9.0°

Due to Alaska's growing population, there's not enough game in the state to satisfy its Native population, let alone the other 85 percent.

What's more, using domestic animals to provide enough red meat for the carnivores among us isn't the answer.

What with the mad-cow scare, the tanked economy, environmental concerns and the increasing cost of raising beef and bringing it to market, few of us can now afford the luxury of eating red meat.

I say it's time we faced the real problem: too many people. Population growth is a bad thing, and something ought to be done about it.

Having given this a few minutes of thought, I've found a solution: Downsize the population by getting people to eat more red meat.

It sounds crazy, but it's simple logic.

Studies show that people who regularly eat red and processed meat don't live as long as people who eat it seldom or never. Shorter life spans would equate to a population decrease. Fewer people would mean enough red meat to go around.

It's easy to get people to eat more red meat. Simply tell them that meat isn't good for them, and the naysayers, flat-earthers and other contrarians would soon be dropping like flies. Consider the following information a trial run for this idea.

In the mid-1990s, some 500,000 people aged 50-71 years were part of a study that, among other things, investigated whether red or processed meat intake increases cancer risk.

After 10 years, the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study concluded: "Both red and processed meat intakes were positively associated with cancers of the colorectum and lung; furthermore, red meat intake was associated with an elevated risk for cancers of the esophagus and liver."

Addressing this risk in "Red Meats: Good or Bad?" on the Healthy Eats web site (Mar. 24, 2009), Tony Amidor asked, "What's a carnivore to do?" His answer: "If you want to eat meat, your best bet is to go lean and eat it in moderation."

Dan Buettner, author of "The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer from the People Who've Lived the Longest," found that centenarians living in "Blue Zones" -- Sardinia, Okinawa, Costa Rica and Loma Linda, CA -- ate little or no red or processed meat.

He wrote, "To emulate their diet, try to limit serving meat to twice weekly, and serve no portion larger than a deck of cards." That portion would weigh about 4 ounces.

Another reason to abstain from meat, in progressive Sweden, labels on some foods now list the carbon dioxide emissions associated with its production.

Due to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising cattle, Swedes are being counseled to choose beans or chicken instead of red meat. (They would be told to eat fish, but European stocks are depleted.)

How much more convincing do you need? Eating red meat is a bad idea, period.

Oh, one more thing. If you have any moose meat in your freezer that you don't want, I probably know someone who would take it off your hands.

Les Palmer lives in Sterling.