajäänud provints või jäänuk ratsionaalsest talupojamõistusest.
Loe edasi https://indigoaalane.blogspot.com/202...
Raamatu stiil on ameerikalikult pisut hüsteeriline, aga lugedes saad ka aru, miks. Näited, mida ta toob, on kohati uskumatud. Meil Eestis on seni(?) veel hästi(?). Vastavalt maailmavaatele oleme me kas mahajäänud provints või jäänuk ratsionaalsest talupojamõistusest.
Loe edasi https://indigoaalane.blogspot.com/202...
August 25, 2022
Als je in de introductie schrijft dat dit boek echt niet dient als aanval op veganisten en vervolgens hele hoofdstukken wijdt aan waarom volledig plantaardig eten stom is dan kan ik je al niet helemaal serieus nemen. Ik stond echt open om andere inzichten te krijgen, maar dit is een hoop bullshit (letterlijk) in een boek zeg. Geschreven zoals ik mijn werkstuk over de Cuba crisis schreef in de brugklas. "En nou, omdat je b12 kunt krijgen door het eten van een koe heb ik net bewezen in tien korte regels waarom dieren eten goed is". Niet perse de letterlijke quote, maar dit is wel de strekking.
De schrijvers van dit boek zijn alles behalve objectief en brengen vooral veel anekdotisch bewijs aan waarom veganisten stom zijn.
Ja, er is dus een vrouw in Finland en haar kind is dood gegaan omdat ze plantaardig eet. Dus daarmee concluderen wij dat veganisten stom zijn.
In de titel gaat het er letterlijk om waarom we juist (beter) vlees moeten eten. Op geen enkele manier wordt daar iets over gezegd, over beter vlees. Sterker nog. Ze beweren dat er geen verschill is tussen eten van koeien die in de wei staan en alleen gras eten en koeien die in megastallen soja naar binnen werken.
Ik heb het niet uit willen lezen, maar ik heb een poging gedaan. Wat nog wel interessant was om te delen, was het hoofdstuk over eten van vlees en zuivel en de link met chronische ziekten. Nou dat is allemaal overtrokken joh. Eten van rood vlees zou de kans op krijgen van kanker met 18% verhogen. Nou de kans dat je kanker krijgen door sigaretten is veel groter hoor! Weet je waar gegarandeerd geen kanker van krijgt? Gestoomde broccoli.
Als dit het beste is wat de vlees lobby te bieden heeft, hoeven wij stomme veganisten ons weinig zorgen te maken.
De schrijvers van dit boek zijn alles behalve objectief en brengen vooral veel anekdotisch bewijs aan waarom veganisten stom zijn.
Ja, er is dus een vrouw in Finland en haar kind is dood gegaan omdat ze plantaardig eet. Dus daarmee concluderen wij dat veganisten stom zijn.
In de titel gaat het er letterlijk om waarom we juist (beter) vlees moeten eten. Op geen enkele manier wordt daar iets over gezegd, over beter vlees. Sterker nog. Ze beweren dat er geen verschill is tussen eten van koeien die in de wei staan en alleen gras eten en koeien die in megastallen soja naar binnen werken.
Ik heb het niet uit willen lezen, maar ik heb een poging gedaan. Wat nog wel interessant was om te delen, was het hoofdstuk over eten van vlees en zuivel en de link met chronische ziekten. Nou dat is allemaal overtrokken joh. Eten van rood vlees zou de kans op krijgen van kanker met 18% verhogen. Nou de kans dat je kanker krijgen door sigaretten is veel groter hoor! Weet je waar gegarandeerd geen kanker van krijgt? Gestoomde broccoli.
Als dit het beste is wat de vlees lobby te bieden heeft, hoeven wij stomme veganisten ons weinig zorgen te maken.
October 29, 2023
First, I'll just say that I liked the messsage here and I think there needs to be more dialogue between these two polarizing ways of eating.
Now, if I'm being honest, I couldn't wait for this one to be over. I wish the author did her own narration of the audio.
The author came into this sounding like she was going to defend meat-eaters to the end...no matter what. But instead we got all the negatives and then she tried to lauch a defense trying to eleveate it from there. For me personally, that didn't work. Give me the science, the studies, the reasons and I'd be glad to sift through that. I think that would have been stronger.
She also had some finger pointing and sacasm for the other side. Bringing the Garden of Eden into this had me cringing. Overall, this didn't work for me. But definitely, there needs to be more dialogue between both sides...so I added a star for that.
Now, if I'm being honest, I couldn't wait for this one to be over. I wish the author did her own narration of the audio.
The author came into this sounding like she was going to defend meat-eaters to the end...no matter what. But instead we got all the negatives and then she tried to lauch a defense trying to eleveate it from there. For me personally, that didn't work. Give me the science, the studies, the reasons and I'd be glad to sift through that. I think that would have been stronger.
She also had some finger pointing and sacasm for the other side. Bringing the Garden of Eden into this had me cringing. Overall, this didn't work for me. But definitely, there needs to be more dialogue between both sides...so I added a star for that.
August 13, 2020
More meat. Better meat.
This is a complex topic that “does not jibe well with the human tendency for extremism and binary solutions.” The authors handle it beautifully. Highly recommended.
Our food system is complex and the current trendy anti-meat proposed solutions are unsustainable, unethical, and simplistic. The authors lay this out in a way that is digestible but honors the complexity.
To be anti-meat is to be anti-nature. It is a complete disconnect from the reality of a sustainable food system and optimal societal health.
I wish I could pull 1000 quotes from this book- but just read it instead!
More meat. Better meat.
This is a complex topic that “does not jibe well with the human tendency for extremism and binary solutions.” The authors handle it beautifully. Highly recommended.
Our food system is complex and the current trendy anti-meat proposed solutions are unsustainable, unethical, and simplistic. The authors lay this out in a way that is digestible but honors the complexity.
To be anti-meat is to be anti-nature. It is a complete disconnect from the reality of a sustainable food system and optimal societal health.
I wish I could pull 1000 quotes from this book- but just read it instead!
More meat. Better meat.
October 25, 2020
I was already an omnivore so didn't need to be convinced; however, this book did ease my fears about what harm eating meat was doing to the planet. It also further confirmed my belief that we can't just accept "common knowledge" as gospel. I've grown to believe that much of the information we are fed is directly tied to corporate interests or to people so tied to their own theories that they have lost all objectivity. My one beef (pun intended) with this book is sometimes they are a bit hyperbolic in their arguments and almost evangelical in expressing their beliefs.
February 6, 2021
Simple brilliant! I wish everyone would read this one just to understand how things work in nature and where we will get with excluding animal meat from our dietary. Uncovering the truth behind popular myths: are cattle contributing to climate change, does meat course chronic disease, answering questions like can a sustainable food system exist without animals, are we eating too much meat.
October 3, 2020
So good... everyone should read this book. It compiles environmental and nutritional information that not nearly enough humans are aware of while also presenting solutions and first steps for readers. Very well written and so important!
July 31, 2020
I can't think of a person who would not benefit from reading this book.
April 21, 2022
A great book about true sustainability in the modern world and how to achieve it through our diet. Eat MORE meat!
February 14, 2024
This book was fun to read, evoked strong emotions, and challenged my thoughts! I'm a vegetarian and a researcher in the decarbonization realm (tho focused on energy, rather than land use/agriculture). I hoped this would provide perspective on regenerative agriculture and ways to minimize meats impact on the environment, but disappointed it was more focused on promoting an even more beef-filled diet. This book promoted the best of the best of beef vs plant-based diets, and neglected to discuss the issues with the current meat industry.
My main focus is on the environmental angle, but the book also addresses health and ethics. Here's a saga of my thoughts while reading it:
PROS/AGREEMENTS
The importance of cows and grazing animals in our food system for maintaining the topsoil! We need biodiversity in our food and soil systems!!!
Putting into perspective that “beef” often gets slammed as the cause of all environmental and health problems, when mono-culture and big-ag and processed foods should be the center.
Benefits of eating locally grown food. This book didn't emphasize this nearly enough in the environmental argument. Really should have emphasized more, esp regarding transportation emissions.
Bashing factory farming and how it created “quick, convenient, and cheap” food which has been driven by the agri-food industry and food policies.
Highlighting the problems with fake meat (esp how it favors profits rather than ethics, environment, or health).
Calling out how the government should stop subsidizing nutrient poor foods that hurt the environment (and health).
Calling out that a lot of the health concerns are related to processed food (it's not the beef that's the issue - but the fries, pop, pizza, etc).
Laid out very nicely and an easy read!
CONS / DISAGREEMENTS
This book frames vegans as pro-industrial agriculture and pesticides... when most environmentalists are extremely pro-regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. This book pits them against meat, where the focus should be on the common enemy: factory farming and monoculture and processed foods.
Focused WAY too much on fake meat vs real meat, rather than meat vs beans and lentils and veggies. Most vegetarians don't want fake meat. I totally agree with their arguments against fake meat, but they missed a lot of comparisons to a more standard vegetarian diet. (Especially the environmental impact from reducing beef intake compared to veggies)
Focused too much on “cow belches” as the key GHG cause. Livestock is 2% of global GHG emissions, as they state. This gives it the highest carbon intensity per kcal of food, which still is significant.
Doesn't address if the entire world's population can sustain an all meat regenerative ag diet, or if cows really take up too much land, or impacts from deforestation/land use change for cow grazing AND cow/animal feed. This is HUGE. By far the biggest gap and flaw in this book's central argument. It's swept under the rug as a policy issue, or an enormously general faulty assumption calculation. This should have been a significant portion of the environmental section… and I was very disappointed in how they covered it (while making it seem like they addressed it with their section headings). They do discuss how not all land is suitable for crops, which can then be used for grazing, but sure - nobody is arguing otherwise.
This would have been a MUCH stronger argument to advocate for LESS beef consumption but better quality and practices, but that would have conflicted with their health argument that beef is the best (and superior to chicken and pork?)
Frequently states that vegans (and vegetarians) are malnourished and unhealthy. It does state vegetarians who are healthier than meat eaters is because they're more intentional about avoiding processed foods and wealthy enough to purchase vegetables. But seems to have conflicting stances on 1) promoting cheap meat and what kind of meat and 2) doesn't address how expensive and privileged healthy meat is. (Especially regarding developing countries). Doesn't acknowledge that regenerative ag/more sustainable practices would skyrocket price of beef! Remove factory farming and the meat industry gets a lot more expensive.
Cited faulty research, and questioned scientists when not in favor of their beliefs. Cited not even published research yet! Many arguments seem full of half truths and cherry picking… and any time the argument turns "the scientists are hiding this from you" I get skeptical.
Does not present actionable steps for the meat industry, other than generally get away from factory farming and use regenerative agriculture. I wanted more action items for policy makers and consumers. The “what can you do” section includes things unrelated to meat consumption, but I can see how that wasn't the intent of the book.
Didn't discuss the differences between chicken and beef and pork a lot… seemed like it was arguing beef is better than chicken. Kept switching between meat as “all meat” or just beef.
Flagged conspiracy theories of vegans…but not that of the meat and dairy industry… which is hella powerful and influential. Ex: the conspiracy idea that promoting vegan diets cause more unhealthy people, resulting in more money for hospitals (and therefore more emissions due to healthcare? Seriously?)
Sequestering carbon research is very much growing right now. Their study on beef actually sequestering carbon is questionable and hasn't been replicated and wasn't published yet!
Used anti-vegetarian arguments that…literally no vegetations claim? Like very unnecessary inclusion of Kellogg’s founder encouraging the vegetarian diet to stop sexual thoughts with the religious perspective? Wtf? And including how Hitler was a vegetarian vs the Jewish consumption of meat? And staircase to enlightenment? What the heck?!
Missed the opportunity to nail the point that diets need to be more vegetables, but meat has a place in that diet too. Doesn't need to be either or. Book actually seemed actually anti-vegetables at times?
It claims conflict of interest for scientists doing research who are vegetarian, while the same argument could be made against the authors of this book (ex: promoting their previously published books on Paleo diet). Seemed a huge propaganda at the end toward their Paleo diets, and completely ignore the environmental and ethical impacts discussed in the previous chapters.
Brushes over, but acknowledges that 36-40% of corn crop goes to livestock feed. Land conversion calculation takes all this land for feeding other animals and converting it to cattle?
Completely neglected that a common trend in blue zones is a mostly plant based diet, with very little meat. But they mentioned blue zones to make it seem like meat = longer life.
I don't know enough about nutrition but it makes me want to dive in deeper. If beef is the best thing to eat nutritionally, then why isn't the paleo recommendation at the end of the book more centered around beef? They were against saying things "in moderation", but that seems to be what they advocate for for beef.
Completely avoids talking about the issues with the current meat industry. I understand it's promoting a different way of producing meat (regenerative ag) but the veggie vs meat-eater debate skirts away from the fact that our current meat system and factory farming is seriously flawed.
IN CONCLUSION
This book felt a lot like beef propaganda to justify eating beef despite health and environmental concerns, where it could have been more strongly focused on the importance of regenerative agriculture, better land management practices, eating locally raised meat, and avoiding processed foods.
Not sure what to rate this book, since it spurred so much debate and was fun to read, but due to the questionable, half-baked arguments, I don't want to recommend it since it was often inaccurate or misrepresented facts (esp regarding the environment).
My main focus is on the environmental angle, but the book also addresses health and ethics. Here's a saga of my thoughts while reading it:
PROS/AGREEMENTS
The importance of cows and grazing animals in our food system for maintaining the topsoil! We need biodiversity in our food and soil systems!!!
Putting into perspective that “beef” often gets slammed as the cause of all environmental and health problems, when mono-culture and big-ag and processed foods should be the center.
Benefits of eating locally grown food. This book didn't emphasize this nearly enough in the environmental argument. Really should have emphasized more, esp regarding transportation emissions.
Bashing factory farming and how it created “quick, convenient, and cheap” food which has been driven by the agri-food industry and food policies.
Highlighting the problems with fake meat (esp how it favors profits rather than ethics, environment, or health).
Calling out how the government should stop subsidizing nutrient poor foods that hurt the environment (and health).
Calling out that a lot of the health concerns are related to processed food (it's not the beef that's the issue - but the fries, pop, pizza, etc).
Laid out very nicely and an easy read!
CONS / DISAGREEMENTS
This book frames vegans as pro-industrial agriculture and pesticides... when most environmentalists are extremely pro-regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. This book pits them against meat, where the focus should be on the common enemy: factory farming and monoculture and processed foods.
Focused WAY too much on fake meat vs real meat, rather than meat vs beans and lentils and veggies. Most vegetarians don't want fake meat. I totally agree with their arguments against fake meat, but they missed a lot of comparisons to a more standard vegetarian diet. (Especially the environmental impact from reducing beef intake compared to veggies)
Focused too much on “cow belches” as the key GHG cause. Livestock is 2% of global GHG emissions, as they state. This gives it the highest carbon intensity per kcal of food, which still is significant.
Doesn't address if the entire world's population can sustain an all meat regenerative ag diet, or if cows really take up too much land, or impacts from deforestation/land use change for cow grazing AND cow/animal feed. This is HUGE. By far the biggest gap and flaw in this book's central argument. It's swept under the rug as a policy issue, or an enormously general faulty assumption calculation. This should have been a significant portion of the environmental section… and I was very disappointed in how they covered it (while making it seem like they addressed it with their section headings). They do discuss how not all land is suitable for crops, which can then be used for grazing, but sure - nobody is arguing otherwise.
This would have been a MUCH stronger argument to advocate for LESS beef consumption but better quality and practices, but that would have conflicted with their health argument that beef is the best (and superior to chicken and pork?)
Frequently states that vegans (and vegetarians) are malnourished and unhealthy. It does state vegetarians who are healthier than meat eaters is because they're more intentional about avoiding processed foods and wealthy enough to purchase vegetables. But seems to have conflicting stances on 1) promoting cheap meat and what kind of meat and 2) doesn't address how expensive and privileged healthy meat is. (Especially regarding developing countries). Doesn't acknowledge that regenerative ag/more sustainable practices would skyrocket price of beef! Remove factory farming and the meat industry gets a lot more expensive.
Cited faulty research, and questioned scientists when not in favor of their beliefs. Cited not even published research yet! Many arguments seem full of half truths and cherry picking… and any time the argument turns "the scientists are hiding this from you" I get skeptical.
Does not present actionable steps for the meat industry, other than generally get away from factory farming and use regenerative agriculture. I wanted more action items for policy makers and consumers. The “what can you do” section includes things unrelated to meat consumption, but I can see how that wasn't the intent of the book.
Didn't discuss the differences between chicken and beef and pork a lot… seemed like it was arguing beef is better than chicken. Kept switching between meat as “all meat” or just beef.
Flagged conspiracy theories of vegans…but not that of the meat and dairy industry… which is hella powerful and influential. Ex: the conspiracy idea that promoting vegan diets cause more unhealthy people, resulting in more money for hospitals (and therefore more emissions due to healthcare? Seriously?)
Sequestering carbon research is very much growing right now. Their study on beef actually sequestering carbon is questionable and hasn't been replicated and wasn't published yet!
Used anti-vegetarian arguments that…literally no vegetations claim? Like very unnecessary inclusion of Kellogg’s founder encouraging the vegetarian diet to stop sexual thoughts with the religious perspective? Wtf? And including how Hitler was a vegetarian vs the Jewish consumption of meat? And staircase to enlightenment? What the heck?!
Missed the opportunity to nail the point that diets need to be more vegetables, but meat has a place in that diet too. Doesn't need to be either or. Book actually seemed actually anti-vegetables at times?
It claims conflict of interest for scientists doing research who are vegetarian, while the same argument could be made against the authors of this book (ex: promoting their previously published books on Paleo diet). Seemed a huge propaganda at the end toward their Paleo diets, and completely ignore the environmental and ethical impacts discussed in the previous chapters.
Brushes over, but acknowledges that 36-40% of corn crop goes to livestock feed. Land conversion calculation takes all this land for feeding other animals and converting it to cattle?
Completely neglected that a common trend in blue zones is a mostly plant based diet, with very little meat. But they mentioned blue zones to make it seem like meat = longer life.
I don't know enough about nutrition but it makes me want to dive in deeper. If beef is the best thing to eat nutritionally, then why isn't the paleo recommendation at the end of the book more centered around beef? They were against saying things "in moderation", but that seems to be what they advocate for for beef.
Completely avoids talking about the issues with the current meat industry. I understand it's promoting a different way of producing meat (regenerative ag) but the veggie vs meat-eater debate skirts away from the fact that our current meat system and factory farming is seriously flawed.
IN CONCLUSION
This book felt a lot like beef propaganda to justify eating beef despite health and environmental concerns, where it could have been more strongly focused on the importance of regenerative agriculture, better land management practices, eating locally raised meat, and avoiding processed foods.
Not sure what to rate this book, since it spurred so much debate and was fun to read, but due to the questionable, half-baked arguments, I don't want to recommend it since it was often inaccurate or misrepresented facts (esp regarding the environment).
March 30, 2022
Amazing read. Definitely recommend.
Sacred Cow has definitely opened my eyes to many things and has helped me with my transition from veganism. Which was very difficult for me because veganism became more than just about health, but also about how my eating choices affected the earth and those living in it, but when it started to ironically affect my health, I knew I had to a tough decision to make. But because I placed my health above all else, it was a necessary change.
Reading Sacred Cow put a lot of things into perspective for me. And what I loved most about it is that it's not a book trying to push you to eat a certain way or to not be vegan if that's the case for you, but to do what's BEST FOR YOU. Everybody's body is different. A one size fits all does not apply to health.
Sacred Cow has definitely opened my eyes to many things and has helped me with my transition from veganism. Which was very difficult for me because veganism became more than just about health, but also about how my eating choices affected the earth and those living in it, but when it started to ironically affect my health, I knew I had to a tough decision to make. But because I placed my health above all else, it was a necessary change.
Reading Sacred Cow put a lot of things into perspective for me. And what I loved most about it is that it's not a book trying to push you to eat a certain way or to not be vegan if that's the case for you, but to do what's BEST FOR YOU. Everybody's body is different. A one size fits all does not apply to health.
February 1, 2021
Very well written case for keeping animals (specifically beef) in our diet. I was previously aware of the nutrients that vegetarians were missing out on due to cutting out meat. The thing I learned the most about was the effects on the soil and the climate that cutting out meat, alternatives, or lab meat have and are never considered when discussing "sustainability".
I found the irony funny about those who claim moral superiority while being the most vocal and critical against those who chose to eat meat.
If you're considering a drastic change in diet such as cutting out meat, read this book first!
I found the irony funny about those who claim moral superiority while being the most vocal and critical against those who chose to eat meat.
If you're considering a drastic change in diet such as cutting out meat, read this book first!
April 18, 2022
As someone who does eat meat, follows a more nutrient dense diet, trying to avoid as much ultra processed food as possible; I was excited to read this book. So much of this book is problematic and vague. They call out studies that are used for the government nutrition recommendations, stating they are misleading, but then do the same to make their cases.There are better sources out there; find them and skip this.
February 5, 2023
I gave up after the cringe-worthy “Grassworld” thought experiment. Not only are the authors barely literate, they also think a completely unscientific sci-fi thought experiment is going to help explain why cattle are good for grasslands.
(Which they are. And meat is good for most of us. The authors are just doing a terrible job at making this clear to the reader.)
(Which they are. And meat is good for most of us. The authors are just doing a terrible job at making this clear to the reader.)
May 25, 2021
The Sacred Cow was a really interesting book that I picked up on sale and started expecting a boatload of antiscientific 'everyone must eat tons of meat; there is no other way' messaging. I was pleasantly surprised to find this was not the case, although I do not agree with everything in the book.
The Sacred Cow has a number of good points; chief among them that the authors take pains to craft a well structured, well supported, and well cited argument for the responsible consumption of some meat in the diet that walks the reader through the various objections that certain individuals/groups use to justify not eating meat (namely nutrition, environmental effects, ethics) and either debunking or explaining why those arguments are misleading or simply incorrect. In this way, I learned a lot I didn't know about things like the relative nutritional densities of various foods people eat to get protein (and, in the case of vegans, use to try to replace meat) and the role of different foods in providing people with healthy complete nutrition as opposed to just protein (micronutrients - vitamins and minerals like iron - that would otherwise have to replaced with synthetic supplements); the (un)sustainability of various farming practices in the context of their environments (such as flood irrigating fields in California where drinking water has to arrive in water bottles) and the importance of regional control in food production (regionally produced food sources are more likely to take into account a region's strengths in terms of what it can produce sustainably, absent insistence on cash crops for non-local markets); and - though fuzzier - questions about the implications of a modern mind divorced from the realities of the natural world (everything in the world is built from the bodies of previously living things, even plants, and you you literally can't consume anything without something that had been living being a part of it, it's production, transportation, etc), the classist implications of insistence that everyone should be eating a meat-free diet (what about people who can't afford or those who can't sustain their health on that kind of diet?), and the fact that all food production involves some measure of animal death (surprisingly - though perhaps not so, in hindsight - the maintenance and harvest of field crops kills more animals than the actual slaughter of animals that were always meant to be killed for food).
However, the Sacred Cow had a few that stood out to me, in most cases because the rest of the text was so well written. First among them is the fact that the Sacred Cow is clearly written with a specific group in mind; specifically, a white, upper class, virulently vegan audience that wants to rid the world of meat consumption completely. Continual references to this audience as if they were the only people/group concerned about the prospect of overabundance of meat could make it feel like the case was set up to deal with a strawman rather than a wider audience with more reasonable concerns (such as concerns with basically monocropping cattle).
Early on, the authors claim that most early humans mostly ate meat and it wasn't until the advent of agricultural societies that this changed. That is wrong. Agricultural societies didn't just appear out of nowhere even though hunting was effective; societies on a whole would have developed much differently if this had been the case (for example, the complex hunter-gatherer cultures of northwest pre-contact north america, where abundant game made hunting a viable prospect and people didn't settle into permanent agriculturally-centric settlements is the exception, not the rule). Agriculture grew out of gathering and eventually cultivating plants because it was a more reliable source of food than hunting - which would have been in most places, pardon the pun, hit and miss - so most humans would not have been getting most of their caloric intake on a day-to-day basis from meat.
A big strike against them, the authors tend to only glance over economic and cultural issues that would directly impact the implementation of their suggestions in the real world. For example, when discussing water intensive farming practices in arid areas already experiencing drought and drawing down the local water table (*coughsouthernCaliforniaandthewestcough*) the authors completely ignore the history of such practices (that attempts at large scale farming/ranching there were never a thing until white settlers arrived about a century ago convinced it would work despite all experienced evidence to the contrary) and that changing them now would be very difficult from a cultural perspective. Imagine going to any of the western states and telling farmers and ranchers that most of them probably need to get gone (it won't matter that the reason is because the land/water won't support such intensive use) and that the remaining ones probably have to completely alter their farming/ranching practices and see what happens. It wouldn't be pretty because there's no way they'd take it lying down, even if they doomed themselves and their land in the process, especially not because - and I can almost hear it - 'some ***** liberal snowflake made up something about some climate thing I don't believe in' or something. This is highly relevant to the entire premise of this book - which balances use concerns against sustainability issues - and goes largely ignored. Even if the authors didn't want to spend a large amount of time on this topic - because there have already been hundreds of books and articles printed on exactly this issue, among other things - not even attempting to address it in any way - not even a 'that's far too large for the scope of this book, so we leave it for another time' - creates a hole in the structure of their argument that I just couldn't help hearing the continuous echo of.
In a similar vein is the lack of realistic perspective on the dangers of vegan parents trying to raise kids on a vegan diet due to the associated risks and health issues. The authors propose that such behavior should be considered abusive and that courts should consider interventions in such cases. I understand their concerns, but there are a large number of states where unquestionably abusive behavior is swept away if a parent claims it's due to 'sincere religious belief' or whatever the local equivalent is, and they think courts will accept new ideas of what does and does not count as a healthy diet as justification to legal intervention and possible removal? A couple who let their infant die of completely preventable jaundice related complications were just declared not guilty by the Michigan Supreme Court on the justification that a parent practicing their religious beliefs 'shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian' even if that involves denial of medical care. The parents in question still have custody of their two other children. No way will this ever happen; what they're proposing is never going to fly, not anytime in the relatively near future, at least.
Finally, in the vein of realistic perspective, is the authors' focus on eating including healthy amounts of meat in the diet (not too much) and presupposing that cattle production will be done in the real world in a conscientious and sustainable manner. I shouldn't have to point out what's wrong here but, just in case, here it is: just because you base your argument on what you want to see happening does not mean it will actually happen that way on the ground. The fact that these authors didn't seriously take into account refusal to alter entrenched practices or ideologies, likelihood of regional cultural resistance to intended proposals, or likely backlash from agribusiness does not do their argument any favors. As far as I can tell with my admittedly limited and amateur knowledge of the subject matter, with the exception of the occasional, relatively minor error, their science is sound. But refusing to acknowledge the real world implications of their management and policy proposals - there are less than a handful of references to the reception and implications in the whole book, most of which are very oblique; the one with the vegan parents and family court is the most clear it gets - makes it seem like these authors have their head buried in the science and are writing for academic purposes rather than for actual people living their lives and looking to make the world a better place. Their overall argument would have been a lot better if that impression was not the case.
All in all, the Sacred Cow is a good book. I learned a lot from it, it is a book I'm happy to have found, and it is a book that I would recommend.
The Sacred Cow has a number of good points; chief among them that the authors take pains to craft a well structured, well supported, and well cited argument for the responsible consumption of some meat in the diet that walks the reader through the various objections that certain individuals/groups use to justify not eating meat (namely nutrition, environmental effects, ethics) and either debunking or explaining why those arguments are misleading or simply incorrect. In this way, I learned a lot I didn't know about things like the relative nutritional densities of various foods people eat to get protein (and, in the case of vegans, use to try to replace meat) and the role of different foods in providing people with healthy complete nutrition as opposed to just protein (micronutrients - vitamins and minerals like iron - that would otherwise have to replaced with synthetic supplements); the (un)sustainability of various farming practices in the context of their environments (such as flood irrigating fields in California where drinking water has to arrive in water bottles) and the importance of regional control in food production (regionally produced food sources are more likely to take into account a region's strengths in terms of what it can produce sustainably, absent insistence on cash crops for non-local markets); and - though fuzzier - questions about the implications of a modern mind divorced from the realities of the natural world (everything in the world is built from the bodies of previously living things, even plants, and you you literally can't consume anything without something that had been living being a part of it, it's production, transportation, etc), the classist implications of insistence that everyone should be eating a meat-free diet (what about people who can't afford or those who can't sustain their health on that kind of diet?), and the fact that all food production involves some measure of animal death (surprisingly - though perhaps not so, in hindsight - the maintenance and harvest of field crops kills more animals than the actual slaughter of animals that were always meant to be killed for food).
However, the Sacred Cow had a few that stood out to me, in most cases because the rest of the text was so well written. First among them is the fact that the Sacred Cow is clearly written with a specific group in mind; specifically, a white, upper class, virulently vegan audience that wants to rid the world of meat consumption completely. Continual references to this audience as if they were the only people/group concerned about the prospect of overabundance of meat could make it feel like the case was set up to deal with a strawman rather than a wider audience with more reasonable concerns (such as concerns with basically monocropping cattle).
Early on, the authors claim that most early humans mostly ate meat and it wasn't until the advent of agricultural societies that this changed. That is wrong. Agricultural societies didn't just appear out of nowhere even though hunting was effective; societies on a whole would have developed much differently if this had been the case (for example, the complex hunter-gatherer cultures of northwest pre-contact north america, where abundant game made hunting a viable prospect and people didn't settle into permanent agriculturally-centric settlements is the exception, not the rule). Agriculture grew out of gathering and eventually cultivating plants because it was a more reliable source of food than hunting - which would have been in most places, pardon the pun, hit and miss - so most humans would not have been getting most of their caloric intake on a day-to-day basis from meat.
A big strike against them, the authors tend to only glance over economic and cultural issues that would directly impact the implementation of their suggestions in the real world. For example, when discussing water intensive farming practices in arid areas already experiencing drought and drawing down the local water table (*coughsouthernCaliforniaandthewestcough*) the authors completely ignore the history of such practices (that attempts at large scale farming/ranching there were never a thing until white settlers arrived about a century ago convinced it would work despite all experienced evidence to the contrary) and that changing them now would be very difficult from a cultural perspective. Imagine going to any of the western states and telling farmers and ranchers that most of them probably need to get gone (it won't matter that the reason is because the land/water won't support such intensive use) and that the remaining ones probably have to completely alter their farming/ranching practices and see what happens. It wouldn't be pretty because there's no way they'd take it lying down, even if they doomed themselves and their land in the process, especially not because - and I can almost hear it - 'some ***** liberal snowflake made up something about some climate thing I don't believe in' or something. This is highly relevant to the entire premise of this book - which balances use concerns against sustainability issues - and goes largely ignored. Even if the authors didn't want to spend a large amount of time on this topic - because there have already been hundreds of books and articles printed on exactly this issue, among other things - not even attempting to address it in any way - not even a 'that's far too large for the scope of this book, so we leave it for another time' - creates a hole in the structure of their argument that I just couldn't help hearing the continuous echo of.
In a similar vein is the lack of realistic perspective on the dangers of vegan parents trying to raise kids on a vegan diet due to the associated risks and health issues. The authors propose that such behavior should be considered abusive and that courts should consider interventions in such cases. I understand their concerns, but there are a large number of states where unquestionably abusive behavior is swept away if a parent claims it's due to 'sincere religious belief' or whatever the local equivalent is, and they think courts will accept new ideas of what does and does not count as a healthy diet as justification to legal intervention and possible removal? A couple who let their infant die of completely preventable jaundice related complications were just declared not guilty by the Michigan Supreme Court on the justification that a parent practicing their religious beliefs 'shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian' even if that involves denial of medical care. The parents in question still have custody of their two other children. No way will this ever happen; what they're proposing is never going to fly, not anytime in the relatively near future, at least.
Finally, in the vein of realistic perspective, is the authors' focus on eating including healthy amounts of meat in the diet (not too much) and presupposing that cattle production will be done in the real world in a conscientious and sustainable manner. I shouldn't have to point out what's wrong here but, just in case, here it is: just because you base your argument on what you want to see happening does not mean it will actually happen that way on the ground. The fact that these authors didn't seriously take into account refusal to alter entrenched practices or ideologies, likelihood of regional cultural resistance to intended proposals, or likely backlash from agribusiness does not do their argument any favors. As far as I can tell with my admittedly limited and amateur knowledge of the subject matter, with the exception of the occasional, relatively minor error, their science is sound. But refusing to acknowledge the real world implications of their management and policy proposals - there are less than a handful of references to the reception and implications in the whole book, most of which are very oblique; the one with the vegan parents and family court is the most clear it gets - makes it seem like these authors have their head buried in the science and are writing for academic purposes rather than for actual people living their lives and looking to make the world a better place. Their overall argument would have been a lot better if that impression was not the case.
All in all, the Sacred Cow is a good book. I learned a lot from it, it is a book I'm happy to have found, and it is a book that I would recommend.
January 7, 2023
Great and simple. This offers valuable dietary, environmental, and ethical perspectives on the need for sustainably raised ruminants, cattle in particular.
The narrative I most often hear is that 1) beef will kill you / give you heart disease, 2) cow farts / belches are destroying the ozone, and 3) slaughtering cattle is immoral. This book does a great job refuting points 1 and 2 by clearly outlining that 100% grass-fed, regenerative beef is as nutrient-dense and bio-available of a food as one can find and ruminants (emphasis: if herded sustainably, or allowed to graze natural grass fields that otherwise cannot be used for crop production and rotated between fields to prevent over-grazing) play a critical role in a balanced ecosystem with healthy soil. Although cattle do contribute ~2% of greenhouse gas emissions from belching, the nitrogen they restore to the soil if naturally raised makes their net carbon footprint negative (fun fact: you'd need to eat one 100% grass-fed burger to OFFSET the carbon footprint of eating one beyond burger). This environmental point is the most sensitive to the anti-meat narrative, so it is exhaustively and comprehensively covered in Section 2.
The third point, on the ethics of eating beef, I found to be sound although I appreciate others have religious or moral reasons for abstaining from directly killing animals. However, as the authors point out, mono-crop agriculture is the backbone of vegan and plant-based diets and is far more destructive to ecosystems (requiring high amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, which in turn destroys the quality and longevity of the microbiome of our topsoil as well as important small animals and insects, like bees). So although not directly slaughter, non-ruminant agriculture kills many thousands of organisms indirectly, is unsustainable in terms of future crop yields, and requires synthetic and toxic additives, all to provide cheap, highly caloric but nutrient-deficient diets of processed grains, cereals, and oils.
Thus, naturally raising ruminants and appreciating the sacredness of taking a life (again, not to be glossed over) in a quick and pain-minimized way to provide the most nutrient-dense food to our population, unwinding the scaling issues facing our healthcare system, is the clear preference to the indirectly devastating practice (both in terms of nutrition and environment) of mono-crop agriculture. Regardless of what we eat, we all have blood on our hands; once we accept this we can choose the better trade-off.
The narrative I most often hear is that 1) beef will kill you / give you heart disease, 2) cow farts / belches are destroying the ozone, and 3) slaughtering cattle is immoral. This book does a great job refuting points 1 and 2 by clearly outlining that 100% grass-fed, regenerative beef is as nutrient-dense and bio-available of a food as one can find and ruminants (emphasis: if herded sustainably, or allowed to graze natural grass fields that otherwise cannot be used for crop production and rotated between fields to prevent over-grazing) play a critical role in a balanced ecosystem with healthy soil. Although cattle do contribute ~2% of greenhouse gas emissions from belching, the nitrogen they restore to the soil if naturally raised makes their net carbon footprint negative (fun fact: you'd need to eat one 100% grass-fed burger to OFFSET the carbon footprint of eating one beyond burger). This environmental point is the most sensitive to the anti-meat narrative, so it is exhaustively and comprehensively covered in Section 2.
The third point, on the ethics of eating beef, I found to be sound although I appreciate others have religious or moral reasons for abstaining from directly killing animals. However, as the authors point out, mono-crop agriculture is the backbone of vegan and plant-based diets and is far more destructive to ecosystems (requiring high amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, which in turn destroys the quality and longevity of the microbiome of our topsoil as well as important small animals and insects, like bees). So although not directly slaughter, non-ruminant agriculture kills many thousands of organisms indirectly, is unsustainable in terms of future crop yields, and requires synthetic and toxic additives, all to provide cheap, highly caloric but nutrient-deficient diets of processed grains, cereals, and oils.
Thus, naturally raising ruminants and appreciating the sacredness of taking a life (again, not to be glossed over) in a quick and pain-minimized way to provide the most nutrient-dense food to our population, unwinding the scaling issues facing our healthcare system, is the clear preference to the indirectly devastating practice (both in terms of nutrition and environment) of mono-crop agriculture. Regardless of what we eat, we all have blood on our hands; once we accept this we can choose the better trade-off.
February 26, 2024
While I feel that the majority of information in this book is accessible for free through Rodgers work online, I am happy to support by having this book. The authors lay out nutritional, environmental and ethical reasons for why to include well-managed meat in our diets. I really appreciated the thorough explanation of how and why regenerative agriculture is beneficial to the environment, as well as why lab-grown meat or meat alternatives are not. Further, the acknowledgement that every diet causes animal death was helpful to keep in mind. Easy to read, and the flow made sense!
May 12, 2021
This is a high 4. If you’ve followed Diana Rodgers on her blogs for years like me, it might be a bit redundant, but there was still information to be gained. Also the writing was a bit clunky at times. Overall, I’d say that premise is just common sense and if you have any experience farming you know that avoiding animal inputs is impossible. This is a call to responsible farming and nutrient dense protein for all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews