Since it's been so long since I've been here I should probably post something Japanese-related, but since I'm doing research on Monsanto and the food industry at the moment I thought this was a worthier topic to discuss.

The entire time I've lived in the United States I've drank milk, and eaten dairy products, completely unaware that the entire time I was consuming a product linked to cancer and human health effects, as well as huge increases in serious health problems for the cows. I had no idea that unlike Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and every country in the European Union, America never banned the use of artificial bovine growth hormones.

Now, if you don't know about this you're probably thinking the same thing I did: Why did the USDA, a government organization designed to protect American consumers, not ban these dangerous growth hormones like the rest of the developed world? And the answer to that leads to Monsanto, the world's leading producer in herbicides, genetically engineered seeds, and growth hormones. For all in intents and purposes you can just think of Monsanto as Sauron in Lord of the Rings, or Voldemort in Harry Potter. While pretty much every major corporation has no problems with violating laws, lying to the public, or causing damage to consumer or environmental health so long as it means their stock prices go up, Monsanto is unique in that it also has strong ties to the federal government: Not only do they spend millions and millions in lobbying every year, but their employees and lobbyists have key positions in the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other government offices.

In other words they've been able to get away with pretty much anything.

So what's the moral to this story? Long story short is that the American food industry is a corrupt mess, with consumer health being trumped by corporate profits, and the government regulatory institutions are either in bed with the corporations themselves, or powerless to do anything.

What can you do about it? Know where the food on the plate and in your glass comes from! Buy soy, rice, almond, hemp, or other plant-based milks instead of dairy milk. It has less of a negative impact on the environment, and on your health. Plus they taste sooooo much better than cow's milk. Rice milk for cereal is the best, I prefer soy milk over dairy for cooking and smoothies, and hemp milk in tea is a recipe for tastebud orgasms. If you're a dairy addict, though, ask at your grocery store and at restaurants for milk not produced with growth hormones. Under current law companies don't have to label whether or not it was produced with the hormones (once again thanks to Monsanto's influence over federal policies) so you gotta ask. When possible always buy your food from independent and local farms that are less likely to be poisoning consumers for better profit margins. Not to mention factory farms are basically something out of a Stephen King horror story. Buy grass-fed meat over factory farmed meat, or better yet buy plant-based foods since animal industries have a huge detrimental effect in terms of resource consumption, air and water pollution, and global warming.

You are what you eat, so eat smart!

おかえりなさい、お姫様

i think nowadays, most milk usually contains a disclaimer that it doesn't carry growth hormone... right? at least at my supermarket i see "doesn't contain rBST" or whatever.

this all sounds great but trying it is difficult in practice.
to buy 100% grass-fed meat i have to go the farmer's market on saturday early in the morning or pay jacked up prices at WF. (and generally grass-fed meat can be $4-$5 more per lb, without the "WF tax"). (also, most cows are grass-fed until the fattening/feed-lot stage, so you need to find 100% grass-fed...)

but yea monsanto's policies should be so widely publicized by now, i don't understand how they still get away with the crap they do.
and recently bill gates came out in defense of monsanto, saying GMOs are necessary to feed impoverished nations. i don't get it.
how the hell are they even able to patent seeds and charge people for that?

Ah, dairy is not really replaceable with anything less than an army of chemical engineers and those products taste rather awful, to be honest. The whipping and emulsification properties of butter and heavy cream are rather special, though it's true that milk as a drink can be replaced as long as you don't mind the taste - and price - of soy or rice milk.

Anyway, while dairies are not -required- to indicate whether or not they use hormones, they are -allowed- to do so, and you better believe that anyone who is refraining from using hormones, and therefore voluntarily reducing their yield, is going to advertise that fact right on the carton. Read the cartons carefully in your grocer and you can usually find milk that is produced without hormones, as well as organic milk which is among other things, produced without hormones.

Hormone-free milk is usually 10-20% more expensive than hormone milk (and is usually higher quality in other ways - fresher, better tasting, etc.) Easily worth it, IMO.

Organic milk half again to twice the cost of 'ordinary' (hormones included) milk. This is not, perhaps, flat out 'worth it' but is probably worth considering if you're in the 'middle class' income range. Also if you have only organic milk but not hormone-free non-organic milk - obviously if organic is the only way to avoid the hormones, that's worth considering.

In the New England area you can look for Garelick farms, but I believe only the jugs that actually say so are hormone free, not everything from that dairy. I think there's another regional dairy that has hormone-free as well, but I can't think of the name at the moment, and there's a couple of organic providers as well.

yeah, you really need to be careful with what you eat, especially in America. You should also take care to note that some labelling is counterintuitive... "grass fed" is not the same as free range or organic, and is just as likely to be stuffed full of chemicals. I think i recall reading somewhere that even the "free range" and "organic" labels are counterintuitively used to trick customers at times too.

btw, for anyone interested in Monsanto, here's "the world according to Monsanto" dubbed into Japanese:
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v14247268KysQz...5%E3%80%8D

and in english (in case Aijin hasn't seen it):

i also read that this milk with hormones in is thought to be one of the possible causes of the rise in twins and other multiple births in humans because it causes the ovaries to be overstimulated, but i don't know how concrete that is.

'free range' and 'organic' are meaningless unless they are the USDA certifications by those names (sometimes words are worked into product names to imply things that aren't true, or other similar terms that don't require certification are used.)

If they are USDA certified Free Range, USDA certified Organic, then you can find the policies they are supposed to adhere to on the web.

Free Range is not quite meaningless, it involves access to fresh air and a certain amount of space per animal, so it does prevent the -very- worst of conditions but it is far from the image that Free Range is likely to bring to mind. Organic labeling requires more in terms of space/air/outside access than Free Range, which may be counter-intuitive.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:'free range' and 'organic' are meaningless unless they are the USDA certifications by those names (sometimes words are worked into product names to imply things that aren't true, or other similar terms that don't require certification are used.)

True, and even the USDA certification is pretty meaningless for a lot of those terms. For poultry especially "free range" means nothing, since to get that label from the USDA all that's required is "an opportunity" to access the outdoors. There aren't requirements about size and condition of the outside area, stocking densities, etc. So a lot of people are happy to pay the extra cash at their grocery store for "free range", thinking that it's healthier or that the chickens were treated more humanely than at factory farms. But in reality you still have tens of thousands of birds cramped into areas, with terrible health conditions, and their only access to outdoors is a tiny little exit to a filthy strip of land.

And for eggs it's even worse, since the USDA doesn't even regulate the "cage-free" labels. No third-party certification is in place for it, so really all people do is pay more money for the same quality eggs most of the time.

"USDA Organic" is the most extensively regulated of all the labels, but even for that things like stocking density, flock size, outdoor access levels, and other things haven't been set last time I researched it. So while the label might help a bit for consumer health, the terrible factory farm conditions still usually exist.

Quote:Ah, dairy is not really replaceable with anything less than an army of chemical engineers and those products taste rather awful, to be honest. The whipping and emulsification properties of butter and heavy cream are rather special, though it's true that milk as a drink can be replaced as long as you don't mind the taste - and price - of soy or rice milk

True, it's hard to get the same results using replacements, but it really depends on what one's making. For all my baking I now use "Earth Balance" and it works the same way butter does for crusts, icings, and everything else. Plus it's healthier and I like the taste more than butter. Can't make cream out of soy milk like you could by whipping milk, but there are some super delicious soy-based whipped creams out there. Eggs are the trickiest ingredient like that to emulate, and I don't have any personal experience with egg replacements, but one of my good friends is a chef at a vegan restaurant in Berkeley, and the flan/creme brulee and other custards he makes taste just as amazing as the real thing, so there are definitely options out there. Just would have to ask someone that's a better cook than me

I think the market for animal product alternatives has grown so much in the past few years that really anything can be pretty well emulated. I went to Millennium (arguably the top vegan restaurant in the country) in San Francisco a while ago, and there's NO WAY anyone would be able to tell there weren't eggs/milk/butter in any of their desserts unless you told them. Tasted just as amazing as the desserts I've had at places like The French Laundry.

kainzero Wrote:think nowadays, most milk usually contains a disclaimer that it doesn't carry growth hormone... right? at least at my supermarket i see "doesn't contain rBST" or whatever.

No labeling is required, but companies that don't use growth hormones will label themselves that way just to attract the consumer base that is seeking milk free from rBST. No labeling is required for genetically modified meats, or meat from cloned animals as well, last time I checked. You can see that court case in the film Food Inc. where Monsanto used their influence to win over the courts. Basically the court's verdict was that it would cause unnecessary panic and worry in consumers if they knew the meat they were buying was genetically modified or from a cloned animal. "Ignorance is bliss" tends to be the food industry's policy here :\

Quote:this all sounds great but trying it is difficult in practice.
to buy 100% grass-fed meat i have to go the farmer's market on saturday early in the morning or pay jacked up prices at WF. (and generally grass-fed meat can be $4-$5 more per lb, without the "WF tax"). (also, most cows are grass-fed until the fattening/feed-lot stage, so you need to find 100% grass-fed...)

Buying healthier, and more humane food products is always going to be more expensive than the cheap stuff. But you gotta remember the reason that the cheap stuff is so cheap to begin with is because corporations take every shortcut possible to maximize their profits, which is what creates the horrific living conditions for the animals, and the terrible health effects for us consumers. As consumers we're so used to a food culture where cost and ease of obtaining are the two most important factors outside taste, but for our health, the health of the animals, and the health of our planet itself, it's definitely worth the extra time and money

I watched Food Inc a while back, and it really disgusted me. The problem I have is that I can't afford to eat the diet I'd like to be eating, since I'm still in college and really poor.

Note to people looking for cheap cancer: It's free if you just go through airport security enough. If you're lucky, you'll feel results immediately through the burning sensation in your fingertips.

Yes, I have two of the Millennium cookbooks, but I haven't had the opportunity to eat there or work there. Still, they have a lot of clever tricks for making very rich vegan foods - although I can tell instantly that they don't have cream or butter in them because they don't have that unique butterfat taste, but they can be just as rich and flavorful as a cream or butter dish, it's true.

Still, there are many things that cannot be satisfactorily replicated without dairy products, IMO. The best work of Millennium and others is when they take a whole new direction towards 'rich' flavors, starting with the cashew or coconut or whatever base flavor and building on that. You can really get somewhere with that, while straight-up imitations will always be lacking something.

Anyway, as far as it being 'worth it' to buy organic, that really depends on the individual's situation. Food is expensive and getting more so, and there is a large portion of the population that simply cannot afford to eat organic food. That's doubling or tripling your food cost, which is achievable for most full-time employed individuals... but much less achievable for families. Unfortunately, incomes are effectively declining as wages stagnate while prices continue to rise - never mind organic food, too many families buy far too much in the way of cheap white flour and sugar convenience products. In sheer calories per dollar it feeds everyone pretty efficiently, so while I don't like it I do understand why they do it. It's certainly worthwhile for an individual earning $50k or more to buy organic, but not remotely practical for a family of four with an income of $20k (or less!) annually.

As long as the 'cheap stuff' is available, lower-rung wage earners are never going to be paid enough to buy anything else. (Actually, I don't expect wages to change substantially regardless of inflation or food cost increases for quite some time, people will just have to work more hours - across multiple employers, of course, so that they remain 'part-time' and denied benefits at each employer.)

It depends on what is important to you. If that sensation of butter fat taste is more important than the fact that cows are suffering (they do indeed) and that dairy products are more or less harmful healthwise (I wouldn't demonize dairy products neither and it surely depends on the quantity, but at least one can perfectly do without them without risking any health problems), then be it. But actually it is very easy to replace any dairy product that exists, since there are all kinds of vegetable "dairy" products available. It's a matter of getting used to it. (Besides that, you don't actually need a "replacement" for dairy products, of course.)

By the way, in my opinion it's not comprehensible that soy or rice milk is more expensive than cow milk. To produce cow milk is much more complex than to produce a drink out of soy beans or rice. The latter could actually be extremely cheap.

Eggs aren't that easy to replace. When do you normally use eggs? You can easily make perfect cakes without eggs (or egg replacement), for instance. "Scrambled eggs" can be made of tofu etc. When it comes to cakes, you won't notice any difference, for dishes like scrambled eggs, the tase won't, of course, be the same, but again, it depends on what is more important to you. It's a psychological matter.

Aijin Wrote:The entire time I've lived in the United States I've drank milk, and eaten dairy products, completely unaware that the entire time I was consuming a product linked to cancer and human health effects, as well as huge increases in serious health problems for the cows. I had no idea that unlike Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and every country in the European Union, America never banned the use of artificial bovine growth hormones.

I went and read up on this just a bit. My general (uneducated) stance on the media surrounding "Genetic Engineering" and "horomone" use, till now, has always been that the proponents against it and screaming loudest in the media for the ban on it were probably reacting on an emotional level to the thought of "Science in their food." Plus it always had an air of tinfoil-hat conspiracy to it.

The thread has since switched track and is now discussing animal rights, but I did want to ask about the original post.

I'm going to guess the (original) claim being made here is:

Quote:Use of recombinant Bovine Somatotropin is harmful to humans.

Everything stems from that claim.

In my reading of the wiki article what I have gathered is this. BGH is a naturally occurring hormone in cows which is secreted by the pituitary gland and regulates various functions in the body of the cow. One of these functions is the production of milk. Monsanto found a way to artificially create BGH, rBGH, and inject it into the cows and increase the milk production and growth of the cows.

The composition of milk has been studied in over 200 different rBGH studies. They have found consistently that the composition of milk (ph, vitamin content, freezing point, thermal properties, fat content, nutritional value and manufacturing characteristics) is the same when comparing rBGH and non-rBGH cows. The only point of concern is with a hormone created by BGH, Insulin-Growth factor (IGF), which occurs with natural and artificial BGH alike, in both humans and cows. IGF fed orally to an organism has no effect because its broken down (denatured) in the stomach, nor is it absorbed in the stomach or intestines.

I only bring IGF up because the wiki article mentions that injected IGF actually causes problems. Injected and naturally occuring IGF are implicated in the formation of tumors. Injected levels of IGF-1 have been shown to be linked to increased levels of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. But again, this is injected IGF. IGF is neither absorbed by the body when induced orally, nor does it make it out of the stomach.

So based on what I've read in the article on Wiki. So your claim that dairy products from cows that have been injected with rBGH are harmful to humans seems to be unsupported by what I've read so far.

It's the usual problem you run into with this -- any claim or study that rBGH is not harmful will be refuted because the "studies are funded by the dairy industry" or whatever. But it does seem to come down to "science in food is bad".

regardless of what they're feeding/injecting the cows, the fact is milk is something designed by nature to make an infant grow. It's loaded with protein, fats and other nutrients to make you grow. It's not designed for adults, so it has all sorts of awful side effects if you keep drinking it beyond infancy.

vix86&yudantaitekilease notice how under the section "Human Health" on the wikipedia page there are three points introduced, one of which is "secondary effects, e.g. the increased use of antibiotics to treat mastitis". It's never discussed in the section any further. Experiments that test for effects of rBGH would of course usually be trying to isolate the direct effects of rBGH so that secondary effects don't confound the findings. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's what you do to examine particular effects, it's sound science. However, using that as an argument that "the use of rBGH has no detrimentary effects on human health" is an error, since the secondary effects still do exist and so rBGH might indirectly decrease the milk's quality.

Even if you ignore that, the effects of rBGH which lead to increased antibiotics use also means that human health is negatively impacted since in the long run there will be more resistent bacteria/virus strains around to infect us as well as cows. I also think that the worsening of the animals' living conditions is a problem in itself, but you might disagree with me on this point.

So, thinking of rGBH when used by the dairy industry today as a health hazard is still a valid viewpoint, even if its sinister nature is exaggerated at times. Using knowledge of (bio)chemistry to improve farm outputs and food quality is a great thing and has done human society much good, but we should never fool ourself into creating dichotomical "pro-chemistry"/"anti-chemistry" debates. Like all science, biochemistry and chemistry can be used as tools for creating good things as well as bad things... and things that are good in SOME contexts and bad in some other contexts. Almost everything can be used and/or abused.

Edit: Oh and please do remember that wikipedia is open to everyone, including corporate PR agents. If they are too obvious in their own self-promotion it's usually edited by others, but the PR agents that do these things professionally often know that they need a bit of subtlety. When it comes to articles like the one on BGH, about an issue which is very dear to some gigantic companies, you can bet your rump that it's been edited by PR people. This isn't about me thinking of conspiratory theory-like stuff, it's just totally obvious if you think about it for a moment. Given that these huge American companies are so aggressive in their marketing and go so far as to bribe politicians and other statesmen, do you really think they wouldn't pay the relatively small amount necessary to have Wikipedia pages edited a bit? They're not stupid, they know how much people rely on Wikipedia by now.

Surreal Wrote:Even if you ignore that, the effects of rBGH which lead to increased antibiotics use also means that human health is negatively impacted since in the long run there will be more resistent bacteria/virus strains around to infect us as well as cows

Antibiotics do not affect viruses.

kusterdu Wrote:

Surreal Wrote:Even if you ignore that, the effects of rBGH which lead to increased antibiotics use also means that human health is negatively impacted since in the long run there will be more resistent bacteria/virus strains around to infect us as well as cows

Antibiotics do not affect viruses.

You should try telling that to physicians in the UK. Assuming the antibiotics do make it into our systems, the negative impact on our gut flora would make us less efficient at combating viruses and generally lower our immunity anyway. "Conventional" animal products also contain traces of viruses, which may or may not be infective, but can still trigger immune responses, just like dead bacteria can in pasteurised milk. If you add residues of pesticides and steroids to this list, you can see how a pint of milk makes a nice little cocktail of healthy goodness even without the growth hormones.

Non-organic animal products are poison in general and produced in disgusting ways. It's just too expensive for most people to speak with their purchases and put pressure on the "conventional" industry. It was kind of funny reading the OP anyway, but then I guess everyone's a little surprised when they realise money is legitimately more important than health in affluent nations. I personally find vegetable oils and margarine more outrageous though.

Surreal Wrote:vix86&yudantaitekilease notice how under the section "Human Health" on the wikipedia page there are three points introduced, one of which is "secondary effects, e.g. the increased use of antibiotics to treat mastitis". It's never discussed in the section any further. Experiments that test for effects of rBGH would of course usually be trying to isolate the direct effects of rBGH so that secondary effects don't confound the findings. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's what you do to examine particular effects, it's sound science. However, using that as an argument that "the use of rBGH has no detrimentary effects on human health" is an error, since the secondary effects still do exist and so rBGH might indirectly decrease the milk's quality.

Ah you're right, I completely missed that. Good catch. I guess then the issue would be researching to see if the use of antibiotics continues on down the food chain through the products. Googling doesn't give me any quick and easy to read articles on it so I can't really offer up a point on that I guess. But if it is the case that secondary things, like the use of antibiotics are the harmful, then the debate shouldn't be about "rBGH is harmful to humans!" it should be about "Antibiotics/whatever is harmful to humans." If you eliminate the use of of the secondary then it becomes impossible to use rBGH. But I think its a bit intellectually dishonest to say rBGH is harmful when the direct agent isn't rBGH.

Quote:Even if you ignore that, the effects of rBGH which lead to increased antibiotics use also means that human health is negatively impacted since in the long run there will be more resistent bacteria/virus strains around to infect us as well as cows.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant antibiotic->Bacteria because kusterdu is right; antibiotics only work on bacteria. You are right though, rampant use of antibiotics anywhere creates an ideal environment for antibiotic-resistant strains. Whether or not this is a good enough reason to avoid its use though I'm not sure, especially considering that even in the absence of the antibiotic it is still possible an antibiotic-resistant strain could arrise (many many times more unlikely, but not outside the realm of the impossible).

Quote:I also think that the worsening of the animals' living conditions is a problem in itself, but you might disagree with me on this point.

I'm ignoring animal rights discussions. That's further into the realm of philosophy/ethics than I care to argue.

Quote:Edit: Oh and please do remember that wikipedia is open to everyone, including corporate PR agents.

Yep well aware. But I checked a few of the actual papers cited in the article that I thought might be possibly planted research, and they seem sound enough.

Javizy Wrote:

kusterdu Wrote:

Surreal Wrote:Even if you ignore that, the effects of rBGH which lead to increased antibiotics use also means that human health is negatively impacted since in the long run there will be more resistent bacteria/virus strains around to infect us as well as cows

Antibiotics do not affect viruses.

You should try telling that to physicians in the UK. Assuming the antibiotics do make it into our systems, the negative impact on our gut flora would make us less efficient at combating viruses and generally lower our immunity anyway. "Conventional" animal products also contain traces of viruses, which may or may not be infective, but can still trigger immune responses, just like dead bacteria can in pasteurised milk. If you add residues of pesticides and steroids to this list, you can see how a pint of milk makes a nice little cocktail of healthy goodness even without the growth hormones.

Non-organic animal products are poison in general and produced in disgusting ways. It's just too expensive for most people to speak with their purchases and put pressure on the "conventional" industry. It was kind of funny reading the OP anyway, but then I guess everyone's a little surprised when they realise money is legitimately more important than health in affluent nations. I personally find vegetable oils and margarine more outrageous though.

Whoops, yeah I made a mistake by writing that "resistent virus strains" would develop, sorry about that. It's not even spelled "resistent". Javizy's post also brings up a relevant point imo, though it wasn't what I meant in my post, I simply made a mistake.

vix86: Well I edited my last post to say that "rGBH as used by the industry today is a health hazard". That is, the way rGBH is being used now by the farming industry poses a threat to human health, since it would lead to cattle diseases which would in turn likely lead to less healthy milk if it weren't for antibiotics, and in actuality more antibiotics are being used in a way that accelerates the development of resistant bacteria strains. So yes, I agree with you that people shouldn't say "rGBH is bad", it's much better if they say "the way rGBH is being used is bad (because it leads to animal suffering and increased antibiotics use)". Suggesting that whether we abuse antibiotics or not doesn't really mean anything since resistant strains will develop anyhow is very odd. We have to rely on the continous development of new antibiotics in order to keep potential epidemics at bay and the shorter the time that an antibiotic is effective, the shorter the time we have to develop new antibiotics and the higher the epidemy risk is. Whether overuse of antibiotics is a problem for global human health or not isn't really worth debating because it really, really is a big problem.

Edit: I forgot about one thing. Javizy, the fact that milk has some immune system-activating proteins etc. in it isn't necessarily such a bad thing. There have been some studies that found that the bacteria in mothers' breastmilk can actually help babies develop their immune system well and help it get activated, kind of like what's done with vaccine. In our modern society with all these clean environments (as in, our rooms and stuff that have much less biological critters around compared to the forest and caves) and so on, some activation of the immune system now and then might jog our defenses. Of course, I don't really know if that's the case, but I think we shouldn't be too scared of bacteria etc. in our food because too little stimulation from these sources might, in the long run, weaken our defenses and make us less prepared for when the big threats come around. Still, it's important to be vigilant about changes to the food we eat that are brought about by artificial methods so I'm not really disagreeing with you either.

^^^ See my point about why GM crops, pesticides, fertilizers are used. Unless you want to argue that humanity become vegetarians then we'll continue to use science to push for more and more product production. Be that meat or milk. That means our animals can't die before they reach market or use their value up (hence we need to pump them full of chemicals). Whether this is right or wrong I'm not sure, but thats the case.
EDIT: Sorry I just realized I threw the baby out with the bath water. The real point isn't humanity being vegetarian its that people will need to either decide to continue to use antibiotics to meet demand of consumers. Or accept that prices on finite animal resources like meat or milk will flucuate and potentially become expensive; as a result of banning antibiotic use to protect our selves from crazy resistant bacteria outbreaks. (The unstated point that I think we will all agree on is that animals shouldn't suffer for great lengths of time simply for their product. But this is a grey region and obviously leads to the vegan argument and the slaughtering of animals)

Javizy Wrote:You should try telling that to physicians in the UK. Assuming the antibiotics do make it into our systems, the negative impact on our gut flora would make us less efficient at combating viruses and generally lower our immunity anyway.

The article in question you seem to be refering to. Note at the end it mentions that they weren't immuno-comprimised by the antibotics.

Quote:Antibiotic-treated mice didn’t have generally weakened immune systems, though. The antibiotic-treated mice were still able to fight herpes, because the immune system fights off herpes and some other viruses using a different molecular weapon.

What herpes had to do in this though I'm not sure...maybe they used herpes as their variable to determine if the antibiotics were compromising their immune system in some way.

Its important to note though that the study mainly mentioned the flu viruses in this, but I can believe that gut microbiota probably fight all kinds of other viruses as well. But its important to remember that there are multiple different kinds of antibiotics out there. There isn't simple some drink labeled "antibiotic" and it works on everything, and we just happen to also give it to our cows, pigs, and chickens too. This study in particular looked at Neomycin. It could be that other antibiotics given to animals don't effect the gut microbiota at all. Lets not put everything under one umbrella without checking them out first.

Quote:"Conventional" animal products also contain traces of viruses, which may or may not be infective, but can still trigger immune responses, just like dead bacteria can in pasteurised milk. If you add residues of pesticides and steroids to this list, you can see how a pint of milk makes a nice little cocktail of healthy goodness even without the growth hormones.

This is about the equivalent of an OCD hand washer going on at length about the hundreds of thousands of different bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. growing on you hand, keyboard, doorknob, toilet handle, light switch; and why oh why they must wash their hands all the time.
Fact of the matter is that 1) The immune system is very good at fighting bacteria and viruses. 2) If the pesticides and steroids are inactive, broken down, never absorbed by the human body in anyway; then why is it an issue?

Quote:Non-organic animal products

You got an example of this because this sounds like an oxymoron to me.

----

Its important to remember that part of the reason for the use of pesticides, antibiotics, fertilizers, genetic engineering, and all the other "nasty icky science stuff"; is because of money. BUT WAIT! Lets not all jump on the "bash the corporation" bandwagon just yet. The population has been increasing. This means we need more food for the people. However the number of farmers out there have not been increasing in the same proportion; in fact I would not be surprised to learn they have been decreasing (not fact checked). So if a farm puts out the same amount of food each year but the number of people have been increasing each year with no increases in farming, that means the demand went up with no increase in supply. In other words food will get more expensive. People bitch when stuff is expensive. Not only that they can't buy as much, which incidentally also hurts corps profit margin.

So scientists worked to solve the problems causing farms not to output the max amount of food per plot of land.
Maybe it was because of bugs eating so much of the crops. So they got better pesticides and crops that make their own pesticide naturally. More crop goes to market.
Maybe it was because the weather has been getting worse and its drier. So they make crops that can take less water by breeding and splicing in genes from other plants built for hardy climates.
Maybe the crops just put out meager fruit. So they'll tweak the crop's genes so the fruit is larger, which also means it sucks more nutrients so we need to feed it better when growing. Improved fertilizer.

Modified, 'pesticided', chemically fertilized crops are not going to vanish because they result in more at less cost. Meaning lower prices compared to the other organic stuff which is going to suffer from the same problems that resulted in modifying the crops in the first place. If you are well-off then you can afford those fancy organic non-GM foods. But if you are almost always broke and living check to check, you'll have to settle for the GM stuff. And as long as humans continue to procreate this will continue to be a growing issue.

Sure, we need biochemistry and chemistry like I said in my previous post. What at least I have been saying about this particular use of rBGH though is that it is a short-sighted, unsustainable way of increasing production that on the whole costs society more than it benefits society. I do believe that the criticism is valid and that the non-American countries that chose to ban its use made a good choice. We have food needs today that make GM foods a must and that's not even necessarily a bad thing - what is a problem is when GM and other artificial methods are used in a way that is not sustainable and only because it happens to make some peole's wallets a bit fatter.

Edit:Antibiotics use that is employed systematically to counter-effect things that we humans and our industries are bringing about knowing that it will make antibiotics use necessary is something that should be avoided as much as possible in my opinion. When it seems like we must resort to it, it should not be taken for granted; it should be done very carefully and under strict supervision of well-informed, independent parties. The American system today doesn't seem to work that way.

Surreal Wrote:Sure, we need biochemistry and chemistry like I said in my previous post. What at least I have been saying about this particular use of rBGH though is that it is a short-sighted, unsustainable way of increasing production that on the whole costs society more than it benefits society. I do believe that the criticism is valid and that the non-American countries that chose to ban its use made a good choice. We have food needs today that make GM foods a must and that's not even necessarily a bad thing - what is a problem is when GM and other artificial methods are used in a way that is not sustainable and only because it happens to make some peole's wallets a bit fatter.

What part is unsustainable? The fact that using rBGH requires us to us antibiotics to counteract increased infections + animal suffering, which could lead to superbugs? Theres nothing to say we couldn't develop new antibiotics for the superbugs. Therefore I wouldn't say its necessarily "unsustainable." I would say the flow of capital is probably unsustainable at its current level since at some point superbugs will force you to sink tons into research for a new antibiotic.

As far as doing it for the sake of money though, I agree, actions shouldn't be solely motivated on the on the desire of money. I think the point of arguement would then turn to whether to turn meat/dairy into a luxury item then if it means only those with lots of money could buy it.

Quote:Edit:

I agree, but then I don't have too much invested in this topic. I just don't like how the media thats anti-GM plays it off with the air of "No science in my food!" It comes off as dangerously close to the ignorance surrounding anti-evolution and the anti-vaccination BS being perpetuated.

vix86 Wrote:The article in question you seem to be refering to. Note at the end it mentions that they weren't immuno-comprimised by the antibotics.

I've never seen that article. There's no question that medical doses of antibiotics damage or even destroy your gut flora. There's a good article here about that. The point is that they're vital to good health, which doesn't mean not having cancer or immunodeficiency on par with an AIDS patient, it means being healthy. With the milk, we're talking about residual amounts that may have only a subtle impact on your health over time. This is something you're going to have in your coffee for the next 50 years

vix86 Wrote:It could be that other antibiotics given to animals don't effect the gut microbiota at all. Lets not put everything under one umbrella without checking them out first.

How many antibiotics are able to target specific strains of bacteria? This is the direction things are heading in, but the majority of prescriptions for humans are broad spectrum varieties that decimate the gut flora. Animals are given antibiotics as a preventative measure, so they're going to be full spectrum without a doubt.

vix86 Wrote:Fact of the matter is that 1) The immune system is very good at fighting bacteria and viruses. 2) If the pesticides and steroids are inactive, broken down, never absorbed by the human body in anyway; then why is it an issue?

Pesticides and steroids are synthetic toxins; why would they ever be "active"? Why do you assume they're not absorbed, and do you think they otherwise fall out of the body without taxing the liver and other organs? It may seem like OCD to you, but it seems like something worthy of much more thorough investigation to me.

vix86 Wrote:

Quote:Non-organic animal products

You got an example of this because this sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Anything that isn't certified organic by the relevant certification organisation, as I'm sure you already know. Think cramped, unhygienic living conditions, unsuitable feed that causes disease and contains pesticides, lack of exercise and light, and routine use of antibiotics, drugs and other junk to keep the poor beasts alive long enough to die. If there's anything organic about that, then you have quite a warped view of nature.

vix86 Wrote:Its important to remember that...

This is really a different discussion from here. I'm talking about being vigilant like you said at the end. We're far too often used as guinea pigs when a profitable idea is developed. Massive numbers of chemicals, including pesticides and food additives, aren't thoroughly tested before we're allowed to consume them. It's not until somebody gets seriously ill that they're withdrawn, but if we're talking about subtle changes in immunity, digestion, neuron health or whatever else over time, what chance does this have of happening? It would take some pretty awesome research to change things, so until then it's up to you to decide what you want your body to process and what you'd rather avoid.

Javizy Wrote:With the milk, we're talking about residual amounts that may have only a subtle impact on your health over time. This is something you're going to have in your coffee for the next 50 years

This is all stuff that gets tested for in the FDA drug trials though. Instead of waiting 50 years though they simply give large doses of a drug/chemical to animals and see what happens. If they decide the results are not acceptable, like saying "after consuming this quantity which would amount to 30 years of consumption you have a 4% increase chance for liver cancer." then they don't pass the drug.

Quote:How many antibiotics are able to target specific strains of bacteria? This is the direction things are heading in, but the majority of prescriptions for humans are broad spectrum varieties that decimate the gut flora. Animals are given antibiotics as a preventative measure, so they're going to be full spectrum without a doubt.

You are right that most antibiotics are broad spectrum usually and a bit of googling shows me that stuff like penicillin is used on cows. I think arguing against antibiotics use with animals, over the fact that it might harm gut flora is kind of petty issue, seeing as if it did lead to harming you (destroying gut floral and there in leading to immuno-disorder) the FDA would ban use. Surreal had it right though that the more important issue is probably the wide overuse leading to potential superbugs. However, while googling to find more answers concerning antibiotics in animals and in food I found some articles suggesting that its probably not as big as an issue (resistant strains) as some might make it out to be.

Quote:Animal Biotics and Food saftey
If farm animals receive antibiotics, does that put me at greater risk of getting an infection that is resistant to antibiotic treatments?
Experts recently reviewed all of the scientific literature on this subject and concluded that the extent to which antibiotic use on the farm contributes to increases in antibiotic resistance among bacteria that cause foodborne illnesses in people is unclear[1]. Moreover, the experts noted that extensive scientific studies confirm that people are most likely to get a resistant infections as a result of their own use of antibiotics. With regard to foodborne illnesses, fortunately for most healthy individuals, the vast majority of foodborne illnesses, including those caused by resistant bacteria, are not severe enough to require antibiotic treatment. However, to help reduce potential risk, FDA’s antibiotic approval process includes a specific process to determine if using that particular antibiotic increases the risk of resistance. It also imposes, if deemed appropriate, conditions for use of the antibiotic that would impede resistance development.

Quote:Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A critical review of published data
*snip*

The low dosages used for growth promotion are an unquantified hazard. Although some antibiotics are used both in animals and humans, most of the resistance problem in humans has arisen from human use. Resistance can be selected in food animals, and resistant bacteria can contaminate animal-derived food, but adequate cooking destroys them. How often they colonize the human gut, and transfer resistance genes is not known.

*snip*

Even if resistant pathogens do reach man, the clinical consequences of resistance may be small. The application of the ‘precautionary principle’ is a non-scientific approach that assumes that risk assessments will be carried out.

So a mix of "still unknown" and "not likely to be of much issue."

Quote:Pesticides and steroids are synthetic toxins; why would they ever be "active"? Why do you assume they're not absorbed, and do you think they otherwise fall out of the body without taxing the liver and other organs? It may seem like OCD to you, but it seems like something worthy of much more thorough investigation to me.

When I said "active" I was referring to them not having an effect on the body. If they are absorbed in some form I would expect them to not harm the body because I put a certain amount of faith in the testing to make sure they are safe if they were consumed. Let me turn the question right back at you though, why do you assume they ARE absorbed? There are plenty of other things that make the organs of the body work just as much, unless we are critiquing every other thing that causes the liver/organs to have to work/tax them; then it seems ridiculous to me to single out pesticides/fertilizers/etc. Obviously if they over-tax the system and inevitably cause problems then ya, they shouldn't be introduced into the food chain. But this all sounds like people are making a boogieman out of anything artificial and assuming its going to make you start growing warts.

Quote:Anything that isn't certified organic by the relevant certification organisation

Oh, you are using the term in the sense of "vegan organic." Alright.

Quote:so until then it's up to you to decide what you want your body to process and what you'd rather avoid.

This is what it will come down to pretty much. The FDA can not catch all possible problems, science is not a god. It can only work through what it can see.
There is strong movement in the media to make anything "made by man and consumed" to be tainted in some way while anything "made by nature" is perfectly safe. This is a movement spawned by ignorance and the fear of the unknown.

vix86 Wrote:Let me turn the question right back at you though, why do you assume they ARE absorbed? There are plenty of other things that make the organs of the body work just as much, unless we are critiquing every other thing that causes the liver/organs to have to work/tax them; then it seems ridiculous to me to single out pesticides/fertilizers/etc. Obviously if they over-tax the system and inevitably cause problems then ya, they shouldn't be introduced into the food chain. But this all sounds like people are making a boogieman out of anything artificial and assuming its going to make you start growing warts.

I asked you the question because I thought maybe you had some evidence. The detrimental effects of pesticides are well documented. Just type the word into the New Scientist search. Notice how many of the studies are about long-term exposure. Why are they documenting these things after the FDA-approved tests you have so much faith in have already been carried out?

What are the other things that tax the body just as much? If I were able to, I'd put only clean food and water into my body, since that's what it was designed to run on. Why does the fact that pharmaceuticals and household chemicals screw me up more than pesticides and antibiotics have any relevance? I don't want to be exposed to any of them.

That seems to be where our viewpoints differ. You seem to think it's fine to consume a variety of toxins as long as they don't ostensibly harm you, or at least haven't yet been proven to, whereas I'd rather avoid anything that doesn't benefit my health and question those attempting to force junk into the food chain and environment.

vix86 Wrote:There is strong movement in the media to make anything "made by man and consumed" to be tainted in some way while anything "made by nature" is perfectly safe. This is a movement spawned by ignorance and the fear of the unknown.

I don't know what media movement you're talking about, and I don't like arguing in extremes. We shouldn't have to use words like cancer and immunodeficiency to say these things aren't good for our health. Health shouldn't be defined as the absence of disease, it should be a state of wellness, and there are few synthetic substances that can contribute to this. Milk used to be toxin-free and loaded with vitamins, enzymes, probiotics and healthier fats. Maybe a move away from that was inevitable for socio-economic reasons, but that doesn't mean everything that's happening to our food is above reproach and should go unquestioned because the FDA approved it.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:Yes, I have two of the Millennium cookbooks, but I haven't had the opportunity to eat there or work there. Still, they have a lot of clever tricks for making very rich vegan foods - although I can tell instantly that they don't have cream or butter in them because they don't have that unique butterfat taste, but they can be just as rich and flavorful as a cream or butter dish, it's true.

Are you a chef? People that specialize in food might be able to taste the lack of butter or cream, but for normal consumers, and even most foodies, I can't imagine tasting a lack of butterfat/cream when there's a lot of flavor complexity in a dish. When I babysat a kid and made him breakfast I used Earth Balance on his toast and waffle and he didn't notice from taste that it wasn't butter, for example. I get the same result when I make baked goods and share with friends; nobody can tell I didn't use cream/butter/eggs. I guess we'd have to run large-scale blind tasting tests to be sure, though

Quote:Still, there are many things that cannot be satisfactorily replicated without dairy products, IMO. The best work of Millennium and others is when they take a whole new direction towards 'rich' flavors, starting with the cashew or coconut or whatever base flavor and building on that. You can really get somewhere with that, while straight-up imitations will always be lacking something.

I definitely prefer that "new direction" style in vegetarian and vegan food, rather than eating imitations, but the imitations have become insanely realistic lately. Especially the meat imitations, it amazes me how close they can get the taste and textures using things like soy protein. It's still a ways away from being a true imitation, but I wouldn't be surprised if 10-20 years from now we have meat imitations that are practically identical to real meat.

Quote:It's certainly worthwhile for an individual earning $50k or more to buy organic, but not remotely practical for a family of four with an income of $20k (or less!) annually.

Things certainly get tricky when you get into the really low wages, but if a family of four with a low income is getting financial support in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc. I think they'd certainly be able to eat healthily and humanely so long as they make their own meals. Grains are way more cost efficient in terms of calories than things like McDonald's. A 5 lb bag of rice I can buy for 4$ and that's 7,750 calories, whereas a lb of beef, about the same price in a grocery store here, is around 450 calories. Even when you factor in things like electricity cost from running cooking appliances, or gas costs from using a stove to make pasta or other grains, it's still usually way more cost effective.

I mean, yeah things like 100% grass-fed beef from ethical local farms can be out of reach of very low income families. But in those cases people should just stick to the healthy and humane foods that ARE affordable to them. So many Indian dishes are cheap, nutrient dense, and easy to make, for example. I make pretty delicious Thai curry that costs me about 10$ and lasts for 7+ meals, for example. Way more cost efficient than 10$ of McDonalds in terms of nutrient density and calories.

Aijin Wrote:I make pretty delicious Thai curry that costs me about 10$ and lasts for 7+ meals, for example. Way more cost efficient than 10$ of McDonalds in terms of nutrient density and calories.

Is there a recipe for this somewhere?