Discussion Board

Wow. I don't even know where to begin.

The most shocking section for me was the one on how children being overfed (or fed the wrong foods) causes sexual abuse.
I think he is bang on about how children are interested in sex earlier because their sexual organs develop earlier, but some sexual predators prey on girls, not because they develop at an earlier age, but because they are not developed. Sad but true.

Otherwise, let em' have it, Dr. McD!

I have been wondering for some time if our overuse of animal products that are laden with growth and sexual hormones as well as excessive fat contributed to precocious puberty and aggressive behaviors. It seems Dr. M thinks this is the case. It is so very sad to see little girls dress and act provocatively. Equally distressing is the fact that children are having children.

I remember reading in the late 1970's and early 1980's about children in Puerto Rico developing early. Some little girls began having their periods as early as 4 and 5 and both boys and girl's began growing pubic hair before starting school. At first they thought it was due to growth hormone in cow's milk and banned all dairy products that contained it. However doctors continued to see little girl's having early menarch and growing breasts during their preschool years. It has happened here in the states also. This type of thing is called precocious puberty and has always happened, but in the past it was so rare it was considered a phenomenon except in isolated population groups where it is the norm. I think there are many factors that are involved, including environmental, food and obesity which can all contribute to hormonal activity. The concern I have is when a family or population group has not had any signs of precocious puberty and then many children begin to show signs of early sexual development for no known reason. That is cause for concern. I agree with Dr. McDougall that dairy especially may be a contributing factor although not neccessarily the only factor, as some animals also display this condition. More studies need to be done than are being conducted at present. Unfortunately this will probably not be done until such a condition is widespread.

I have a beef with this quote (mainly the last sentence) from the newsletter:



I agree with the need for education and healthier eating, and parents should certainly provide that for their children, but I definitely don't agree with doing it via government mandate. I want less government in my life, not more. We still need free choice. The tone of the article made me think McDougall would consider it child abuse if you gave your kid a Dr. Pepper or some other junk food (or even meat or dairy). He is saying it's child abuse if you let your kid get fat. Do you really want a social worker or other government agent showing up at your house, threatening to take your kid away because you gave them a Twinkee? Or because they're fat? OK, that's an extreme example, but that's the direction government mandates head in. Power of free-choice aside, I wouldn't trust the government to dictate healthy eating standards, anyway. Here's a recent example from my own state:

N.C. Food ‘Inspector’ Sends Girl‘s Lunch Home After Determining It’s Not Healthy Enough
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-food-inspector-sends-girls-lunch-home-after-determining-its-not-healthy-enough/

Follow-up articles:

Exclusive: 2nd N.C. Mother Says Daughter’s School Lunch Replaced for Not Being Healthy Enough
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/


Teacher Behind ‘Food Police’ Incident in N.C. Suspended Indefinitely
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/teacher-behind-food-police-incident-in-n-c-suspended-indefinitely/

I wouldn't want anyone forcing me to eat chicken nuggets any more than I'd want to force potatoes on someone else. Does that make sense? This is more about control than health. And children (and adults) can become obese for more reasons than food choices (though that is certainly a huge factor)-- such as lack of exercise. Schools are cutting back on P.E., for instance, but you don't see any mention of a government mandate for that.

I think it's really interesting how few comments there have been on this article. Is it because we are all really uncomfortable about it? I've written a few posts in reply then deleted them because I didn't want to get involved in this one. But I can't sit back.

One thing we are fed up with (with politicians) in all Western countries is the use of 'fear' tactics to sell unpopular or untruthful messages (WMD's anyone?). I don't know enough about the science to question it - though I would like to specifically see the science behind the child sexual abuse claims. I despair at the tactics, particularly as a survivor of abuse because it is taking responsibility away from the perpetrator. This kind of brutal fear raising makes as many enemies as it does friends and it makes people like me very uncomfortable about sharing the McDougall message. Perhaps a step too far this time.

That's a really good point about the sexual abuse. I was focusing on government usurping parental rights over our children, but you're right, there's the mislaying of the blame of sexual abuse there, too.

McDougall seems to be going down a political road I cannot follow. I didn't like his article last year about Egypt: World Security is Threatened by Hunger Caused By Gluttony ( http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/feb/hunger.htm ). I took issue with this statement:



This language of the "have's giving to the have not's" is the language of Marxism. The poor are poor and hungry because they don't have the money to buy food-- not because the Western nations are eating meat or taking food out of their mouths. And I find the entire premise of that article faulty, that the uprising there was caused by food or gluttons (who are the gluttons? Americans of course). It was caused by radicals who want power there. Nothing more.

Anyway, all this makes me wonder if McDougall has an agenda, and that makes me wonder about his nutrition science and his motives now. I've been a big believer of The China Study (which brought me to McDougall in the first place) and I've lost weight this way and feel great. But I can't go down this political path with him.

I heard the philosophy of helping the poor in Sunday School before I ever heard of Marxism. I think it was someone named Jesus who said "sell all you have and give the money to the poor." Of course Jesus probably had an agenda too. I think it was about being unselfish. I agree with you that Dr. McDougall has an agenda. It's pretty obvious what it is. He wants to see everyone healthy.

BTW, thanks for that link to the newsletter article about Egypt. My husband lived and worked in Egypt during the 1980's. I agree with Dr. McDougall's recommendations in the article.

People need to feel they can make their own choices and not be forced into them. Education goes a long way. Nobody forced me to follow McDougall's plan and yet I embraced it. And so have many others.



Jesus never forced anybody to help the poor, but Marx did. Only it didn't benefit the poor at all in Marx's case. For all the talk about what McDougall's agenda might be above and beyond health and food choices, remember millions have died starving to death under Marxism. Now there's a weight loss plan for ya!

Please tell me you are not suggesting Dr. McDougall has a Marxist agenda.

Man, I hope he's not. But in that article about Egypt, he did use that jargon. Taking from the have's and giving it to the have not's is redistribution of wealth, and that is Marxism.

I just don't see where you are coming to those conclusions from Dr. McDougall's article. The gist of his article is that the best thing that can be done to alleviate starvation is for people to turn to a starch centered, plant-based diet. He knows that people can't be forced into doing that, but he believes that it can and should be proposed. The World Health Organization has made a proposal that people eat a plant-based diet. Dr. McDougall goes even further and says that starch should be central to a plant based diet. Research has shown that such a proposal will make it easier to feed more people using less resources. It not only makes sound health sense, but it makes sound economic sense. The U.S. Constitution says that one of the purposes of government is to provide for the common welfare of it's citizens and guarantee the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is important, but what good is it to be free if you are starving? I didn't see one thing in Dr. McDougall's newsletter about re-distribution of weath. What I saw was a doctor who wants to make people well.

I quoted him in his own words (the have's should give to the have not's-- that's re-distribution of wealth speak)-- whether he was conscious of his choice of phrasing or whether it was merely coincidence, you'll have to be the judge. But it sends warning flags up for me. The Egypt article also mentioned:



Some of these topics, especially population control, go along with Marx (as does global warming, as it is a highly politicized redistribution of wealth program via taxes and carbon credits). Is McDougall stating he's in favor of population controls or does he find it "horrific" like wars, starvation and disease? I can't entirely tell from his paragraph:



By the way, I'd rather have liberty and starve than be in bondage and starve! If you're not free, you have nothing.

eta:



The Constitution never said it guaranteed those things. The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Notice these rights are God-given rights, and not government mandates.) The preamble states "promote the general welfare" (not provide). The Constitution is there to keep power in check, to make sure gov't does not get too big nor tyrannical.

Yes and no. I am no Consititutional scholar like the President of the United States, however even though I made the common mistake of mixing up the phrasiology of the Declaration of Independence with that of the Constitution, the fact remains that the words "welfare" and "liberty" are used in the Preamble to point out the purpose of the U.S. Constitution. Dr. McDougall is concerned about the general welfare of people by making healthy dietary recommendations. You seem top be saying that because he uses the word "mandatory" that he seems to be showing Marxist tendencies. I see it as a function of government to see that we have safe food supplies through stringent testing, inspection of any foodstuffs from other countries, agricultural and manufacturing rules and other means to protect our citizens. Just as the USDA has put out food guidelines such as the food pyramid and "My Plate," plant-based doctors such as Neal Barnard and John McDougall have been urging local, state and the federal government to promote a plant-based diet. I don't see that as any different than the meat and dairy people lobbying members of congress or the senate to push their products. The main difference I see is that the doctors I mentioned are more concerned about the welfare of U.S. citizens than those who lobby for the meat and dairy industry. You may dismiss what Dr. McDougall recommends because of your political views if you want to----that is certainly your right. But the fact remains that eating a lot of red meat, high fat and high cholesterol food is bad for you. That is Dr. McDougall's message and that is not Marxist.

p.s. As far as the 3 things Dr. McDougall mentions in the newsletter you quoted, namely: 1)population control, 2) better agricultural practices or 3) a plant-based, starch centered diet. He was not recommending mandatory population control. He was saying why it wouldn't work even if it was mandatory. He said the same as far as a shift in agricultural practices. He then went on to explain why a starch-based diet I (mainly grains and potatoes) is necessary to alleviate starvation. It seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

I don't consider his health guidelines to be Marxist in the least-- I embrace those. It's his suggestions for how to carry it out, as I've already pointed out and won't repeat here. I think he should keep writing books, making TV appearances, keep writing his newsletters and maintaining his website/forum. I don't even mind if he goes before Congress or writes his congressman as he has done. Bill Clinton did a lot by way of example in promoting a starch-based diet-- people were amazed by the results and interested in how he lost weight and got back on a healthy track. These are the best ways for getting the message out. I don't believe we should be legislating how people should eat. I'm all for McDougall exposing the collusion between food companies and government, as he did at the beginning of this month's article. But his article goes from blaming these food companies/government to accusing parents of child abuse if their kids become obese or if their kids are sexually abused due to blooming early due to diet. Huh??? It was a very strange and disturbing shift.

Government is the least effective entity in guiding us to good health-- read the story earlier in the thread about the NC school that wouldn't accept a girl's lunch from home. They made her buy chicken nuggets instead! Now there's healthy eating! You can bet there are people out there that would say forcing a child to eat vegan is child abuse (I'm not one of them)...would you want to be legislated into eating meat? My kid's pediatrician asks at every check-up how much milk my kids are getting and I get puzzled looks when I tell them they drink almond or soy milk. I don't want to be forced into giving my kids cow's milk, either. But I don't want to force my way of eating on others, either. Lead by example, not by mandate.

My response to you was about the newsletter you quoted from, not about this month's newsletter. You seemed to be implying that Dr. McDougall's statements sounded like Marxist doctrine and I was trying to explain my take on his comments. I am not much on "slippery slope" type arguments.
You also indicated that because of his statements about how to end starvation in third world countries you also wondered if he had an agenda (presumably a political agenda from comments you've made) and also you are beginning to doubt the science behind Dr. McDougall's views. I couldn't disagree more. He is simply very enthusiastic and comitted to what he feels is his ethical duty to warn about the dangers of eating meat and dairy. The global impact of diets based on meat and dairy is beginning to take it's toll. Starvation isn't limited to those who eat mostly meat and dairy of course. There have always been periods of starvation in the past. Some food shortages were caused by weather or invasions by insects and some were caused by poor agricultural practices such as the famous potato famine in Ireland during the 19th century and the dust bowl in America during the 1930's which forced many people into poverty after their crops failed. However we are in the 21st century and have learned a lot from the past. We now know how to grow crops that are resistant to insects and drought. We know now how to diversify rather than be monocultures with only one source of food. Agriculture is no longer completely at the mercy of nature. More than ever before we need to not only use modern farming practices to help feed the world, but to eat in such a way that more people can have more food. I believe it is my ethical duty to do so. I can't and won't force others to do so, but I can with my vote make sure that lawmakers don't revert to the ignorance of the past, but try to solve the problems we have now as well as to make policies that will affect future generations. I think that Dr. McDougall feels the same way.