Got Milk? Got Ethics?

[masha]

I disagree. Using the term “factory farming” and then lumpping all large production farms into this term and saying that “factory farming” treats the animals as machines is a gross over generalization.

Not all large producers act in the manner you state or are shown in the various videos that are put out there. All the videos prove is that the one producer that is in the video works in this way when the video was taken.

There have been shows on networks like TLC that show large producers who do not treat their animals as “machines”.

Not all large production dairies are factory farms, but the majority of them are - it’s difficult for them to avoid it, because they have to churn out a huge amount of milk on a daily basis. There often isn’t the time, energy, or motivation to be better than the factory farm model.

That’s not saying that every large production dairy treats it’s cows as the one in the video does. None of the farms I’ve worked at are quite that bad, but they are varying degrees of awful. The best sort of factory farm would not directly abuse it’s animals, but still would not allow them the freedom of movement, care, and attention that the animals need to do well. The worst sort of farm we can see on the video. Most fall somewhere in-between.

I haven’t seen the farms on TLC, are there really ‘farm-life’ shows on t.v. now? How funny! Are there other types of farms on the shows or just dairy?

Blessings,
Masha

 

[St_Francis]

So even though this is a journalistic news piece shown on the national news, you think it is a piece of propoganda?

Yes. They give very limited anecdotal information and they show what looks the worst to the viewers who know nothing about cows with no explanation.

Good news doesn’t sell. “Exposés” do. Notice that these shows focus on people who can’t really fight back; and notice how little of the government’s corruption they report.

What motivation do journalists have to make working entrepeneurs look bad???

What sells. What brings in viewers. What brings in advertisers. Dollars to donuts there was some advertising on there appealing to vegetarians.

Is there no journalistic integrety?

Is this a serious question? Just consider how the mainstream media treats Catholics.

Should we not even turn on the nightly news???

I don’t… Of course, I have no cable, no satellite, no antenna…

 

[St_Francis]

People have given some good information about cows, but no one has mentioned that a happy cow gives more milk, and so dairymen keep their cows happy.

The brief mention of maximising milk production brings up another common misconception about dairy cows: that they are pushed into maximum production–which is put in such a way as to make it sound cruel to do so. Dairy cows have been carefully bred for many generations to produce a lot of milk. It is in no way harming the animal to feed her right and have her produce the amount of milk that she has been bred to give.

Besides being beset by rules and regulations, the dairy industry has a very narrow profit margin. A dairyman cannot afford to feed enough to a cow to keep her healthy if she does not produce enough milk. A cow in milk will “milk off her back”: she will produce milk before she keeps weight on herself. In order for her to get enough calories to make milk, she must be fed grain, because if she only eats hay, she will make milk but her own body will decline. So the dairyman has to feed her grain. A dairyman I know says he feeds 1 pound of grain for one pound of milk, and for various breeds that’s 50+ pounds of grain a day. That adds up, and that’s in addition to hay, which they also need a lot of, and which gets pretty expensive, esp in the winter. The cow will get sick and can die if she gets too little hay, so they absolutely have to feed both.

Some cows are very dominant, which means if they are not monitored, the dominant cows will get all the food and the submissive cows will get too little. A cow who gets too little not only runs the risk of giving less milk but also of getting sick.

That man hit the cow–if cows don’t behave, they can kill someone. You know those annoying untrained dogs? OK, now think of if that annoying untrained dog could kill you without even trying. It’s jumping up on you and you don’t have to worry about your suit or your stockings, because you are on the ground with a several-hundred–pound animal above you. Cows in heat will do that…

So, yeah, I think this was spun. I think a man worked there and they showed the worst of what he was able to capture on film, and he didn’t bother to film the explanatory parts, either. That’s what these self-styled news shows do.

 

[St_Francis]

And lastly, animals do not have rights. We need to avoid treating them cruelly because that it bad for our own souls, but the animals cared for by people are almost all actually much better off than the same animal would be in the wild.

 

[4elise]

Since dairy has become such a big part of the average western diet it is easy to understand why so many don’t want to consider that the source of their food comes from situations where animals are mistreated -

It is human nature to discount information and sources that we disagree with… and on these threads discussions on how animals are treated when raised for food, or for their products for food causes a lot of people - who just refuse to consider the possibility that what they have eaten - may not be the best choice for so many reasons…

From what I’ve learned - the vast majority milk produced by dairies in the US (obviously not ALL) does come from CAFO situations - farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/dairy/ - obviously those who just don’t believe this will discount this as propaganda - others will say that isn’t where their dairy comes from…

Anyway - dairy isn’t necessary for the human diet. Many animals suffer to produce dairy… so… it becomes simple to me. Omit dairy from my diet

Blessings…

 

[St_Francis]

Since dairy has become such a big part of the average western diet it is easy to understand why so many don’t want to consider that the source of their food comes from situations where animals are mistreated -

It is human nature to discount information and sources that we disagree with… and on these threads discussions on how animals are treated when raised for food, or for their products for food causes a lot of people - who just refuse to consider the possibility that what they have eaten - may not be the best choice for so many reasons…

From what I’ve learned - the vast majority milk produced by dairies in the US (obviously not ALL) does come from CAFO situations - farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/dairy/ - obviously those who just don’t believe this will discount this as propaganda - others will say that isn’t where their dairy comes from…

Anyway - dairy isn’t necessary for the human diet. Many animals suffer to produce dairy… so… it becomes simple to me. Omit dairy from my diet

Blessings…

I’m not denying that there are places where bad stuff happens, and yes, it’ difficult when running a business to keep everything really pretty. I am personally against big businesses of any sort because they are too big for one person to have full moral responsibility.

But, what is the difference between killing a cow for meat when it is young and raising it for the sole purpose of killing for meat when it is old?

This site you linked to says this: *Today, dairy cows are forced to have a calf every year. *As pointed out previously, they are not *forced *to have a calf every year, that is the way God designed them. A cow has a calf, and within a few weeks, she goes back into heat.

They say: *The cows are also artificially re-impregnated while they are still lactating. *Artificial insemination could not occur if the cow were not in heat. And AI is used to improve the herd, so the cows will be healthier. A cow in the wild would also be impregnated while still lactating, just not by AI.

They say: *With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day — ten times more than they would produce naturally. *Most of that “genetic manipulation” is simple breeding: breed a high-producing cow to the son of a high-producing cow, and has occurred over the course of centuries. Whether there is any actual “genetic manipulation” going on now, I don’t know. I’m not in favor of BGH, but as long as the cow is being milked regularly, she’s bred to do what she does.

A lot of that film was filmed in such a way, sad music while panning over the faces of cows, cows standing at stanchions to eat, to show things looking really bad to humans. But cows are herd animals, they like to be together. They would be sad if they were all alone. And going over to the stanchion, sticking their heads through to get food, there is nothing wrong with that–it’s just not the way we prefer to eat. If they didn’t use a stanchion, then the food would be all over the place and some of the cows wouldn’t get enough to eat.

Yes, it’s unfortunate about the calves. Some dairies let the calves stay on their mothers for a few days to have the colostrum and then separate. But you know what? None of those cows would even be alive at all if it weren’t for the fact that we have a dairy industry. You see many buffalo around?

All I am saying is that, yes, there are isolated problems within the industry, and there are people working on those problems. If you want to quit drinking milk, then that’s your decision, but dairy cows would probably be better off if you learned more about dairy cows and lobbied for improvements which would really help cows, like anti–tail-docking laws. One person or even one family not drinking milk won’t register on the radar, but letters, etc., will. Another very helpful thing to do would be to support more local dairies rather than the big operations: your local health food store would probably be able to help you with that. That would help more than quitting drinking it altogether.

Additionally, the reason we have all this “efficient” factory farming in this and in all other areas is that it is the way the USDA has been working for decades to arrange.

 

[4elise]

I’m not denying that there are places where bad stuff happens, and yes, it’ difficult when running a business to keep everything really pretty. I am personally against big businesses of any sort because they are too big for one person to have full moral responsibility.

But, what is the difference between killing a cow for meat when it is young and raising it for the sole purpose of killing for meat when it is old?

I guess it is all about how an animal is treated - but I don’t need an animal to be killed for my diet - so I vote no to both young and old!

This site you linked to says this: *Today, dairy cows are forced to have a calf every year. *As pointed out previously, they are not *forced *to have a calf every year, that is the way God designed them. A cow has a calf, and within a few weeks, she goes back into heat.

They say: *The cows are also artificially re-impregnated while they are still lactating. *Artificial insemination could not occur if the cow were not in heat. And AI is used to improve the herd, so the cows will be healthier. A cow in the wild would also be impregnated while still lactating, just not by AI.

A cow left to it’s natural life of 25 years - would indeed have a calf a year - and enough milk for that calf - and there are no dairy type cows in the wild…

They say: *With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day — ten times more than they would produce naturally. *Most of that “genetic manipulation” is simple breeding: breed a high-producing cow to the son of a high-producing cow, and has occurred over the course of centuries. Whether there is any actual “genetic manipulation” going on now, I don’t know. I’m not in favor of BGH, but as long as the cow is being milked regularly, she’s bred to do what she does.

A lot of that film was filmed in such a way, sad music while panning over the faces of cows, cows standing at stanchions to eat, to show things looking really bad to humans. But cows are herd animals, they like to be together. They would be sad if they were all alone. And going over to the stanchion, sticking their heads through to get food, there is nothing wrong with that–it’s just not the way we prefer to eat. If they didn’t use a stanchion, then the food would be all over the place and some of the cows wouldn’t get enough to eat.

Yes, it’s unfortunate about the calves. Some dairies let the calves stay on their mothers for a few days to have the colostrum and then separate. But you know what? None of those cows would even be alive at all if it weren’t for the fact that we have a dairy industry. You see many buffalo around?

All I am saying is that, yes, there are isolated problems within the industry, and there are people working on those problems. If you want to quit drinking milk, then that’s your decision, but dairy cows would probably be better off if you learned more about dairy cows and lobbied for improvements which would really help cows, like anti–tail-docking laws. One person or even one family not drinking milk won’t register on the radar, but letters, etc., will. Another very helpful thing to do would be to support more local dairies rather than the big operations: your local health food store would probably be able to help you with that. That would help more than quitting drinking it altogether.

Additionally, the reason we have all this “efficient” factory farming in this and in all other areas is that it is the way the USDA has been working for decades to arrange.

As you say there are problems in the industry - and I have no way to identify where the dairy comes from that provides the milk in supermarkets, that is used to produce butter or cheese - I do write letters (believe me I do!) but omitting diary completely is not supporting the system at all…

Blessings

 

[masha]

People have given some good information about cows, but no one has mentioned that a happy cow gives more milk, and so dairymen keep their cows happy.

It’s true that a happy cow gives more milk, but many large dairies sacrifice “happy” cows for more cows to get more milk.

Besides being beset by rules and regulations, the dairy industry has a very narrow profit margin. A dairyman cannot afford to feed enough to a cow to keep her healthy if she does not produce enough milk. A cow in milk will “milk off her back”: she will produce milk before she keeps weight on herself. In order for her to get enough calories to make milk, she must be fed grain, because if she only eats hay, she will make milk but her own body will decline. So the dairyman has to feed her grain. A dairyman I know says he feeds 1 pound of grain for one pound of milk, and for various breeds that’s 50+ pounds of grain a day. That adds up, and that’s in addition

I’m sure you’re right that this vidoe shows the worst of what he was able to capture. But with a lot of those awful scenes, there really isn’t any explanatory part that could justify the behaviour. You are definately right that news shows have a tendency to go in for the dramatic. But I can tell you from my experience, that I’ve seen similar, and worse at some of the farms I used to work at. And while the regulations are overwhelming in a lot of ways, it’s amazing what the milk inspectors will ignore. At one farm, there was the week old corpse of a dead cow lying in the feeding area of the stantions. It’d been there all week, and we were getting an early thaw, so you can just imagine what was going on with that body. The cows had to eat their food off the body. The milk inspector didn’t even bother looking at the cows, she glanced into the barn, and moved on. That one incident should have closed him down - especially since this was his ‘last strike’ before being shut down just due to bacteria counts. But the milk companies don’t really want to loose dairies, so they threaten, but they generally won’t shut them down. Horrible thought, isn’t it.

 

[John21652]

Why didn’t you use the article title in the thread title?

“Got Milk? Animal Rights v. U.S. Dairy Industry”

Animal rights is an oxymoron. Animals have no rights. Though I do not condone mistreatment. The videos in this story only come from one producer of milk. Not all of the Dairy industry does so.

The article is also a bit out of date as it speaks of the “tail docking” using statistics from 2002.

I also do not really think this is a Social Justice issue in any way.

What are your comments?

Hi ByzCath, a similar debate has been going on in another thread on CAF, What do you think of vegertarianism. Much discussion has taken place over the morality of eating animals and utilising animal products.

Our friend Marfran is a self confessed Vegan and is into animal ‘rights’. Marfran is all about saving the animals from the cruelties of so called “factory farms”.
Over on that other thread, I posted some interesting statistics. One of the more pertinent ones is that 98% of all farms in the United Stes is a family farm. Less than 2% of farms can be considered “corporate” and according to the USDA web site, the large corporate farm sector of the US is largely a myth. They are few and far between. Do the research and you’ll see what I mean.

However, the animal rightists love to cherry pick. They will find any extreme example and use it to tarnish the reputation of an entire industry. That is what Marfran is attempting to do here. In this case, one farm, one example and suddenly the whole US dairy industry is under scrutiny. Well, the American families who run 98% of US farms do not deserve this type of slander. Over on the What do you think of vegetarianism thread earlier today I took issue with a web site that was given as a link and purported to show the entire dairy industry in a poor light. The web site contained misinformation and straight out lies to make the point that dairy farming was cruel.

Now I have to tell you, I am an Australian and until a few years ago I owned and operated a dairy/beef farm. I can write from experience. I must say, what I saw in those videos was like watching something out of the 18th century. In fact, I don;t think cattle would have been handled like that back then. The cattle should have been in a crush for one thing. The tails should not have been removed like that at all. In Australia tail docking is done by putting a rubber ring around he tail, just above the udder and the tail just drops off over a six week period. No pain, no blood. It is a very good way to keep the udders clean and stops the spread of mastitis quite well. Dehorning is done in cattle crushes and anaesthetics are applied first. The way that that big fellow handled those animals showed to me that he has little in the way of empathy for his ‘charges’ and his stock handling skills are woeful. No argument from me on that score. This particular farm on the video is poorly managed, I’d say.

However, it is an animal husbandry issue and not an animal rights, or ‘morality’ issue. It should not be made out to be an entire industry issue. Unfortunately, those animal rightists adopt a utilitarian view of this issue and I submit that they are adopting a non-Catholic, anti-Christian view of the world in the process. The extreme animal rightists ahve an anti Christian, anti-capitalist, anti western ideology and they use examples like we see here to charge an emotional debate which undermines the health and welfare of our entire society. It annoys me, particularly, when people make a ‘cause’ of their own particular lifestyle and then try and justify their position by undermining everyone elses lifestyles and world view.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m sure you’re right that this vidoe shows the worst of what he was able to capture. But with a lot of those awful scenes, there really isn’t any explanatory part that could justify the behaviour.

Yes, some of that probably had an explanatory part. Like the man hitting the cow on the head? We didn’t see much of what happened before.

You are definately right that news shows have a tendency to go in for the dramatic. But I can tell you from my experience, that I’ve seen similar, and worse at some of the farms I used to work at. And while the regulations are overwhelming in a lot of ways, it’s amazing what the milk inspectors will ignore. At one farm, there was the week old corpse of a dead cow lying in the feeding area of the stantions. It’d been there all week, and we were getting an early thaw, so you can just imagine what was going on with that body. The cows had to eat their food off the body. The milk inspector didn’t even bother looking at the cows, she glanced into the barn, and moved on. That one incident should have closed him down - especially since this was his ‘last strike’ before being shut down just due to bacteria counts. But the milk companies don’t really want to loose dairies, so they threaten, but they generally won’t shut them down. Horrible thought, isn’t it.

The inspectors are supposed to inspect. The fact that they didn’t do their job is very wrong, because that is what they are there for; that is what they are paid to do.

Because the milk is pasteurised, we think it is safe, but all the dairy-related outbreaks of e coli,etc., in CA have been from pasteurised milk. There are problems with the industry, but I agree with John 21652 that the animal-“rights” folks use that for other purposes. And *that *is the problem I have with programs like this. They exaggerate the problem, they rarely if ever advocate an action which would help the animals, and they promote the idea by playing on our emotions that those who give up animal products are somehow doing some great moral thing.

 

[St_Francis]

However, it is an animal husbandry issue and not an animal rights, or ‘morality’ issue. It should not be made out to be an entire industry issue. Unfortunately, those animal rightists adopt a utilitarian view of this issue and I submit that they are adopting a non-Catholic, anti-Christian view of the world in the process. The extreme animal rightists ahve an anti Christian, anti-capitalist, anti western ideology and they use examples like we see here to charge an emotional debate which undermines the health and welfare of our entire society. It annoys me, particularly, when people make a ‘cause’ of their own particular lifestyle and then try and justify their position by undermining everyone elses lifestyles and world view.

Thanks for saying so well what I wanted to say

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A cow left to it’s natural life of 25 years - would indeed have a calf a year - and enough milk for that calf - and there are no dairy type cows in the wild…

Is there such a thing as a wild cow?

 

[CPA2]

Milk: Perfect Food or Toxic Soup? Part 1

Contrary to popular belief, milk is not the perfect food. Commercial milk is a toxic soup. “Processed cow’s milk is a chemical soup that is highly toxic and a negative fountain of youth for adults. To put it simply, cow’s milk is not healthy for humans” (Lam 1). Milk is not fit for human consumption. It causes more diseases than it prevents.

The National Dairy Council holds the opposite view. These are just some of the slogans of the dairy industry: “Got Milk?” “Milk is the perfect food.” “Milk is natural.” “Everybody needs milk.” “Milk drinkers make better lovers.” Attacking milk is almost un-American. Our mothers told us to drink all of our milk so that we would grow strong and healthy. “Hurry up and drink your milk” is a common admonishment to children. The National Dairy Council says, “For athletes like Carmelo Anthony, milk is the perfect fuel to keep them in the game. With nine essential nutrients, including calcium for strong bones and protein to build muscle, it’s a natural power drink.” An article in Nutrition Today said that milk is the most reliable source of calcium. It is superior to calcium-fortified beverages. Adding calcium to drinks is not a nutritional substitute for milk. Milk provides calcium, protein, phosphorus, vitamin D, and many other nutrients (Heaney 40).

Milk is the ideal medium for chemicals. Hormones given to cows increase milk production. Drinking commercial milk exposes us to genetically engineered growth hormones. RBRH is one of the toxic chemicals in milk. It is technically known as bovine somatotropin. Bovine growth hormones are not natural. They cause inflammation of the udder and reproductive organs. Cows require greater quantities of antibiotics to combat the inflammation caused by rBRH. The antibiotics then contaminate the milk. The widespread use of rBRH increases the risk of breast, prostate, colon and lung cancer.

Once taken in orally by humans, IGF-1 from rBGH enriched milk enters the blood stream. “It is highly likely that IGF-1 promotes transformation of normal breast epithelium to breast cancer” (Harris). “IGF-1 maintains the malignancy of human breast cancer cells, including their invasiveness and ability to spread to distant organs” (Lippman). Additionally, IGF-1 from rBGH-enriched milk increases the risk of lung, prostate and colon cancer. "Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), in particular IGF-I and IGF-II, strongly stimulate the proliferation of a variety of cancer cells, including those from lung cancer. High plasma levels of IGF-I were associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Plasma levels of IGF-I are higher…in patients with lung cancer than in control subjects” (Journal 2). “Selected studies have shown that men with an IGF-1 level between 300-500 mg/dl have more than four times the risk of developing prostate cancer compared to those with a level between 100 to 185 mg/dl. The risk is more pronounced in men over 60 years of age, where the risk of prostate cancer is eight times higher than control. The elevated IGF-1 levels were present several years before an actual diagnosis of prostate cancer” (Lam 5).

There have been a number of scientific studies on rBHR. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons found that the veterinary effects of rBGH were an increased incidence of mastitis, lameness and reproductive problems (Epstein). “Cows injected with rBGH show heavy localization of IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factors) in breast (udder) epithelial cells; this does not occur in untreated cows” (Furlanetto, Gregor and Cambell).

Both Europe and Canada bann rBGH laced milk. “The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N. Food Safety Agency representing 101 nations worldwide, has ruled unanimously in favor of the 1993 European moratorium on Monsanto’s generically engineered hormonal milk” (Epstein). However, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of Monsanto’s genetically modified milk (rBGH) in 1994. The FDA is a government watchdog that does not always bark. The FDA allows the sale of unlabeled treated milk to be sold to unsuspecting and uninformed consumers. Given the cancer and other health risks, why is rBRH milk still in the marketplace?

The National Dairy Council says that drinking milk now helps prevent osteoporosis when you get older. “Osteoporosis affects 28 million Americans and one in five of those affected is male. Milk helps build strong bones because it’s rich in calcium and vitamin D, which can double the amount of calcium absorbed by your body. You should drink more milk to help prevent osteoporosis” (National). The National Dairy Council recommends consuming three glasses of milk daily to make bones stronger.

Contrary to what the Dairy Council says, calcium ingestion does not prevent bone fractures. “American women have been consuming an average of two pounds of milk per day for their entire lives, yet thirty million American women have osteoporosis. Drinking milk does not prevent bone loss” (Cohen). “Countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis, such as the United States, England, and Sweden, consume the most milk. China and Japan, where people eat much less protein and dairy food, have low rates of osteoporosis” (Healthletter). “Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, were associated with an increased risk of hip fractures…metabolism of dietary protein causes increased urinary excretion of calcium” (Epidemiology 139). Animal protein causes acute bone deterioration.

 

[CPA2]

Milk: Perfect Food or Toxic Soup? PaRT 2

Milk does provide calcium. However, milk also promotes calcium loss. Dr. John McDougall says that the primary cause of osteoporosis is the high protein diet that most Americans consume. “Increasing one’s protein intake by 100% may cause calcium loss to double” (Nutrition 111). “Excessive proteins intake from cow’s milk increase the need for minerals to neutralize the acid formed from digesting animal protein… Milk and diary products are therefore acid forming substances” (Lam 4). One researcher said that eating a high protein diet is like pouring acid rain on your bones.

Eating more vegetables and eating less dairy products may decrease bone loss and the risk of hip fractures. Ample amounts of calcium can be obtained from leafy vegetables. The calcium absorption from leafy greens is between 40% and 64%. Calcium absorption from milk is only 30% (Bernard). A high consumption of fruits and vegetables has a positive effect on bone health. A high intake of milk products does not have a positive impact on strong bones. Increased dairy consumption causes an increased risk for osteoporosis.

Some studies suggest that there is a link between milk protein and the onset of diabetes. “These new studies, and more than 20 well-documented previous ones, have prompted one researcher to say that the link between milk and juvenile diabetes is very solid” (Diabetes 12). Proteins in cow’s milk may cause the child’s immune system to attack it. The immune system also attacks the BETA-cells in the pancreas that produce insulin. The cells in the pancreas become insulin resistant. Diabetes is the result.

Drinking milk also contributes to heart disease. “Milk and milk products gave the highest correlation coefficient to heart disease, while sugar, animal proteins and animal fats came in second, third, and fourth, respectively” (Survey 907). “Excessive milk consumption may adversely affect the circulation on account of the high calcium content of milk and because lactose promotes the intestinal absorption of calcium. Excessive calcium intake may cause calcification and rigidification of the large elastic arteries, which could be an important factor in causing myocardial ischaemia” (Medical 5).

Milk is the leading cause of allergy. “At least 50% of all children in the United States are allergic to cow’s milk, many undiagnosed. Dairy products are the leading cause of food allergy, often revealed by diarrhea, constipation, and fatigue. Many cases of asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved and even eliminated by cutting out dairy” (Mead). “Most formula fed infants developed symptoms of allergic rejection to cow milk proteins before one month of age. About 50-70% experienced rashes or other skin symptoms, 50-60 percent gastrointestinal symptoms, and 20-30 percent respiratory symptoms. The recommended therapy is to avoid cow’s milk" (Epidemiological 5). Milk allergy is so prevalent that a doctor’s first response is the elimination of milk from the diet.

“Milk. It does a body good,” sounds a little hollow. The National Dairy Council’s promotion of milk does not ring true in light of the many scientific studies on milk. Milk is not the perfect food. There is more calcium in broccoli than milk. Milk is not “natural.” Raw milk from healthy pastured animals a hundred years ago is not the same as commercial milk today. Milk is a toxic soup. Milk contains antibiotics and genetically engineered growth hormones that cause cancer.

The National Dairy Council proclaims that everybody needs milk. "In reality, cow’s milk, especially processed cow’s milk, has been linked to a variety of health problems, including: mucous production, hemoglobin loss, childhood diabetes, heart disease, arteriosclerosis, arthritis, kidney stones, mood swings, depression, irritability, and allergies” (Klotter). The fact is that humans do not need milk. Commercial processed milk is not fit for human consumption. It causes more diseases than it prevents. Milk is a toxic soup!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Milk: Perfect Food or Toxic Soup? PaRT 2

Milk does provide calcium. However, milk also promotes calcium loss. Dr. John McDougall says that the primary cause of osteoporosis is the high protein diet that most Americans consume. “Increasing one’s protein intake by 100% may cause calcium loss to double” (Nutrition 111). “Excessive proteins intake from cow’s milk increase the need for minerals to neutralize the acid formed from digesting animal protein… Milk and diary products are therefore acid forming substances” (Lam 4). One researcher said that eating a high protein diet is like pouring acid rain on your bones.

Eating more vegetables and eating less dairy products may decrease bone loss and the risk of hip fractures. Ample amounts of calcium can be obtained from leafy vegetables. The calcium absorption from leafy greens is between 40% and 64%. Calcium absorption from milk is only 30% (Bernard). A high consumption of fruits and vegetables has a positive effect on bone health. A high intake of milk products does not have a positive impact on strong bones. Increased dairy consumption causes an increased risk for osteoporosis.

Some studies suggest that there is a link between milk protein and the onset of diabetes. “These new studies, and more than 20 well-documented previous ones, have prompted one researcher to say that the link between milk and juvenile diabetes is very solid” (Diabetes 12). Proteins in cow’s milk may cause the child’s immune system to attack it. The immune system also attacks the BETA-cells in the pancreas that produce insulin. The cells in the pancreas become insulin resistant. Diabetes is the result.

Drinking milk also contributes to heart disease. “Milk and milk products gave the highest correlation coefficient to heart disease, while sugar, animal proteins and animal fats came in second, third, and fourth, respectively” (Survey 907). “Excessive milk consumption may adversely affect the circulation on account of the high calcium content of milk and because lactose promotes the intestinal absorption of calcium. Excessive calcium intake may cause calcification and rigidification of the large elastic arteries, which could be an important factor in causing myocardial ischaemia” (Medical 5).

Milk is the leading cause of allergy. “At least 50% of all children in the United States are allergic to cow’s milk, many undiagnosed. Dairy products are the leading cause of food allergy, often revealed by diarrhea, constipation, and fatigue. Many cases of asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved and even eliminated by cutting out dairy” (Mead). “Most formula fed infants developed symptoms of allergic rejection to cow milk proteins before one month of age. About 50-70% experienced rashes or other skin symptoms, 50-60 percent gastrointestinal symptoms, and 20-30 percent respiratory symptoms. The recommended therapy is to avoid cow’s milk" (Epidemiological 5). Milk allergy is so prevalent that a doctor’s first response is the elimination of milk from the diet.

“Milk. It does a body good,” sounds a little hollow. The National Dairy Council’s promotion of milk does not ring true in light of the many scientific studies on milk. Milk is not the perfect food. There is more calcium in broccoli than milk. Milk is not “natural.” Raw milk from healthy pastured animals a hundred years ago is not the same as commercial milk today. Milk is a toxic soup. Milk contains antibiotics and genetically engineered growth hormones that cause cancer.

The National Dairy Council proclaims that everybody needs milk. "In reality, cow’s milk, especially processed cow’s milk, has been linked to a variety of health problems, including: mucous production, hemoglobin loss, childhood diabetes, heart disease, arteriosclerosis, arthritis, kidney stones, mood swings, depression, irritability, and allergies” (Klotter). The fact is that humans do not need milk. Commercial processed milk is not fit for human consumption. It causes more diseases than it prevents. Milk is a toxic soup!

What’s all this? Taken from some book? Are we supposed to know who “Klotter” is and are we supposed to have access to “Epidemiological 5”? And “One researcher said…”?Come on! If you have sources for all of these assertions, be brave. Give us links to them. Otherwise, I could just as easily say “Johnson & Jones say we’ll all die tomorrow if we don’t drink a gallon of milk apiece tonight before 9:30 p.m. Nutritional Science 3 says, on the other hand, that only a gallon and a half will save us, and then only if we’re sitting on horseback when we drink it.”

If you don’t back this up, your assertions will be deservedly ignored.

 

[portarica]

Laws do not grant rights. Rights are there whether or not there are laws for them.

Women always had rights, it was the law that did not recognize this, that does not mean their rights did not exist.

The Civil Rights movement gave no rights, it got the State to recognize the rights that always existed.

Animals do not have rights, but there are laws protecting them, as there should be.

We should care for God’s creation, but as unrational beings without souls animals do not have any rights.

Most rights have developed over time. In the OT people didn’t have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is a construct of later times and was codified in the US.

Most of what we think are rights from the bill of rights( speech, bearing arms etc.) were the result of compromises and why they weren’t in the body of the original constitution.

Even things that are considered abuse today weren’t in earlier times.

Peace

Peace

 

[St_Francis]

Most rights have developed over time. In the OT people didn’t have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is a construct of later times and was codified in the US.

Rights do not develop, they are the flip side of duties. I have a “right” to direct the education of my children because the obligation to educate them falls on me, for example.

We have a “right” to life only insofar that others are obliged not to kill us, and even that right is circumscribed by our actions.

We have a “right” to the liberty to carry out God’s will for us, and we have the right not to be enslaved, but we do not have the right to do whatever we may desire; our right to liberty is circumscribed as well.

We have the “right” to pursue happiness, but it too is circumscribed by truth. True happiness comes about from following God’s will; we do not have the right to pursue a false happiness.

Just because ideas are more recent does not mean that they are better or that they make more sense. Animals do not have rights because they do not have free will. We do not have the right to pursue false forms of happiness through cruelty to animals.

Most of what we think are rights from the bill of rights( speech, bearing arms etc.) were the result of compromises and why they weren’t in the body of the original constitution.

Some of those are good rights, and some of them are bad rights. The right to bear arms comes from the God-given right to defend ourselves; the right to free speech now covers pornography and is set to be excluded when it comes to religious speech about certain sins.

Even things that are considered abuse today weren’t in earlier times.

And some of those things should not be considered abuse now.

The idea of giving animals certain rights is absurd, and the propaganda out there to do so is ridiculous. A person who gives up meat for the glory of God during Lent is looked at askance, but the vegetarian who does so “for the animals” is perceived to have taken some sort of moral high road.

I totally agree that we should avoid treating animals badly, but to say things like not to test medicines on them before we test those medicines on humans? This type of thinking stems from an atheistic evolutionary way of thinking, that we are not creatures made in the image and likeness of God but merely smart evolved-by-pure-chance animals no better and no different from microbes or mosquitoes or rats.

I am against most of what occurs in the dairy industry, but this mostly comes about because of our economic system in which the moral responsibility for decisions is so diffused and the monetary pressures so great that bad things happen and foolish decisions are made.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I totally agree that we should avoid treating animals badly, but to say things like not to test medicines on them before we test those medicines on humans? This type of thinking stems from an atheistic evolutionary way of thinking, that we are not creatures made in the image and likeness of God but merely smart evolved-by-pure-chance animals no better and no different from microbes or mosquitoes or rats.

A society that does not recoil from using living human embryos in laboratory experimentation and as ingredients in cosmetics cannot rightly think of itself as empathetic based on its concern for lab rats.

 

[4elise]

The idea of giving animals certain rights is absurd, and the propaganda out there to do so is ridiculous. A person who gives up meat for the glory of God during Lent is looked at askance, but the vegetarian who does so “for the animals” is perceived to have taken some sort of moral high road.

I totally agree that we should avoid treating animals badly, but to say things like not to test medicines on them before we test those medicines on humans? This type of thinking stems from an atheistic evolutionary way of thinking, that we are not creatures made in the image and likeness of God but merely smart evolved-by-pure-chance animals no better and no different from microbes or mosquitoes or rats.

I am against most of what occurs in the dairy industry, but this mostly comes about because of our economic system in which the moral responsibility for decisions is so diffused and the monetary pressures so great that bad things happen and foolish decisions are made.

5 years ago I ate meat and dairy. When I learned about the abuses that - as you note are brought about as a result of ‘monetary pressures’ - which I believe can more readily be described as greed - I felt it was my responsibility to change personally - because of my part in God’s creation - it is not only for the animals, it is for the people - those who work and live adjacent to CAFO’s - it is for our children - to leave them a healthier place to live - it is for a more equitable distribution of resources - it is about my faith - it is because we have free will, we have a responsibility to care for each other and all of God’s creation.

Before I learned about this stuff I happily fed my family meat / dairy / eggs / fish - after learning about these issues I then had to learn how to feed my family a healthy vegan diet, which I have done. When those of us have made this choice, here on CAF, it is because we recognize that we are actually different than animals, they don’t have free will. Does this mean that we don’t miss some of our favorites (for me it is a filet of fish at McDonalds) - so yes when I ‘give it up’ each and every day it is a faith based choice - does that make sense?

The abuses at the big dairies - of course there still exists I am sure small dairies that aren’t like this - but I would not have access to these, or ever know where the milk that makes cheese, sour cream, ice cream etc comes from - so ‘giving it up’ is a faith based choice

 

[4elise]

A society that does not recoil from using living human embryos in laboratory experimentation and as ingredients in cosmetics cannot rightly think of itself as empathetic based on its concern for lab rats.

agreed… has someone here suggested otherwise?