Meat and culture

[mossybranches]

I had no alternative idea about how to title this one!
Anyhow, I'm just musing really, but am definitely interested in learning more about how the consumption of meat varies across different cultures/countries. The internet search just gave too many broad answers, so I wondered if anyone here might have more knowledge.

Personally I have grown up with the messaging that meat is essential, that reducing it in the diet can create health issues, etc (my family are a mix of English and Norwegian). A lot of it is subtle messaging as opposed to any exact science. I am aware of the importance of iron in the diet, and many other nutritional benefits of eating red meat, fish and whatnot, but wonder how much our beliefs about it are weighted by cultural rather than scientific awareness

I appreciate that different environments helped certain diets to evolve throughout history (Japan and fresh fish, Eskimo's and fat) although this will have altered considerably, at least in the west, since globalisation and mass production.

Diet itself is a tricky and often subjective topic, but I am curious about cultures that might not place a lot of emphasis on red meat and how this correlates with physical health. Are there cultures who get by on very little meat and thrive? (India?).
It is something that I would love to learn more about but can't pin it down to a search online that hones in on it specifically.

It's a interesting question, I think historical as you say it would of been down to availability and therefore cost.
Only a generation or two ago the idea of having meat every day and sometimes 2 or 3 times a day would have been unfathomable.

Also religion comes into it quite a lot , but I have no idea ( because I haven't looked into it ) why certain meat is forbidden.
I am unaware if any fruit or veg are forbidden.

Then there is the cultural side of things , in the UK and most ( but not all ) of Europe eating animals we see as pets or vermin is unheard of.
I can understand not wanting to eat horses, cats and dogs as they generally are close to our heart
But it seems odd that we don't eat rats , from a farming point of view I would imagine they would be very easy to breed, feed and keep.
And while you wouldn't get much meat if you ordered a rat steak they could go into processed food like burgers and sausage.

As for countries that don't eat much red meat I would think Japan would be quite high on the list and as far as I am aware they are generally considered a very healthy race.

You are right , there are many different avenues to go down , it'd be impossible to write up any kind of 'report'

Particularly in Norway, but also in large parts of the UK, not much will grow most of the year. If you didn't eat meat you then had oats or root vegetables. Not eating meat is only an option in climates or economies where you can get vitamins and calories from other sources. We've only really lived in such an economy for the last 100 years in Northern Europe, less if you were poor.

Thanks both.
This reminded me of something a friend said a few years ago when we were discussing how many crazy fad diets and moralistic food cults have sprung up since the internet - she said 'ahhh, decadence!"

Interesting to watch how our culture has adapted to the idea of perpetual food availability...weaving it into our identity, politics and world view.

I did manage to find a graphic online via reddit, but it only showed correlations concerning life expectancy. Unfortunately, whether a country ate more or less red meat might have nothing whatsoever to do with their incidences of all cancers.

Do we know for a fact that the blue zones and Japan generally are healthier because of the diet, or something else, something more complex? perhaps lifestyle, behaviours, housing, response to stress??

There were some curious anomalies on that graphic, too, such as a country with high smoking rates but very few cancer's, etc. Possibly dodgy reporting. Who knows.

It's a very interesting question

Both @ScottBakula and @StamppotAndGravy make really good points. And there is definitely something in the climate question and surviving our wet cold winters.

I think the animals we don't eat historically (in the UK) have a more long term use, which makes it less economic to eat them. Eg horse = transport and farming (and relatively expensive for many, a donkey or mule was probably more realistic), cow/goat =diary and good fats all through winter. Dogs=good for hunting, security and keeping you warm at night

I guess chickens have a relatively short lay life, so you'd eat the eggs until they stopped producing and then eat the meat.

I'd also like to throw another curveball and suggest that the longest life expectancy cultures perhaps have less UPF in their diets and eat more simple fresh food? I read somewhere that the average UK diet is now 60% upf (even a "balanced healthy diet), and also that a 10% increase in UPF could lead to a 50% higher risk of cardiovascular disease related death. (And also a high risk of lots of other diseases, including dementia, anxiety and diabetes) As well as contributing to the obesity crisis

I have just finished writing something where I cited this bit of information so it’s fresh in my memory. In Sweden the peak-meat year was 2016, since then the meat consumption has been very slowly declining.
Also (this is not a fact but a personal observation) there are big differences between the South and the North of the country. It’s harder/difficult to find vegan options in the North, while you can get fake beef in every fast food chain in the South.

I'm sure I read a recent article about the UK spending less on meat since 2019, although this was concerning the cost as opposed to preference.

I did wonder whether the emphasis on diet might overlook other important factors, such as stress, community, and other behaviours in the blue zones. What stood out to me the most about Sardinia, Okinawa Island was the attitude towards life in general, and the simplicity of a safe yet rural existence. Perhaps the olive oil might have been a red herring....
But these are just thoughts. We seem to be able to adapt to eat anything.

I am fascinated by comparisons between pace of life, I think. Whilst diet is important, it seems to hog most of the limelight in research. Focusing on the other differences between, say, the UK or USA and Sardinia could be quite revealing, too.

I also hear that many of these zones are changing. Again, focus is on the diet and the introduction of processed foods. But what if there's more to it than that? What else enters an environment WITH the fast food? IYSWIM?

I have read the popular account of the Okinawan Centenarian Study, the book is called The Okinawa Way. Only 1/5 or maybe even less of the book is about diet, the rest is about other lifestyle and psychological factors: stress, community support, perception of ageing and the elderly, spiritual life and physical activity. It was also interesting to read about personality traits and resilience of these centenarians - they were strong-willed, optimistic and very resilient people with robust MH. The majority of them lived through WW2 and the Battle of Okinawa so they have been through extreme hardship.

@CortieTat
Thank you, I will try to get hold of that, sounds like interesting reading.

It is likely that our popular media fixates on the diet intentionally (as diet, here, is something we can largely control, unlike larger, more collective issues such as pollution, stress, etc.....the focus on food helps to 'sell' the lifestyle).

Reminds me somewhat of western perceptions of yoga (bear with me!) - the asanas/poses being only a tiny fraction of a multidisciplinary, much larger practice.

@mossybranches the book is a bit dated but still worth reading with lots of practical advice. The authors say that the Okinawan diet is very different from mainland Japan and that Okinawans eat little meat and not that much fish either. It’s a classic fibre-heavy poor man’s diet based on vegetables, including sea vegetables.
I understand that the study it’s based on is still ongoing.

The Okinawa paradox is that the data is not reliable. The Economist, then others (Daily Mail) following scepticism from data analysts, have suggested that in a region of high obesity, bad diet, and poverty, so many people apparently live long and healthy lives. Answer: they have no formal records at birth.

I’ve always eaten meat with practically every meal and so has all my family and most people I know so I don’t think a generation ago it was all that different.

But they do! The study has been so valuable exactly because they have very accurate birth records, same system as mainland Japan.

The paradox you describe is also described in the book, the younger generations of Okinawans have higher obesity rates than mainland Japanese and generally bad diet. Also Okinawans that moved away, for instance to the US, have higher obesity rates and shorter life expectancy.

I would be interested in finding out more about countries that are less of a focus in these debates, such as India. I don't know very much about Indian food culture but got the impression that it wasn't meat heavy.
How this correlates with over all health would be interesting to know.

If anyone's familiar with a website or source for such info do let me know!

For anyone who might enjoy, here is a global map of meat consumption including what type, etc : https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-meat-consumption-by-country-and-type/

For an island country I am surprised we (UK) did not become ....mostly fish eaters. Poultry seems to be the most commonly consumed meat in general, globally.

Saw that map recently and surprised we're more chicken than most of western Europe. Probably all the chicken based takeaways we get over here - chinese, indian plus all those nuggets. Perhaps why Britain and USA are so alike.

I went vegan over 25 years ago after reading The China Study, when my mother was ill with cancer. I remain convinced that we thrive optimally on a plant-based diet, and are only meant to eat animal flesh when there is no alternative.

I think it’s more 2-3 generations ago that meat was expensive and rare. Assuming your parents grew up in the 60-80s then cheap processed meat was already widely available.

It's pretty easy to see how much meat people ate in the 40s because they had strict rationing, even after the end of the war. Answer: about 500g/wk plus 100g of ham or bacon. So maybe 3 portions a week. That lasted for ten years.

I am vegan and healthy and strong. I can run a half marathon, hold a plank for 6 mins and have a bmi of 18.7. It's a total myth that you need meat to be healthy and that applies to any culture. Plant based is the healthiest imo and you can get whatever you need from a plant based diet.

This was proven by documentary veganise me. The meat eater man had blood tests then went vegan for 9 months then blood tests again. He had the exact same amount of all the nutrients he had at the start of the experiment! Only difference was lower cholesterol so he was in fact healthier as a vegan.

Our society brainwashes us into thinking we need meat but this is wrong.

I haven't eaten meat for 35 years. I find this very interesting.

My paternal grandfather was a GP in the slums of an industrial town in the 1920-50s. He didn't eat meat because he didn't believe it could be raised and kept well, considering all the disease and illness her saw (before antibiotics). Of his 3 children, my dad stayed veggie all his life, but his brother didn't .

My maternal grandfather often had meat at every meal, and to him it was as much a status symbol as food.

I grew up in the 1970s, and I distinctly remember chicken being expensive!

I am wondering what being vegan and strong has to do with my OP?
I am interested in the stats worldwide regarding meat consumption and type.

Since many diverse and varied diets exist globally, it doesn't really bode well to pit one agains the other, whether they contain meat or not.

We are omnivores and can happily chew on an incredibly diverse range of edibles, which is why both vegans and non vegans are healthy.

Well you specifically asked about emphasis on eating red meat and 'how this correlates with physical health' so someone sharing their own personal experience of that isn't that far off the mark.

Do we know for a fact that the blue zones and Japan generally are healthier because of the diet, or something else, something more complex? perhaps lifestyle, behaviours, housing, response to stress??

I'm sure I've read that it's places that eat their traditional diet, made up of local produce and very little ultra-processed foods which tend to have good health outcomes and longevity, almost regardless of the specific diet itself. Lifestyle too though.

ooh, very interesting, will come back to this later

Why do you think me or my parents ate cheap processed meat 😂

I think that in all traditional cultures, meat is high status food, eaten by rich people frequently and poor people whenever they can- I think high meat consumption in industrialised countries is an anomaly, sort of- we have kept the high status of meat (hence people want it)whilst making it much more available due to industrialisation of meat consumption. As countries become richer, the demand for meat and dairy increases.
It makes sense that meat is a high status food because its costly to get - either by hunting, or raising an animal to slaughter. Also I presume we have an instinctive preference for meat because its a great source of protein, vitamins and minerals