View Full Version : Health arguments against dairy products

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Nov 1st, 2005, 01:40 PM
I was reading an article in a magazine I got at world vegan day there was an ex farmer saying how concerned ha was about the effect agriculture was having on the food chain because of the way that animals were treated.


Jan 5th, 2006, 10:43 AM
I need some good studies on the effect the natural growth hormones in cow milk has on humans, particularly children.

This is to be used in a debate whit an omni, and PETA, PCRM will probably be listed as an “unserious source”, and www.notmilk.com, well, no. But if anyone can find the origin to this article: http://www.notmilk.com/hormonefree.html in something like this: http://uimc.discoveryhospital.com/main.php?id=1887 I might have a small chance to get trough to him. (But I doubt it, but do I ever learn to avoid trolls? Just want to walk away from the debate, but then it will look like I don’t have any good arguments left.)

But just to say it once again: The discussion is around the NATURAL hormones the cow produces her self, NOT the hormones that if I understand correct is normally used in USA.

Hope someone can help, I am getting more and more irritated over both him and myself. I KNOW I have read a report on the subject, but I have lost it.

Jan 5th, 2006, 03:43 PM
Am I on to something?

The hormone I was thinking of is IGF-I, correct? And that is in ALL cow milk, no matter how organic it is?

It is NOT BGH or rBGH, that is the hormones that is given cows so they produce more than usual, this is luckily not legal in Norway.

Not of the best, but readable. I am a bit afraid that it can be judged as not serious.
All about natural hormones?
Useful, or not?

If anyone want to look around for good solid articles around organic milk and hormones, please feel free to do so! I am a bit lost in the English language, specially now when I am half asleep.

Never, EVER starting to debate whit trolls! When will I learn? *banging my head against the wall*

Jan 6th, 2006, 11:56 AM
Without being able to offer any articles, I always find the best way to explain it is this:
Regular milk has BGH (bovine growth hormone) added to it, most of which is pumped into the cows to make them grow really big.
Even if these hormones aren't added, cows milk is gonna have cow growth hormone in it because it makes baby cows grow. Human milk has human growth hormone in it, to make babies grow.
Simple :)

Jan 6th, 2006, 08:32 PM
That is tried, over, and over again. But now (s)he wants serous studies to back up logic, and I myself has gotten kind of curious to :)

But it is weird that is it so hard to find anything?

Jan 7th, 2006, 04:04 PM
No cos the Dairy industry funds pro-milk studies so the anti-milk ones are harder to find.

Jan 7th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Absentmindedfan has a very good point. Studies cost money and those with it (the dairy industry) are not going to support any studies that make them look unhealthy. This is off-topic, but why is it that 100 years ago we didn't need studies to convince us that something was just not right? Makes me nuts sometimes.

Jan 13th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Have you looked on notmilk.com ?

Poison Ivy
Jan 13th, 2006, 06:04 PM
Yep, from their first post it looks like Norvegan has already tried notmilk.com, I gather they are looking for something from a site that 'is unbiased, and without an agenda (from an omni's point of view, ie - something not from a 'pro-veg' site).

Why is it that in any of these arguments with omni's they will inevitably quote meat/dairy/government research articles yet when we present them with articles from PETA or VIVA or notmilk etc etc they refuse to take them seriously as these people have an 'agenda' ? (because we all know that government research or articles from meat/dairy sponsored sources are all completely unbiased and honest:rolleyes: )

Jan 13th, 2006, 06:06 PM

Why bother with just the natural growth hormones? Read the China Study if you want compelling health reasons to not drink the stuff for anyone. The main studies from that book were performed using casein (milk protein).

Jan 18th, 2006, 01:36 PM
Lets not forget that all babies are suppossed to drink milk from thier moms, though, Ok? Breast-fed babies are healthier in just about every way you can measure.

Jan 20th, 2006, 09:31 PM
My daughter is allergic to milk. It makes her act like she is ADD. I wonder how many children are put on drugs to counteract the poison they are getting from milk? I'm so glad that I am no longer brain washed by the meat and dairy industry.

Jan 22nd, 2006, 06:33 AM
ADD is real. I have it, and take medication to control it. Though now you mention it, my focus does seem to have improved since I went vegan.

There actually is a connection between diet and ADD. As children are growing, thier brains need certain (unsaturated) fats. These are used to make the nueroreceptors that keep our brain chemistry working like it's suppossed to. If those fats aren't available, the brain will use saturated fats instead, but then the receptors won't be shaped correctly. Faulty receptors lead to the chemical imbalances that cause ADD.

Feb 8th, 2006, 06:40 PM
man, this is so sick.

i get the urge now and again to eat cheese, or something. and i'm so glad i read this.. (i knew all the facts, but it was ages ago that i read them) i glad i re-read it... cos i had an urge today and i'm so glad i didnt fufill it.

not that i would have..i'm a hardcore vegan ;)

May 2nd, 2006, 03:05 AM
What chinese studies? Can you provide a name so I can research the topic?

May 2nd, 2006, 04:48 AM
Apple Blossem, Litsea was referring to the book "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II. This book is based upon a massive epidemiological study jointly undertaken by Oxford University, Cornell University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine. If you are in any way interested in epidemiology (or your health) then you will find this book fascinating. There has never been a study like it and there probably never will again.

May 3rd, 2006, 08:08 PM
Who cares if milk has "natural" growth hormones in or not! They are natural for baby calves, not for us. They are made to encourage rapid growth in calves which are totally different from baby humans.
Calves develop at a totally different rate from humans and as such in nature only human milk is suitable for humans, after weaning we no longer need any growth hormones produced in milk and can cope with a vegetable based diet.

May 3rd, 2006, 08:48 PM
Who cares if milk has "natural" growth hormones in or not!
A calf has a very different growth rate than a human baby, so a 'natural' growth hormone for a cow would not be natural for a human. As adults are not meant to continue to grow, we would we want natural growth hormones throughout our lives anyway?

There's an old tradition (from when it was more normal for a woman to have another woman breastfeed her child) that suggested that substitute milk should come from a mother with a baby at the same age as the one that was getting the substitute mothers milk, because the chemistry of the milk changes as the baby gets older. Drinking milk with growth hormones - natural or not - from another species can't be natural.

NorVegan, since you are Norwegian you may know that Norwegian authorities has changed their policy, and for the last few years said to mothers that can't or won't breastfeed their babies that the mothers milk substitute they give their babies should NOT contain cows milk. One of the reasons is that giving cows milk to babies will increase the chance that a relatively high percentage of these babies will develop diabetes.

Dairy products are also associated with certain cancer types, dairy products are made of cow's milk, cow's milk contain growth hormones, and cancer is defined as 'abnormal growth' of cells...

As vegans always say, if drinking milk from other species - all life - would be so natural, why are there no other animals that doing it?

Whichever method that humans choose to get the milk out of the cow's udder - it doesn't even look natura!


May 20th, 2006, 09:41 AM
Perspectives on Dairy (http://www.treeoflife.nu/whyveganism.html) (from www.treeoflife.nu)

May 20th, 2006, 05:47 PM

Dairy product tie to having twins
By Matt McGrath
BBC News
New research suggests that a diet high in dairy products can greatly increase a woman's chances of having twins. A study in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine showed milk drinkers were five times more likely to have twins than women who ate no animal products.
The numbers of twins in the world has increased significantly in the past 30 years, in some countries by over 50%.
Scientists have suggested fertility treatments and women delaying pregnancy can help explain the rise.
But this new research indicates that diet can also play an important part.
Ovaries stimulated
In the study, the twinning rates of women who ate a diet including milk were compared with women who followed a vegan, or no animal products diet.
It is believed that a protein found in the livers of animals may be the cause. Called Insulin-like Growth Factor or IGF, it is found in cow's milk and other animal products.
In women it makes the ovaries more sensitive and increases the number of eggs produced. Higher levels of IGF improve the survival chances of an embryo in the early stages of development.
The effect is likely to be greater in countries such as the United States that allow growth hormones to be fed to cattle.
The researcher behind this study says that women thinking of getting pregnant might consider alternatives to meat and dairy products to reduce their chances of having twins, as multiple births are more prone to complications.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2006/05/20 12:17:33 GMT


Hmmm, no comment. . .

May 23rd, 2006, 02:41 AM
Reported May 22, 2006
Want Twins? Don't Go Vegan! (http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=13748)

(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Women who consume animal products -- specifically dairy -- are five-times more likely to have twins than vegan woman, according to study findings of Gary Steinman, M.D., Ph.D., of Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, New York.

The reason for this may be the role of insulin-like growth factor (IGF), a protein that is released from the liver of animals and leads to increased ovulation.

The rate of twin births has increased significantly in the last 30 years, attributed to assisted reproductive technologies and more older women having babies, as they are more likely to have twins. However, Dr. Steinman says the reason for this may also be "a consequence of the introduction of growth-hormone treatment of cows to enhance their milk and beef production."

In this new study, Dr. Steinman compared the twinning rates of women who ate a regular diet, a vegetarian diet with dairy and a vegan diet.

He concludes, "This study shows for the first time that the chance of having twins is affected by both heredity and environment or, in other words, by both nature and nurture." Dr. Steinman adds his findings are similar to those observed in cows by other researchers, in that a woman's chance of having twins correlates with her level of IGF.

SOURCE: The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 2006;51:405-410

I may be a little biased towards veganism, but wouldn't it be a suggestion that the rate of twin births is naturally low, but can be increased by environmental factors such as consuming hormones?

It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between attitudes to IVF and veganism. There is only one vegan couple that I know that used IVF and it resulted in twins - very healthy babies too!

May 23rd, 2006, 09:36 AM
Reported May 22, 2006
I may be a little biased towards veganism, but wouldn't it be a suggestion that the rate of twin births is naturally low, but can be increased by environmental factors such as consuming hormones?

i thought that is what the article is saying.

It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between attitudes to IVF and veganism. There is only one vegan couple that I know that used IVF and it resulted in twins - very healthy babies too!

i used clomid to get pregnant. if it hadn't worked i might have considered ivf, but i don't think i would have gone that far. that said, if i'd spent six months trying with clomid and it didn't work, i think i'd be ready to try nearly anything. on the other hand, i do feel that there are enough people in the world that i don't need to be going to ivf levels to contribute to the world's population, so i like to think that i would stop after unsuccessful clomid tries.

anyway, it did work (on the first round of clomid, too), and despite a slight increase in the chance for twins, we only got one baby.

we won't be using fertility drugs anymore. i'm happy to have one child. if nature decides differently for us in the future, we'll stop at two.

interesting article! thanks for posting it :)

May 23rd, 2006, 11:53 AM
Think of yourself as replacing the vegan quotient of the population. :)

May 23rd, 2006, 12:00 PM
What is clomid? I love the idea of twins, so they are done in one bash as it were, but isn't it less healthy for them to be sharing a womb, and don't they come out a bit smaller? How can you increase your chances of having twins, other than find someone with a histroy of twins in their families?

May 23rd, 2006, 12:02 PM
Just did my own research for others interested:

Clomiphene citrate (CC, Clomid, Serophene) is often the first fertility drug that couples come in contact with. It is (relatively) inexpensive as fertility drugs go, it is easily taken (orally rather than by injection) and it is the first line drug used for ovulation induction in patients with PCOS and other ovulatory disorders. It has been used for patients with luteal phase defect. It can also be used to assess ovarian reserve or, in other words, the likelihood that a woman's ovaries can still produce viable eggs. Clomid is not useful for women whose ovaries have reached the end of their working life.