Once in a while, I actually get the chance to watch television. On one of those occasions, a commercial came on television about Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma being linked to long term exposure to Glyphosate aka Roundup. It was one of those class-action lawsuit commercials urging you or anyone you know to contact a said law firm with the promise you might be entitled to compensation. Normally, I cross my eyes knowing full well the law firm usually is the one who makes out in these deals. I say that because I have gotten checks from companies like Humana, AT&T and even Verizon for unfair practices or fees. For the most part, those checks couldn’t buy an extra value meal at McDonald’s. What caught my attention though was the reference to Roundup. The FDA approved the use of Roundup for crops in the United States. There was a requirement set at 30 parts per million that could be found in food. Today, you can find traces of the chemical in wheat, corn, lentils, peas, potatoes, sugar beets and more.
Certainly, you can make the argument that with all the modern conveniences available to those of us who live in the United States, what is the purpose of hunting. The budget-conscious, argue that when you add up the cost of equipment, licenses, and permits, the per-pound price of wild game is certainly more than the average cost of ground beef at the local grocery store. Others, who are opposed to it, argue that it is barbaric, immoral and unethical. The later argument tends to be highly charged and varied with emotional outbursts. I have seen fellow hunters have their shows, podcasts and social media pages plastered with hateful statements and even threats of violence. Hunters have been labeled mentally ill with adjectives like a sociopath, psychopaths and the like. Discussing the bullying and hate on social media and its impact on our society and private individual lives is a topic for another blog.
Back to good ole Roundup, as I pondered what the law firm meant by exposure levels since I have sprayed my fair share on unwanted weeds, there are a number of articles I have read over the years that came to mind. While I am no expert, documentation for health concerns from consumption of trace amounts of this chemical is growing. Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. It can kill beneficial bacteria in our intestines and is linked to birth defects. Understanding all of this, the commercial sent me down a path of logical what-if questions.
Let’s focus on the first part of the statement above with respect to beneficial bacteria in our intestines. At my age, and I am not that old, I can remember a time when you didn’t hear about gluten intolerance, probiotics and a whole array of “healthy” foods that help boost our immune or digestive systems. It seems to me that a bunch of products that are now marketed to us has been introduced to help with a symptom. The point being, what changed in our diet that created the need for restoring digestive health? Sure, I don’t have a lick of evidence to suggest there is a correlation and maybe this all sounds like a conspiracy theory. However, it is odd to think so many of us are stricken with some sort of digestive issue whether it is gluten, candida bloom or some other strange food allergy. And sure, I bet that a slice of bread or a can of beer is below the 30 parts per million requirements. The real question is, how often do you eat a sandwich with a single slice or only have one beer? In a day, how often do you eat something that has wheat, corn or grain product? Is your daily intake such that you would never exceed that threshold, assuming that threshold is safe for your genic makeup? If you can’t answer that, you are not alone. I know I can’t either as source data is hardly available.
Now let’s focus on the second part of my earlier statement that endocrine disruptors are being linked to birth defects. If the chemical is in our food supply and passed to an unborn child would that, could that explain why so many kids are gluten intolerant, have digestive issues or behavioral problems? What other things can be linked to exposure above safe levels? And do we find it curious that many countries have banned the use of Roundup on crops?
For years Monsanto marketed that spraying crops with the chemical was safe and it was biodegradable. Farmers who instituted its use saw better profits because the chemical caused the crops to uniformly be ready to harvest. Imagine having a wheat field, and only the outer edges and rows were starting to turn brown while the rest remained green. You want to harvest the wheat at one time but you need the plants to mature at the same time. Traditionally farmers lost part of their yield as plants released kernels onto the ground while others were still not harvestable. By using the chemical spray, you force the wheat to “mature” at nearly the same rate. The same principle is applied to other crops. This helps the farmer’s yield to go up. This practice has been widely implemented across the US along with GMO seed variants.
You can take these same thoughts and apply them to meat production in the United States. Take a walk through your local grocer, specifically look at chicken. I bet you will find brands that advertise they don’t use hormones or antibiotics. You can read the compliance guideline here. Now, why would that be a marketing point for a chicken company? You might ask yourself, why do chickens get so darn sick that they would need antibiotics? Is it the bird flu? The honest answer is that animals eat more when they are on antibiotics and hormones. It helps marble the beef and get plumper chicken breasts. However, antibiotics do the same thing to our guts as Roundup. Take a look at the prescription bottle of any antibiotic. You will see instructions to drink plenty of fluids and potential warnings of either constipation or diarrhea. In other words, it impacts your digestive health because it kills gut bacteria.
Add that all up and what do you have? Ultimately it means a food supply that has some potentially serious harmful side effects. We could argue any one single point being made here but we as humans aren’t consuming just one thing in our diets. A diet is a many-faceted thing and we have whole industries built around pleasing our taste buds.
Not everyone chooses to get their protein from an animal source and I wouldn’t disparage anyone who chooses to be vegetarian but rather recommend organically grown produce. For those who do choose animal-based protein though, wild game is a good choice to live a healthier lifestyle. There are some benefits that may far outweigh convenience and economics with relation to health care costs as it relates to hunting and its purpose. Remember the saying, “You are what you eat?” Meat harvested from wild animals represents one of the purer forms of protein we have available especially animals that are away from agricultural areas that use chemicals like Roundup. Hunting allows proactive involvement in the selection and often the processing of this protein source where many are content with outsourcing it for easy pick up at the local grocery store with the fancy labels. For those who are vehemently against sources of protein from animals in any shape or form, they are welcome to their opinion. They are dually welcome to keep it to themselves because it is a simple fact that all sustainment of life comes from the life of something else. In the race to be organic, all-natural, and free-range it is tough to beat wild game.
- L. Yarbrough, Bucks & Beers
