lurkdom and inaccuracies

[Guest guest]

hi all,

 

i've been a lurker for a bit now and have really enjoyed a number of the

yummy recipes i've garnered from this group. in the spirit of the recent

intros, i'm a 28 year-old, 6 year vegan (and long-time vegetarian before

that, gradually starting at the age of 13) girlish creature who lives in

santa cruz, ca (kinda near the bay area/san francisco). though, to be

honest, i've been propelled from lurkdom to postdom more truly by a bit of

frustration i've had with the misinformation someone has been posting. i

just gotta jump my big mouth in, what can i say? so, here goes...

 

 

reptile grrl <reptilegoddess

Re: Re: Cow's milk (was 8TH Continent Soymilk )

 

" For example, a few years ago, PETA published an anti-milk poster that

claimed that cows are shot up with hormones, in order to create a state

of artificial pregnancy, so that they will continue to produce milk.

This is patently false, and in making this poster, PETA was deliberately

taking advantage of urban dwellers who don't know how nature actually

works. "

 

I've done a number of research papers on the topic and it actually IS a

fact that bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, sold by Monsanto under the

name POSILAC) is injected into dairy cows. It was approved by the FDA in

'93 and has been in use since '94. You can discover this for yourself by

just doing a google search on the topic. Even if you choose to discount

whatPETA has to say on the topic, there are a myriad of other informative

sources (not all of which are grounded in animal rights) on the subject.

Even on monsanto's website (http://www.monsantodairy.com/links) you can

find a number of links to the use of their hormone and the results of that

use: (from their site) " Initial research results from Cornell University

on BST-treated animals showed an increase in production from 30- 40

percent. As the hormone has been used under more commercial conditions,

the increase has been from 10-20 percent. " So, not sure where you're

getting your (mis)information, or what exactly is " patently false " about

this, but perhaps it might be in your best interest to not so readily

dismiss the insights that perhaps some urban dwellers have that you don't;

such as the increasing use of technology in CAFO's to further profits when

nature isn't doing the trick.

 

As well, before i go any further i also feel the need to draw attention to

the fact that you comfortably use the terms 'watering' (referring, i

assume to giving creatures water, not pouring it over them as we generally

do to nourish plants) and 'culling.' This terminology indicates to me that

you are comfortable with the view of beings in which their relative merit

resides within their usefulness to us, as otherwise you would most likely

be using language to reflect the actuality of what those terms refer to;

providing nourishment and killing. My intent here is not to disparage your

view, i'm sure you rationalize it in ways you're comfortable with, but

rather to point out that this point of view is generally not one which is

compatible with PETA or any other non-human animal-welfare oriented

organizations, so i also have to address the possibility that your

assessments of PETA's information is at least nominally biased. i am also

a person who has been educating herself with respect to this arena for

quite some time (since jr. high, about 16+ years) and who, while

infrequently encountering errors from these various arenas, doesn't

generally discount the entirety of any organization on the basis of these,

as i can also see that the greater goal of these organizations is

empowerment and education for those who least have the two and that what

they have to say is actually generally more correct than incorrect. You

may have experience with farming (you seem to indicate that you have had

some), but from what i have extracted from your emails this experience is

with small-scale farming, not C.A.F.O.'s, which are the operations that

PETA and other org's are more commonly addressing. on this note, you

wrote:

 

" Regarding pus: what PETA does not say is that it's not necessary to have

pus in milk. A healthy cow's milk doesn't have pus in it. There may

be a small amount of suspended live white blood cells, because it's the

job of milk to pass on immunity to calves. Pus and other dead

leucocytes occur in milk when the milk comes from an unhealthy cow, and

when the milk is pasteurized. "

 

Actually, the pus (or abundance of dead somatic/white blood cells, which

is the same thing) is generally the result of inflammation/mastitis due to

the unusually large amounts of milk the cows are now producing thanks to

the aforementioned (and very real) bovine growth hormone. As a result of

large-scale production many, many cows are forced into unhealth by various

practices (this is why antibiotics are a normal part of their regimen),

thereby also increasing the amount of pus in their milk. The amount of pus

is most definitely NOT " a small amount of suspended live white blood

cells " meant to foster immunity. In fact, it's so high that " the US has

the highest permitted upper limit of milk pus cell concentration in the

world—almost twice the international standard of allowable pus. By US

federal law, Grade A milk is allowed to have over a drop of pus per glass

of milk. " (and, this is not from Peta, but from

www.veganoutreach.org/health/gotmilk-abridged.html ...though, you can also

find similar statistics from a myriad of sources, not counting Peta).

But, if you're not content with info unless it comes directly from those

who practice it (whose bias could most certainly be easily ascertained and

whose practices and research have generally been misleading, at best),

perhaps you will be swayed by the fact that even the FDA admits that " cows

injected with rBGH could suffer from increased udder infections

(mastitis), severe reproductive problems, digestive disorders, foot and

leg ailments, and persistent sores and lacerations " (take a look at the

the warning label which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires

Monsanto to include in every shipment of Posilac).

 

anyhoo, i could go on (this is just a drop in a very deep bucket), but

will spare the rest of you. i just reeeally reccomend you do a bit more

research of your own before you disparage that done by others,

reptilegrrl. PETA and other groups may not be perfect, but they

definitely are also doing a lot of informing in areas that mainstream

media is generally not.

 

hope happiness and insight are daily encountered by all of you,

amanda

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Amanda,

 

I have not disputed that cows in non-organic dairies are injected with hormone.

Bovine growth hormone, however, does not produce an artificial state of

pregnancy. It *does* make the cows produce more milk- overtaxing their suystems

and eventually finding its way into ours. I don't buy milk from cows that are

treated with hormones of any sort, and I encourage other people not to do so. I

also write letters to dairies requesting that they not do so either.

 

What I disputed was the idea that cows are kept in a state of artificual

pregnancy in order to produce milk. That assertion is not true.

 

As for the language that I used, I used that language in that post because I was

responding to a post & an article in which that language was used. Did you miss

that? Your assumptions about me could not be farther from the truth, and you're

not making anyone except yourself look bad. Previously this list has largely

been a discussion of ideas, rather than an attack on anyone's character:

congratulations to yourself, for lowering the tone.

 

FTR, I have been an animal lover all of my life. I went vegetarian 15 years ago

for compassionate reasons- I realized that cows (and by extension, chickens,

turkeys, guineas, ducks, etc) were no different than humans in that they could

suffer, they had thoughts and feelings, and they had a right to exist. I

decided that eating those animals was no better than cannibalism, and I have

promoted that viewpoint ever since.

 

Until recently, I ran a reptile rescue effort, entirely out of my own pocket.

Reptiles are often mistreated and are not protected by federal animal protection

laws. While some penal codes can be applied to their protection, those are

rarely enforced in their behalf. I've also got quite a reputation for taking in

any stray non-human that came my way, and for carrying cat food in my backpack,

so that any stray I encounter can have at least one good meal. Right now I live

with a small menagerie of rescued animals.

 

Over the years, my ideas about vegetarianism have changed - for some years I was

a vegetarian because I thought it was a better way to eat biologically, and for

some because I thought it was a healthier way to eat, and then I came full

circle back around to the cruelty and freedom issue: I just don't think it's

right to deliberately kill an intelligent being when it's not necessary for

one's survival. (This is why I also don't support such practices as horse

racing, dog racing, the whole " purebred " pet industry, and wars of aggression.)

Of course, this brings modern agriculture into question: I'm not sure how to

deal with the deaths of millions of birds and rodents during harvest time in

this country. I'd like to find an alternative, but I'm not sure what a good

alternative would be; a return to hand-harvesting would raise the price of

produce and grains considerably, but any sort of mechanized harvesting kills

animals. At least one solution, for me, is to grow as much of what I

eat as possible.

 

I've made a big effort to become an educated vegetarian. In my opinion,

fallacious arguments and falshoods do more damage to the cause of animal rights

than they aid it. If someone lies to you, are you likely to a)ever believe them

again or b)take a second look at the cause on whose behalf they lied? Last

year, I ran into a guy that I went to high school with. He excitedly told me

that he went vegetarian because of me; he had remembered that I was a rational

good example for vegetarianism. Most recently, two of my closest friends went

vegetarian for the same reasons.

 

My views of PETA have changed because they do not tell the truth. I don't think

that lying to people is good for vegetarianism. PETA is largely responsible for

the negative opinion that people have of vegetarianism, and that's because of

their lies.

 

You said that pus is generally an indication of mastitis. You are very correct,

and as I said in my previous email, a healthy cow's milk will not have more than

a tiny bit of white cells. Nothing you write here disagrees with me on that

fact! I am very aware of the huge amounts of pus found in factory-farmed cow's

milk; what bothers me is that PETA encourages people to just take the presence

of pus in milk for granted. They *don't* say that it's not necessary, that when

a cow is not mistreated their milk is not full of pus, hormone, and antibiotics.

 

You seem to think that you are disagreeing with me on the subject of dairy

farming, but you're not at all. We're actually in agreement, and you have only

clarified my points (thanks!) As for research, I've done quite a lot of it. I

do it all the time, because I want to stay current on these issues- doing so is

in the best interests of the creatures that I serve.

 

 

 

amanda gutwirth <equalistkitty wrote:

 

 

(anyhoo, i could go on (this is just a drop in a very deep bucket), but

will spare the rest of you. i just reeeally reccomend you do a bit more

research of your own before you disparage that done by others,

reptilegrrl. PETA and other groups may not be perfect, but they

definitely are also doing a lot of informing in areas that mainstream

media is generally not.

 

hope happiness and insight are daily encountered by all of you,

amanda

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

http://taxes./filing.html

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'm in agreement here, but but I would like to stress the point that

unless you raise the cows yourself, you really don't know whether

they are given growth hormones, whether they are actually allowed to

move, whether they are fed organic foods, etc. The laws that apply

to organic food certification aren't as strict for eggs and dairy

products as for vegetables (and even if they were it's harder to

verify that everything an animal is fed is organic and that they

don't receive unnecessary anti-biotics and hormones than to verify

that produce is grown organically) and animal cruelty laws aren't

enforced on farmers- family or factory.

 

 

, reptile grrl

<reptilegoddess> wrote:

> Amanda,

>

> I have not disputed that cows in non-organic dairies are injected

with hormone. Bovine growth hormone, however, does not produce an

artificial state of pregnancy. It *does* make the cows produce more

milk- overtaxing their suystems and eventually finding its way into

ours. I don't buy milk from cows that are treated with hormones of

any sort, and I encourage other people not to do so. I also write

letters to dairies requesting that they not do so either.

>

[Guest guest]

hi all,

 

i just first wanted to say thanks to radcsusa; your compliments were

appreciated.

 

i also wanted to respond to yet another of your ironies reptilegrrl, so

here goes:

 

" I have not disputed that cows in non-organic dairies are injected with

hormone. Bovine growth hormone, however, does not produce an

artificial state of pregnancy. It *does* make the cows produce more milk-

 

overtaxing their suystems and eventually finding its way into ours. I

don't buy milk from cows that are treated with hormones of any sort, and I

 

encourage other people not to do so. I also write letters to dairies

requesting that they not do so either. What I disputed was the idea that

cows are kept in a state of artificual pregnancy in order to produce milk.

That assertion is not true. "

 

ok, firstly, so you decided to reject the entirety of the message on the

basis of this? ahem, perhaps you should question exactly what YOUR agenda

is, if what you take away from that is an intellectual dismantling of what

PETA stands for and the fact that they were trying to provide insight into

the very use of hormones that you're so very much against. hmmm, kinda

curious that you don't also see that they're doing in a very overt and

proactive way what you supposedly are attempting to do in 'writing

letters.' secondly, i assume that " artificual " means artificial, so i will

address this as if this is what you had written. as a matter of fact, what

rBGH does, is stimulate the production of another hormone called IGF-1.

both humans AND cows experience a sharp increase in this hormone during

pregnancy. so, in a manner of speaking, the cows' bodies actually ARE

experiencing a physiological state similar to pregnancy. so, again, you

are incorrect. but, you know, even if you were right, this point would

seem to me to be one that is beside the whole point of what that billboard

was posted for to begin with. so, again i reassert you examine your own

agenda.

 

" As for the language that I used, I used that language in that post

because I was responding to a post & an article in which that language was

 

used. Did you miss that? Your assumptions about me could not be

farther from the truth, and you're not making anyone except yourself look

bad. Previously this list has largely been a discussion of ideas, rather

than an attack on anyone's character: congratulations to yourself, for

lowering the tone. "

 

LOL! actually, this language is one that you have used at times when it

wasn't necessary to convey your point. i felt as comfortable as i did with

asserting the reality of your having used them on the basis that you seem

to categorize things generally in ways that point to a certain sort of

view of nonhumans (and, again, i wasn't saying you're a bad person, so

don't spring right to the attack again, but rather that it might just

possibly have just a smidge of a thing to do with your ability to truly

critically apply reasoning to various welfare groups), such as the

additional fact that you seem to think that it's love to own something;

'honey's great bartering material...i'm gonna go buy some cows 'cuz i love

'em so much'... as well as the fact that you use fish emulsion as

fertilizer (that ain't vegetarian, kiddo - flexitarian, maybe, but

definitely not vegetarian), etc. many things you have written in this

forum have supplied the fodder for my feeling comfortable in using your

terminology to remind you of your hypocrisies. so, no sweetie, i didn't

miss the posts you're using to rationalize your terminology with, but

rather i'm incorporating more than perhaps you might like into the

assessment. and, as far as " lowering the tone " goes, the only reason i

even jumped into the fray at this point was because you have been

systematically prompting alienation with both the tone and nature of your

posts. not only do you generally speak with only a fraction of the insight

you believe yourself to have, but you do so as a self-proclaimed authority

in which everyone who critically assesses what you have to say is somehow

a 'bad guy' (for example, your response to this person: " Just so you know,

the primary reason I don't consume any dairy is ethics " was, " Ah, so is

tht why you were working at McDonald's? " is that what you would call a

nice tone?). your obvious and consistent need to polarize ('peta's bad

because i don't like everything they have to say...you're attacking me

personally because you're disagreeing') reflects poorly on nobody but

yourself, my dear. might want to at least consider this before launching

into your next attack.

 

" FTR, I have been an animal lover all of my life. I went vegetarian 15

years ago for compassionate reasons- I realized that cows (and by

extension, chickens, turkeys, guineas, ducks, etc) were no different than

humans in that they could suffer, they had thoughts and feelings, and

they had a right to exist. I decided that eating those animals was no

better than cannibalism, and I have promoted that viewpoint ever since. "

 

i chose the path i did for moral reasons, as well, and some of your

reasoning just baffles me.

 

" Until recently, I ran a reptile rescue effort, entirely out of my own

pocket. Reptiles are often mistreated and are not protected by federal

animal protection laws. While some penal codes can be applied to their

protection, those are rarely enforced in their behalf. I've also got

quite a reputation for taking in any stray non-human that came my way,

and for carrying cat food in my backpack, so that any stray I encounter

can have at least one good meal. Right now I live with a small

menagerie of rescued animals. "

 

i don't quite understand how this negates what you've shown about yourself

through what you've written. but, since this seems to somehow factor in, i

also devote my time to rescue and rehabilitation; i volunteer for a native

animal rescue group and have fostered and found homes for quite a few

creatures. so, i'm glad that you are somehow helping (hopefully still), as

nonhumans need our voice and care the most.

 

 

" I've made a big effort to become an educated vegetarian. In my

opinion, fallacious arguments and falshoods do more damage to the cause of

 

animal rights than they aid it. If someone lies to you, are you likely to

 

a)ever believe them again or b)take a second look at the cause on whose

behalf they lied? "

 

i agree that it's important to know what one is talking about, which is

why i'm attempting to make you aware of your own fallacies. however, the

only thing in this forum alienating people from peta's and other animal

welfare groups' 'causes' (and, from what you seem to think about yourself,

your own, as well), is your repeated attempts to discredit them. again,

something to consider.

 

" My views of PETA have changed because they do not tell the truth. I

don't think that lying to people is good for vegetarianism. PETA is

largely responsible for the negative opinion that people have of

vegetarianism, and that's because of their lies. "

 

i don't believe this to be a black and white equation. i agree that there

are those who feel alienated by their 'in your face' tactics, but there

are also many who have been swayed in a loving, proactive (relative to

nonhuman animal rights) way by them. they get heard and seen. sometimes

this is good, sometimes not. do i agree with every single thing any one or

group does? of course not! but, i also don't use those dislikes to foster

alienation campaigns among audiences that are probably more willing than

most (such as a vegetarian/vegan recipe listserve) to be receptive to some

of the very valid things that are also put out there by said group. i'm

pretty darn well versed in this subject, myself, and haven't seen all

these 'lies' from PETA that you seem to be relying on as the crux of your

argument. you're dismissiveness seems more knee-jerk than founded in true

insight to me.

 

" You said that pus is generally an indication of mastitis. You are very

correct, and as I said in my previous email, a healthy cow's milk will

not have more than a tiny bit of white cells. Nothing you write here

disagrees with me on that fact! I am very aware of the huge amounts of

pus found in factory-farmed cow's milk; what bothers me is that PETA

encourages people to just take the presence of pus in milk for granted.

They *don't* say that it's not necessary, that when a cow is not

mistreated their milk is not full of pus, hormone, and antibiotics. "

 

to reiterate what i wrote previously, as you seem to have missed it, PETA

is referring to milk produced in CAFO's, which is invariably laden with

pus due to rBGH. i'm not clear on why you seem to be taking such issue

with the fact that they're trying to let people know about this. their

message here is not to talk about what cows naturally produce, but to

point out the unnaturalness of the cafo environment and the impact that

has on macro human health. your quarrel with that confuses me.

 

" You seem to think that you are disagreeing with me on the subject of

dairy farming, but you're not at all. We're actually in agreement, and

you have only clarified my points (thanks!) As for research, I've done

quite a lot of it. I do it all the time, because I want to stay

current on these issues- doing so is in the best interests of the

creatures

that I serve. "

 

well, i'm glad if you feel i'm supporting what you say- earnestly. perhaps

you don't understand that what you're typing isn't reflecting what you

must be trying or wanting to say, then. if that is the case, then i'm glad

to hear that you are trying to do your best.

 

anyhoo, i'm earnestly sorry to everyone else for this; i didn't want this

to be my intro, but i was just starting to get really frustrated with what

this person has been writing.

 

hope you all daily encounter happiness and insight,

amanda

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

http://taxes./filing.html