No cos the Dairy industry funds pro-milk studies so the anti-milk ones are harder to find.
Printable View
No cos the Dairy industry funds pro-milk studies so the anti-milk ones are harder to find.
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.
Have you looked on notmilk.com ?
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: )
NorVegan,
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
What chinese studies? Can you provide a name so I can research the topic?
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Who cares if milk has "natural" growth hormones in or not!
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!
http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/22...article3-5.jpg
http://www.milkmyths.org.uk/images/middleman.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5000486.stm
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared.../news_logo.gif
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...th/5000486.stm
Published: 2006/05/20 12:17:33 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Hmmm, no comment. . .
Reported May 22, 2006
Want Twins? Don't Go Vegan!
(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!
i thought that is what the article is saying.Quote:
veganblue
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.Quote:
veganblue
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 :)
Think of yourself as replacing the vegan quotient of the population. :)
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?
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.
And other than taking fertitlity drugs, I meant.Quote:
mememe
Thanks mememe - that was really interesting! I have no huge personal interest in reproduction but it's good to know *things*.
I don't know how families cope with 8 after over successful implantation!
thanks for posting that explanation!
i hate when people ask me if i think i don't ovulate because i'm vegan... no, i have pcos, and like most people with pcos, i have ovulatory problems. most vegans do ovulate just fine, and most people with pcos aren't vegan....
other than taking fertility meds and, i guess other than drinking gallons of milk (!) i don't know of any way to increase the chance of twins. i kind of hoped that we'd have had twins, but i'm more than fine that xylia came on her own!!!!! she's a right handful! but, a sweet one :)
mememe-- i hope that nature brings you twins. in that, 'you never know, it could happen' kind of way.
I like that idea.;)Quote:
veganblue
I'm sure I read in a women's mag that eating yams at conception increases your chances of having twins! This could well be an old wives' tale with no basis however.
It's interesting to see how many humans have been fooled to feel that drinking milk from a cow is natural for humans, and I guess it's because we have a tendency to mix natural with normal. I'm pretty sure most people who drink cow's milk would find it strange, and maybe slightly disgusting - if, when drinking milk, someone would tell them that the milk came from a pig, elephant or horse, because they are not used to drink milk from these animals. I'm also pretty sure that most cow milk drinking humans would find it more than strange to drink milk directly from the udders of any of these animals - maybe they should try eg. drinking milk from a horse once, and see how 'natural' it felt? :)
Here's some more info about the link between dairy products and Parkinson's disease:
Dairy food linked with Parkinson’s disease in men
American Journal of Epidemiology: Consumption of Dairy Products and Risk of Parkinson's Disease
Unfortunately, this increased risk is not likely to have an effect on milk-drinkers, because it is still low as an actual percentage.
Maybe it can if people consumed only milk, but it is necessary to assume that most dairy users get magnesium from somewhere else. Otherwise, they would all have that. Anyway, I now know why one of my evil relatives said cardiac arrhythmia is normal!
Milk is truly disgusting. I really enjoyed watching the Mcdougall DVD section "Marketing Milk and Disease" for my Nutrition class. It showed how the dairy industry spends millions of dollars every year to propagate its message on the naive, American public. Mcdougal says that 9 out of 10 cows have the BLV (Bovine Leukemia Virus). He goes on to tell that milk is mixed in big vats and distributed, thus every glass of milk is likely to contain BLV. Veterinarians, and dairy farmers have higher incidences of leukemia consequently. At the end of the DVD he says something like "Milk is for baby cows, you are not a cow" except more eloquently, of course. It just makes me so mad to see and hear commercials recommending 3 a day for dairy when i know its to the detriment of society.
How did all this get started (drinking milk i mean).
I am so sad after reading all of this. Just as i, and all humans should be. :(
i think it's sad when people ask you why you don't drink milk and you have to explain to them about all this, and yet they still just shrug it off. How can they not care??
Sometime sit does make me think 'why do i care if they don't? What is it in me that makes em decide to change when they can just ignore it?' Those thought upset me really :(
People believe just about everything they read in magazines or see on the television. I've seen so many commercials that say "3 glasses of milk a day will help you lose weight." (I really don't know if the correct number is 3, I'm just taking a guess).
HAHA no it won't. Not eating saturated or trans fat or too much refined sugar will keep you healthy, and getting off your ass and exercizing will help you lose weight and stay healthy. People want the easy way to be healthy, so the milk industry decided to tell everyone that milk is good for you because, hey, we'll believe anything that isn't too extreme and doesn't require a long process of change.
Bottom line, people like things easy and free of drastic change. When some people hear that meat and dairy is bad for them and they shouldn't consume it, they choose to ignore it because they are WAY too scared to try to change that much, even if they know it will benefit them in the long run.
in my opinion..i find that most of the time it's for simple reasons..
#1- these people that we tell about dairy's harmful effects are most likely looking at us already as if we are strange because that is the label that we have been given for whatever reason. so why should they believe what we are telling them..especially when they see something that contradicts us on tv?! come on..you can't say something on tv if it isn't true, right? (hahaha)
#2- to be a vegan requires a little thing called "discipline".."will power". things that, i dont know if you have noticed but..most everyday people are lacking. that would mean they would have to give up their yummy mac and cheese? choc chip ice cream? eggs and bacon for breakfast?? ha! fat chance! (pun intended)
honestly, i find it to be rather pathetic..that people can be given the knowledge that something is extremely bad for their health, not to mention what happens to the animals that are supplying it...and yet still continue to consume it. seems like a majority of people that are not too fond of themselves if they are willing to essentially poison their bodies. and even worse than that...to hear these facts and not even stop to consider giving it up at all? seems like we are surrounded by a lot of thoughtless and electively ignorant people.
At least some motivation is needed in the transition phase. Once old habits are changed, I don't really think any kind will power, discipline or even motivation (!) is needed. It just becomes second nature, a new habit.Quote:
to be a vegan requires a little thing called "discipline".."will power".
On another note, it's interesting to see that some people (who have spent years learning maths, reading, writing, walking, talking, driving a car or whatever) only wants to become vegans if "it's easy". It is easy, but others can't do the work for them... and changing old habits always needs a little effort.
For the record, they didn't give in and Tillamook still doesn't use rBST.
I had a friend when I was in school who grew up on a large family-owned dairy farm. I would go over to her place, and saw the living conditions of the cows. It is not nearly as bad as a factory farm, but it was still very unpleasant and made the very concept of milk disgusting to me. (I'm surprised THEY drank so much milk, I guess I'm easily grossed out?) The cows were on pasture rather than in concrete stalls, as are most of the dairy farms in Oregon (including the Tillamook ones, which are a collection of family-owned dairies).
However, they took their babies away just days after they were born (after they had drank the colostrum). The babies had to live alone in little paddocks, being bottle fed powdered formula (I often went along when she did this), instead of getting to live with their moms. Male calves were sold and raised for slaughter (not veal in this case). Females were raised for the short life of dairy cows. The cows were bred each year, through artificial insemination. The cows did need to be milked multiple times each day so that they wouldn't get horribly swollen, painful udders -- remember, babies suckle on demand, keeping that from happening.
I saw a cow with mastitis (common for many nursing mothers at one time or another). They treated her for her infection with salves and antibiotics and she was kept out of milk production. They took her aside and MILKED THE PUS OUT. This was for her benefit (stripping the pus helps prevent abscesses), of course, but it was absolutely disgusting. I immediately wondered how many times a mild or just-starting case of mastitis is missed and that pus gets into the milk!
Being lactating their whole lives, the cows likely suffered from mastitis over and over, as well as cracked and swollen udders and other problems that lactating animals suffer from. All without getting to actually feed their babies!
The cows were semi-tame. They were not wild or feral, but they were not handled with love, coddled, etc. except for a few show animals. They were well conditioned to getting into line for milking and come in for food, and so on, and these things didn't seem to stress them. They weren't scared of humans. However, they were not slowly conditioned to handling necessary for hoof trimming and so on -- these things were just kind of forced on them, and it obviously stressed them out a lot. (I know some dogs who find nail trims terrifying as well. Now imagine an entire herd of cows being quickly worked through with no attempt to make it easy for them!)
This was at a family-owned dairy.
At some factory farms, cows often never see daylight. They are kept in dark concrete buildings, either in open lots, or stalls. They do not get to graze or go out on pasture.
They often dock (cut off) their tails. Why? Because their tails sometimes get infected because of the poor conditions, they're afraid their dirty tails will contaminate milk or give them infections, and because the workers don't like being swatted in the face. This is not done with any anesthetic. They crush the tail, or cut off blood flow to the tail with a band or tourniquet, and then cut off the tail with scissors (sometimes heated) or shears. The AVMA has researched the procedure and does not agree with reasons that proponents claim.
Factory farms also dehorn breeds that have them. When they're young, this may involve applying a caustic paste to their horn buds, searing the buds with a hot iron to kill the horn-creating cells, or actually scooping out the horn bud with a sharp or electric tool. Mistakes can cause deformed horn stubs to grow, or hurt the calf even more by damaging extra tissue around the horn, which heals even slower. The process is painful. If done when they are older, it can be dangerous, as the horn has a blood supply. They can't burn the horn off on weanlings, so they clip them very deeply. They use a saw on yearlings and adults. The animal is restrained but not sedated for the procedure.
They feed them growth hormones to make them produce more milk. Antibiotics are less commonly fed to dairy cows than some other farm animals, but it does happen, and it can end up in their milk.
http://style.uk.msn.com/wellbeing/he...mentid=7486404
Interesting quite good objective write-up I thought, considering it's intended audience.
I thought that article was really funny. In the pro-dairy section they said milk is good for preventing osteoporosis, and in the anti-dairy section they said it causes osteoporosis!
Confused? You will be ...
It's good to see the bad side of dairy being highlighted for a change! :)