Nope, you’re here to defend your outrageous claim with a cite- which you, in effect have failed to do so. You’re here to do your homework. “When come back, bring facts”.
I’m not understanding how a book is any less a cite than a website. What are you on?
A book is a perfectly legitimate cite. It’s not guizot’s fault that you don’t have access to it. Websites are so frequently unreliable that really, a book is to be preferred.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 526S-532S, September 2003:
Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?
VEGETARIAN-Old Indian word for “bad hunter”.
I mean… jesus, how can you argue with pure logic like this? Pass the fried chicken, please! 
So you only believe in something if you can get it from the Internet? If that’s so, then I know a Nigerian guy who wants to talk to you.
My master’s thesis adviser at UCLA didn’t want an Internet link for any reference at all. Most of them didn’t have links. Nevertheless, according to you, my mundane assertion that pesticides accumulate in fat tissue is “outrageous,” because I cite a book, and not a web link? Maybe you don’t know how to use a book.
And again: You ask for something that’s peer-reviewed, and then you expect a handy-dandy web link? How many web pages are peer-reviewed?
Well, just to appease your mouse-potato laziness, I googled the title of the book, and the very first hit was—well, how about that–a Googlebooks scan of the text itself. (I guess it didn’t occur to you.) So now you don’t have to leave your computer. Go to section 6.5.2. Can’t be bothered? Okay, I’ll retype it for you:
I’m not going to retype the list of references; you’ll have to review that for yourself.
Are you happy now?
And BTW, footnotes went out of fashion a long time ago.
How do I check his cite to see if it sez what he claims? Do you expect me to shell out $300 to read one paragraph?
However, Google Scholar comes to the rescue:
We can read Professor Gilberts article there.
Where does it say that currently there are dangerous levels of pesticides in animal fat? If one reads 6.7 (page 151), all it does is ask for vigilance, as the contaminents have been/are being (2006) under control. And, if one reads 6.3.2 (pg 139) "However, modern day pesticides, if used according to reccommended treatment regimes, when sprayed onto cereals used as feed may give rise to low llevel residues in animal feed, but subsequent transfer to animal products will generally not be significant." And if one looks at table 6.3, one can see that the safety levels of dioxens, etc is the same in “other animal products” as it is in veggies, and only slightly higher in animal fats. It appears meat is no more dangerous that veggies and even fat is only a couple of times higher. Fish oil appears to be the worst, but these are mandated safety levels.
So, this is why we want a link, not a book cite. There is nothing in **guizot’**s cite that supports that there are “dangerous pesticides normally stored in cow fat”. Yes, there are some pesticides, the levels are slightly higher in animal fat than in veggies, but there is no current danger.
Some other studies
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q22w8472w26k6273/
“Summary Pooled samples of the adipose fat of swine, cows, sheep, rabbit, ducks, geese, turkeys, wild boar, roe deer and stags collected from the norhtern part of Poland in 1987–88 were analysed for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), hexachlorohexanes (HCHs), Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDTs), aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide and chlordanes (CHLs). All the fats contained detectable, but low concentrations of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs. The mean PCB levels ranged from 9.2 to 47 mgrg/kg of which IUPAC nos. 138, 153, and 180 were dominating congeners in most of the samples. DDT concentrations were apparently lower in fat of the ruminants (45 to 84 mgrg/kg fat) while in rabbits, swine, turkeys and geese, it was from 79 to 140 mgrg/kg fat. Ducks and wild boar had the highest concentrations of 400 and 440 mgrg DDTs/kg fat, respectively. HCB was detected at concentrations ranging from 2.0 to 18 mgrg/kg fat. The total HCH concentration ranged between 15 and 77 mgrg/kg fat. Aldrin and heptachlor remained undetected while dieldrin was found only in some slaughtered species with a range of positive measurements up to 9.1 mgrg/kg fat. Similarly, heptachlor epoxide was traced up to 9.1 mgrg/kg fat and the residues of CHLs from 0.34 to 4.1 mgrg/kg fat.”*
Note this line “All the fats contained detectable, but low concentrations of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs.” This is also in Poland where they still allowed DDT.
Here’s a 1981 study (PDF)
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/1981/29/i02/f-pdf/f_jf00104a014.pdf?sessid=6006l3
Where cattle were fed a super-high concentration of Dioxin. The residue was concentrated in the fat, but within 2 weeks of stopping exposure “the residues were actively dissipated”.
Here’s a book which we can read quite a bit from:
Now, it does raise some alarm about pesticides in our foods, and even in the fats of food animals. But it does not conclude that these are currently a danger, nor is meat fat by any means a singled out source of danger: “The environmental pollutants disscused above are omnipresent in human surroundings;
exposure to such chemicals occurs predominantly throughout the food chain.”
All those I provided here are peer reviewed. Try Springerlink or Google Scholar. Modern cites for the computer age.
Yes, that line is there. That line is taken out of context. And, as dudes can read for themselves, nothing in that article warns about current dangerous levels of pesticides, or that said pesticides are found only in animal fat. Yes, the pesticides are regulated in animal fat- and in veggies.
I can’t believe ten years is an accurate figure. If that were true, it would make eating meat a health risk comparible to smoking cigarettes. And if that were true it would be a widely known fact not an internet rumor.
You posted literally one paragraph later where you found said paragraph for free. Does something about this thread make your brain just shut off?
The book is **$299 **on Amazon :eek: . Yes, I found it on Google Scholar, but not from any link by guizot. The point is, a $300 book is a ridiculous cite, especially when we can’t check to see if someone is taking the cite out of context- which happened to be the case here. Not all books are available on line. We got lucky here.
Of course, now you don’t have to take my word for it, certainly my reading may be different than yours, so please read the whole article- which you can now do without spending $300. **Colibri **or some other of our active scientists may have a different intepretation also. Be interesting to see.
I never said that anything was dangerous. I just said that it was a risk, because things accumulate in fat tissue. (Maybe it could answer OP’s question.) Eating any toxin could cause problems.
You need to calm down, DrDeth–go ahead and happily eat your meat.
I don’t want to get into a SDMB TTEV (tit-for-tat ego volley),
Umm, dude? The point of this thread was that someone claimed Vegetarians live 10years longer than omnivores. If your only point is that “it’s a risk”, then sure, it’s a risk. So is eating veggies with possible pesticide residue. So are shark attacks and meteor strikes. But I asked for “Got a cite that there are dangerous pesticides normally stored in cow fat?” and you replied with "*Improving the Safety of Fresh Meat. Sofos, John Nikolaos (Ed.) CRC Press, 2005
Specifically, Chapter 6, by Professor J. Gilbert of the Central Science Laboratory, in York, U.K. and Dr. H. Senyuva, of the Ankara Test and Analysis Laboratory in Turkey."*
I assumed your post “One risk is that pesticides accumulate in the fat of animals and dairy products.” had something to do with the OP, and that your reply to me had something to do with my questions/request for a cite. But if all you’re trying to say is that there are pesticide residues in meat- then of course there are- but there are also pesticide residues in crops and our drinking water and most everything else.
The question really is- do you have any proof that the presticide residues in meat are normally dangerous to us carnivores and that they are more dangerous than the ones in our crops and our water? Will they significantly reduce lifespan? Your cite does not show that.
This is the SDMB. Dudes come here to ask questions like the OP, and we try to give the Straight Dope. Colibri, for instance, is a noted Ornithologist. (My science is admittedly rather out of date, since my degree in Marine Biology is like 2 decades old. However, my Google-fu is pretty damn decent.)
Sorry if I came down on you so hard. I’ll have a Rib-eye in your honor, thanks.
Anyone notice the study I posted?
Eh, never mind.
I’m a morbidly obese vegetarian. Here’s hoping it’ll all level out for me. 
Yes, and it’s pretty good. However, it compares a low meat diet to no diet at all. I’d expect *anyone *who watches what they eat to be healthier than dudes who eat anything they want. Oddly, in the studies of the Atkins diet, they found all sorts of wonderful healthful benefits too, which seems to make little sense to the “low fat” diet crowd. AFAIK, there are no LT studies of the Atkins diet 
And then there’s the Mediteranian diet.
What this tells me is not that “vegetarians live longer” or that “Atkins works”, but that dudes who watch what they eat and make it a lifestyle change live longer and healthier lives than dudes who eat fast food and junk food all the time.
Amen to that! All the self professing vegitarians I know are overweight, a couple are obese. They eat huge amts. of simple carbs and think they’re better than everyone else because they don’t use animal products. Well except for leather shoes, purses car interiors, jackets…but that doesn’t count :rolleyes:
Don’t forget chicks, bro. Livin healthy is gnaaaaaarly
Last ten years usually suck anyway. Getting mentally and physically more deficient. Yep .can’t wait.