# Got Milk? Drink It!



## MA-Caver (Dec 8, 2010)

Article about how GOOD Milk really is for the body. 

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/truth-about-milk


----------



## Indagator (Dec 10, 2010)

Cool, I will check that out. I am a big fan of milk - in fact I take it one step further than many. I buy all my milk direct from a farm, it is full-cream, unpasteurised and is sooooo healthy and natural. It is completely unadulterated, pure cows milk.

Also for those who can handle the taste, goat's milk is fantastic too!


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 10, 2010)

Milk is good, I drink a lot every day. Besides milk and water I drink little else except some coffee and glass of orange juice at lunch. 

Wonder why so many "experts" feel the need to critizise milk. "It`s bad for you", "It is meant for little cows", "Will make you senile". Bah!


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 10, 2010)

A very interesting read, Caver :tup:.. Good to read that the 'experts' have finally figured out what everyone knew all along :lol:.

Is it just me or do 'Food Scientists' simply reverse their 'findings' every couple of years?


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 14, 2010)

The Phantom was a favourite comic of mine when I was a kid. He would walk into a bar and ask for his glass of nice cold milk.


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2010)

I hate milk personally, but do enjoy cheeses.  In general, I'm in the camp that believes that cow's milk is perfect for baby cows, not for human beings.  

As for this milk is good for you, the article is a little flawed.  First, of course, if you drink milk instead of soda pop, you'll lose weight.  If you drank water instead of soda pop, you'd be in even better shape. 

Claims 1 and 2 are really all about getting good proteins in your diet.  This can be accomplished in many ways without drinking milk.  Yuck. 

Claim 3 has to do with antibiotics, and personally, suggesting that this isn't a terrible thing is contrary to reams of documentation.  The reason these cows have to be fed a steady stream of antibiotics is that they live in filthy, unhealthy conditions and wouldn't be able to survive otherwise.  

Add to this the Bovine Growth Hormone and I'd rather not take my chances.  Saying that we don't know one way or the other isn't a ringing endorsement.  

Personally, if you like milk, drink it.  It's not going to kill you (although I'd never go near any milk that isn't organic and certified as being from cows that are antibiotic and hormone free).  My personal opinion based on what I've read is that it isn't the milk that will kill you, it's the processing that we do to it along the way, from the way we treat the cows to the way we treat the milk in order to extend the shelf life.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 14, 2010)

Milk is good for you???
What about pus? You know it makes up a large part of pasteurised milk right?

lol,
well it really depends on so many variables that just ANY milk isn't good for you.

Antibiotics in milk; there is alot of scientific data that proves that this is a VERY bad idea.
Simply put what happens is that the bacteria are becoming resistant to the antibiotics and this is going to become an even bigger problem down the road as admitted by the scientific community the world over.

Yes they need antibiotics because the cows are raised knee deep in the own feces.

Raw organic milk is good for you, especially when the milk comes from GRASS FED cows and not grain fed, that are free to roam the pasture and aren't trapped in their own excrement. As well antibiotic free and hormone free as well.

I could go on and on but this topic is old hat and more and more people are doing the research to figure out the truth.

Ask yourself why the dairy industry is soooo desperate to advertise and come up with ad slogans, got milk? and the like?
Reminds me of the plastic water bottle "campaign" to educate people. 
It goes like this; Plastic water bottles are evil, but the fact that soda pop far far outsells bottled water is irrelevant. Plastic WATER bottles are evil, plastic soda pop bottles are good. Even when they outsell water bottles by a large percentage in some areas over 10 times. But just remember the plastic WATER bottles are evil... lol :BSmeter:


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 14, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> The Phantom was a favourite comic of mine when I was a kid. He would walk into a bar and ask for his glass of nice cold milk.


And he tell the bar tender to put it in a dirty glass.


----------



## K-man (Dec 14, 2010)

Seems like an emotive issue. Because there's no money in the results of expensive research, the research that would be required will probably never been done.

In the meantime we have two camps and, in fairness, the anti-milk lobby relies more on emotion than scientific fact. 

Even in this thread, so far we see:

*"Yes they need antibiotics because the cows are raised knee deep in the own feces".* (sorry SM)

Now in certain parts of the world cleanliness and hygiene may be a problem but it is certainly not the case here and I think that the depth of the CS may be slightly exaggerated. This in no way is an argument for or against the product itself. 

*"Raw organic milk is good for you."*

Is it? Is it any better than processed milk? I grew up on a farm, drank milk straight from the cow, had a brother in law who was a dairy farmer but I can find no peer reviewed data that makes quantifies this claim.

*"What about pus? You know it makes up a large part of pasteurised milk right?"*

Huh? I don't think so. 


> Pus can be white, slightly yellow or green, and is relatively thick, approximately the same as Elmers Glue. Its actually a collection of dead skin cells, white blood cells called neutrophils, and some bacteria that is still putting up a fight. It is a visible sign that you have an infection


Pus is produced when the bodies defensive cells ingest invading bacteria and die thus removing the source of infection. Yogurt is milk inoculated with harmless bacteria that may be beneficial to the body, but even it does not contain 'pus'. Ordinary milk is sterile straight from the breast (read udder). Pasteurisation is to ensure that the milk marketed has not been contaminated. 

_*"Claims 1 and 2 are really all about getting good proteins in your diet. This can be accomplished in many ways without drinking milk. Yuck."*_ (Sorry Sbjj)

How people obtain their nutrients is up to then and varies depending on where you live on this planet. Some communities rely heavily on their cows or goats for nutrition. We are fortunate enough to have choice. Adding "Yuck" to the statement shows bias (read emotion) and invalidates what is essentially a valid point.

_*"Add to this the Bovine Growth Hormone and I'd rather not take my chances. Saying that we don't know one way or the other isn't a ringing endorsement."*_



> The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone. Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.


BGH is a peculiarly American thing. It in no way adds to the argument as to whether milk itself is good or bad. 
Personally, I prefer the fat reduced milk and I don't know if it is bad for me or not. I believe it is a good source of protein, calcium, Vitamin D and other nutrients. As part of a balanced diet, I feel milk plays an important role but I'm perfectly happy to read any peer reviewed scientific article that says otherwise. :asian:


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2010)

K-man said:


> Seems like an emotive issue. Because there's no money in the results of expensive research, the research that would be required will probably never been done.
> 
> In the meantime we have two camps and, in fairness, the anti-milk lobby relies more on emotion than scientific fact.
> 
> ...


Whether or not there's an emotive element to a forum post has absolutely zero influence on whether the content of the post is accurate or has merit.   Apologizing to us as though you somehow discovered a hidden agenda betrays your own bias, but I won't hold that against you.  After all, this is a forum where we're sharing both facts AND opinions. 

Speaking of opinions, mine is that if you don't think that the term "yuck" is apropos when describing an environment in which dairy cows are living in filth such that they literally need a steady dose of antibiotics in order function as dairy cows, I really don't know what to say.  If that's not yucky, I guess I don't know what the word means.  

I also thought I was pretty clear when I said that milk won't kill you.  If you like milk, enjoy it.  Just don't try to make it sound as though it's some kind of essential ingredient for good health.  

Or, as I concluded my pretty brief post before, "Personally, if you like milk, drink it. It's not going to kill you (although I'd never go near any milk that isn't organic and certified as being from cows that are antibiotic and hormone free). My personal opinion based on what I've read is that it isn't the milk that will kill you, it's the processing that we do to it along the way, from the way we treat the cows to the way we treat the milk in order to extend the shelf life."  Do you disagree with this?


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 14, 2010)

Growing up in a farming community I`ve been to many many farms and can`t say I`ve ever seen a cow knee dep in feces. Well except that one time a cow had fallen trough the floor and into the muck cellar.. had to be dug out. Then again I live in Norway, conditions might be different elsewhere.

Norwegians love their milk, when our athletes travel abroad to compete they get sent fresh milk from home every few days.


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Growing up in a farming community I`ve been to many many farms and can`t say I`ve ever seen a cow knee dep in feces. Well except that one time a cow had fallen trough the floor and into the muck cellar.. had to be dug out. Then again I live in Norway, conditions might be different elsewhere.
> 
> Norwegians love their milk, when our athletes travel abroad to compete they get sent fresh milk from home every few days.


The milk I drank while living in Germany is not the same as the milk I am able to purchase in the USA.  I think "knee deep in feces" was hyperbolic, but the conditions are pretty bad.  

For the record, I keep milk in the house.  My daughter likes it, and my son puts it on his cereal.  We buy 1%, organic milk that is certified antibiotic and hormone free.  While I've never had it tested to make sure that these claims are accurate, I do feel better about having that in the house.  

Just to reiterate, the milk isn't what gets you.  IT's the conditions in which the cows are kept and the processing we do to the milk to make it last longer.  If you live in a country that keeps cows in a natural state instead of trying to turn them into frankenzombiecows, great.  You probably also have national health care.  The USA is a great place, but we have some pretty serious issues, too.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 14, 2010)

What the heck is dairy farming like in America if Steve's opinions are anywhere near grounded in reality !

Mate, I don't know what your rural background is or, as noted, how American farming methods differ from British ones but what you describe is so far removed from my own experience as to be hard to credence!

If you don't like milk that is fine but if what you're saying is purely based on a personal distaste for the human evolutionary adaptation to process bovine dairy protein it's best not to go too far down the hyperbole route.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 14, 2010)

I don't think Steve has ever set foot in a dairy farm for himself. I have..so I have my opinion about who here is truly standing in a pile of feces.


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> What the heck is dairy farming like in America if Steve's opinions are anywhere near grounded in reality !
> 
> Mate, I don't know what your rural background is or, as noted, how American farming methods differ from British ones but what you describe is so far removed from my own experience as to be hard to credence!
> 
> If you don't like milk that is fine but if what you're saying is purely based on a personal distaste for the human evolutionary adaptation to process bovine dairy protein it's best not to go too far down the hyperbole route.



What have I said that isn't true?  Sukerkin, do some looking into dry-lot or factory farm dairies.  That's how most of the milk in America is produced.  Most people think that their milk is relatively local.  Usually, it's not.


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I don't think Steve has ever set foot in a dairy farm for himself. I have..so I have my opinion about who here is truly standing in a pile of feces.


And once again, as an MT Mentor, I am just baffled in what way you are a positive influence to the community.  

Where did I say anything about anything standing in feces?  And as I asked Sukerkin, what have I said that isn't true?


----------



## K-man (Dec 15, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Whether or not there's an emotive element to a forum post has absolutely zero influence on whether the content of the post is accurate or has merit. Apologizing to us as though you somehow discovered a hidden agenda betrays your own bias, but I won't hold that against you. After all, this is a forum where we're sharing both facts AND opinions.
> 
> Speaking of opinions, mine is that if you don't think that the term "yuck" is apropos when describing an environment in which dairy cows are living in filth such that they literally need a steady dose of antibiotics in order function as dairy cows, I really don't know what to say. If that's not yucky, I guess I don't know what the word means.
> 
> ...


In order. I have no bias. I apologised for using you post and SM's post as examples. Nothing sinister. Opinions in this post are irrelevant, we are looking at facts. Is milk good for you or is it not? I don't care what people think. That is their prerogative. What I want to know is, is there any scientific evidence to show that milk is good for you or is there evidence it is bad for you? 
As to cows living in the filth you describe ... well I can only take your word for it. I have not seen those conditions anywhere else in the world, and I didn't see it when I visited the US either. I have never met a farmer who would allow such conditions. Every farmer I know strives for best practice and best practice does not allow your stock to stand knee deep in s**t! In Australia much of the dairy is conducted on irrigated pasture. The area stocked is rotated and the manure is raked to break it up after the cows have used that area. By the time the cows return to that area of pasture, the manure has broken down. As for the need for antibiotics, penicillin is injected into the teat if mastitis is present. The penicillin contains a very distinctive purple dye so that the milk from an infected udder in not used for any commercial use. 

Poultry feed quite often contains antibiotics which aids in the rapid growth of the birds. I am not aware of antibiotics being fed to dairy animals but would welcome any-one's evidence to the contrary. Antibiotic use is to accelerate the production of muscle, not milk. This is of no relevance to the dairy industry.

As to whether milk is an essential ingredient to good health, it depends where you live. In many places in the world it is essential. In the first world countries we have a choice.



> My personal opinion based on what I've read is that it isn't the milk that will kill you, it's the processing that we do to it along the way, from the way we treat the cows to the way we treat the milk in order to extend the shelf life." Do you disagree with this?


Unfortunately, yes. I totally disagree. What you have said here is the milk won't kill you but the farming methods and processing will. That is patently untrue as people in the US and elsewhere are drinking processed milk and surviving! That is totally different to what I believe you meant to say which may have been "The milk itself is OK but the processing and some farming practices reduce the nutritional value of the product". I believe the way milk is processed to extend the shelf life (your terminology .. mine would be to ensure safety) is perfectly safe. I am not aware of dairy herds anywhere in the world subjected to the conditions that you are convinced are present in the US and, as I pointed out in the previous post, the US is one of the only countries in the world, if not the only country, to allow the use of BGH in their dairy herds. Whether that is a problem or not is a separate argument. Regardless of that, I believe that the majority of US dairy farmers do not use BGH.

Now as I said before, I drink milk. In Australia, and most of the countries of the world, it appears perfectly safe to drink milk. If there is peer reviewed evidence to suggest that it is unhealthy to drink milk I am more than happy to change my view. 

As an aside. A question for those who think that milk should not be for human consumption. What do you think of protein supplements? :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 15, 2010)

Clean and "happy cows" are not kept that way by farmers purely out of kindness. Well cared for cows produce more. I'm sure someone can point out a "dirty farm" when they want to, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

The "anti-milk/anti-meat" propaganda is a PETA political agenda here in the states. They prefer we all become vegans so it's in their interests to paint as many animal based products as unhealthy as they can.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2010)

K-man said:


> In order. I have no bias.


Of course you have a bias.  You can try to be objective, but that is simply trying specifically to react independent of your bias. 





> I apologised for using you post and SM's post as examples. Nothing sinister.


Sinister? If you're doing things for which you feel you need to apologize, perhaps you shouldn't do them. 





> Opinions in this post are irrelevant, we are looking at facts. Is milk good for you or is it not?


The point of the OP was looking for reactions to a specific article.  I reacted to the article.  And my opinions, on an online forum, are always relevant.  Yours are, too.  





> I don't care what people think. That is their prerogative.


If you don't care what people think, I again have to wonder why you're posting on an online forum.  





> What I want to know is, is there any scientific evidence to show that milk is good for you or is there evidence it is bad for you?


And I will once again point you to my first post where I said, *"it's the processing that we do to it along the way, from the way we treat the cows to the way we treat the milk in order to extend the shelf life."*  Are you even reading the posts?





> As to cows living in the filth you describe ... well I can only take your word for it. I have not seen those conditions anywhere else in the world, and I didn't see it when I visited the US either. I have never met a farmer who would allow such conditions.


Okay. Anecdotally, you've never seen those conditions in Australia or in the USA.  Can you give me an idea of what your credentials are?   How long were you in the USA?  Where did you go?  Your anecdotal position is really only as strong as your credibility.  If you aren't credible, or your credibility is questionable, your stories are irrelevant.  I'm not saying you are not credible.  What I'm saying is that we need now to establish your credibility if you want to use your own personal experience in what you are describing is a fact based conversation.





> Every farmer I know strives for best practice and best practice does not allow your stock to stand knee deep in s**t! In Australia much of the dairy is conducted on irrigated pasture. The area stocked is rotated and the manure is raked to break it up after the cows have used that area. By the time the cows return to that area of pasture, the manure has broken down. As for the need for antibiotics, penicillin is injected into the teat if mastitis is present. The penicillin contains a very distinctive purple dye so that the milk from an infected udder in not used for any commercial use.


Sounds great.  And again...  I wonder if you've read my previous posts completely.  Where I said that it's not the milk, but how we treat the cows and the processing that's done to the milk along the way.  I also, in the post to Sukerkin, suggested reading about factory farming/dry-lot farming.  It may very well be that the USA is doing things in a uniquely unhealthy fashion.

I'll also say that in recent years, there's been a pretty strong movement (at least in the PNW) to buy locally grown produce and moving away from factory farming.


> Poultry feed quite often contains antibiotics which aids in the rapid growth of the birds. I am not aware of antibiotics being fed to dairy animals but would welcome any-one's evidence to the contrary. Antibiotic use is to accelerate the production of muscle, not milk. This is of no relevance to the dairy industry.


IT's as unhealthy in poultry as in dairy, and I try not to eat any poultry that has been raised with hormones, antibiotics or both.





> As to whether milk is an essential ingredient to good health, it depends where you live. In many places in the world it is essential. In the first world countries we have a choice.


Of course.  I have never said otherwise.





> Unfortunately, yes. I totally disagree.


Why is this unfortunate?  Are you going to apologize again?





> What you have said here is the milk won't kill you but the farming methods and processing will.


I have said that, yes.  





> That is patently untrue as people in the US and elsewhere are drinking processed milk and surviving!


If you're going to be dickish about things, Florence Griffith Joyner was in milk ads who died from complications related to her drinking milk.  It's a tragic story.  But in conversations like the one we're having, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone other than you that I wasn't being literal. 





> As an aside. A question for those who think that milk should not be for human consumption. What do you think of protein supplements? :asian:


Depends entirely on the supplement, where it comes from and how it's processed.



			
				archangel said:
			
		

> Clean and "happy cows" are not kept that way by farmers purely out of kindness. Well cared for cows produce more. I'm sure someone can point out a "dirty farm" when they want to, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> The "anti-milk/anti-meat" propaganda is a PETA political agenda here in the states. They prefer we all become vegans so it's in their interests to paint as many animal based products as unhealthy as they can.


It's a conspiracy.  Of course.  Because antibiotics are awesome, nevermind that antibiotic resistant strains of staph and other infections are becoming alarmingly common.  I don't know about you, but I don't have anything against farmers.  My opinion is based on the easily found information about factory farming, antibiotics, growth hormones and the conditions in these farms.  The sources are more credible than an anonymous guy in Australia who likes to say he's sorry for things he's clearly not sorry about.  

I get a kick out of you in particular, Archangel.  You are always trying to make things more extreme than they really are.  I can't see in my post any kind of indictment against farmers in general or dairy farming.  I eat meat and love it.  I also like leather upholstery in cars and leather shoes.  Disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily equal PETA member/vegan/hippy/tree hugger, as difficult as that might be for you to understand.  I do have a problem with factory farms and the need to pump cattle full of antibiotics in order to keep them healthy and fat, and most farms in America do just this.  If you and your buddies don't, more power to you.  I'm on your side.


----------



## cdunn (Dec 15, 2010)

I consume very few dairy products, outside of seperated whey protein. They impart a nigh-bovine level of flatulence to me. On the occasion that I do, however, I refuse to eat or drink any dairy products that are unpastuerized. 

While the risks associated with bovine growth hormones are debateable, and the practice of mixing antibiotics into grain at a sub-therapeutic dose is moronic at best, pastuerization provides an excellent check against a cow getting an illness or a bad day from one dairy farmer contaminating thousands of gallons of milk, which is, after all, an excellent growth medium for a lot of bacteria, for the same reasons it is nutritious for us. Milk can easily carry: E. Coli, Typhoid Fever, Q-Fever, Tuberculosis, Diptheria, Strep throat, etc, etc. This goes double for the ill-regulated, under-the-counter market. Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 15, 2010)

> The "anti-milk/anti-meat" propaganda is a PETA political agenda here in the states. They prefer we all become vegans so it's in their interests to paint as many animal based products as unhealthy as they can.



Sorry but thats not entirely true. I'm sure PETA do have their place in this but many who criticise the processing of meat and milk do so because they want to eat heathly meat and drink milk that is good for them.

That is largely who is behind the anti processed food campaigns.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 15, 2010)

http://wave.prohosting.com/antiar/PETAantimilk2.html

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/21181/got-milk-protesters/


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> http://wave.prohosting.com/antiar/PETAantimilk2.html
> 
> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/21181/got-milk-protesters/



What's your point?


----------



## cdunn (Dec 15, 2010)

SensibleManiac said:


> Sorry but thats not entirely true. I'm sure PETA do have their place in this but many who criticise the processing of meat and milk do so because they want to eat heathly meat and drink milk that is good for them.
> 
> That is largely who is behind the anti processed food campaigns.


 

The majority of us want healthy, good-tasting food. But food must be grown in sufficient quantity to feed 311 million Americans(or, if you prefer, 6.9 billion humans), delivered to those people and stored against famine, while most of us would prefer not to be subsistance farmers. Quantity, shipment, and storage accentuates the need for rigorous care of the product. Correct processing, including pastuerization and preservatives functionally multiply the food supply. This shows up on my grocery bill, making it possible for lower-class families like mine to, you know, eat. All I have to do to see the difference is to walk into my grocery store, where I can see that 'organic' triples the price of vegetables and doubles the price of meat to be skeptical of the worth of it. 

Are there questionable processes in the current food industry? Absolutely. Is it wise for us, as consumers, and as participants in the governing process, to pressure the industry to bring those processes in line with what is healthy and safe? Absolutely. However, this cannot be accomplished through the 'raw food' movement. We must approach the industry with open eyes and scientific rigor, not a fetishized vision of a farming mode that mostly supported a far smaller society... plus or minus the occasional massive famine and food-borne illness outbreak.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 15, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> What have I said that isn't true?


 
I didn't mean to imply that you weren't speaking the truth as you see it, Steve. My apologies if it came across that way. I was indeed expressing great surprise and implicitly asking for my impressions to be corrected or broadened when it comes to American practises (as I worked on a mixed dairy/sheep/arable farm as a youth and part of the job was making sure that the animals were clean, healthy and happy (as far as we could tell )).

So ...



stevebjj said:


> Sukerkin, do some looking into dry-lot or factory farm dairies. That's how most of the milk in America is produced. Most people think that their milk is relatively local. Usually, it's not.


 
... I shall certainly have a bit of a research. Hopefully what I find won't be too evil?


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2010)

cdunn said:


> The majority of us want healthy, good-tasting food. But food must be grown in sufficient quantity to feed 311 million Americans(or, if you prefer, 6.9 billion humans), delivered to those people and stored against famine, while most of us would prefer not to be subsistance farmers. Quantity, shipment, and storage accentuates the need for rigorous care of the product. Correct processing, including pastuerization and preservatives functionally multiply the food supply. This shows up on my grocery bill, making it possible for lower-class families like mine to, you know, eat. All I have to do to see the difference is to walk into my grocery store, where I can see that 'organic' triples the price of vegetables and doubles the price of meat to be skeptical of the worth of it.
> 
> Are there questionable processes in the current food industry? Absolutely. Is it wise for us, as consumers, and as participants in the governing process, to pressure the industry to bring those processes in line with what is healthy and safe? Absolutely. However, this cannot be accomplished through the 'raw food' movement. We must approach the industry with open eyes and scientific rigor, not a fetishized vision of a farming mode that mostly supported a far smaller society... plus or minus the occasional massive famine and food-borne illness outbreak.


Just so it's clear, I haven't endorsed any kind of "raw food" movement, in case anyone is thinking about trying to pin that one on me, too.  I'll admit that I try to eat my food as unmolested by factory processing as I can, but there are some things we do that make sense.  Sometimes, though, we're processing food in order to make it safe to eat only because we've first made it unsafe to eat.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I didn't mean to imply that you weren't speaking the truth as you see it, Steve.


My question was what I was saying that isn't true, not isn't true "as I see it."  If I'm mistaken about something, I am always interested in correction.  I only ask that you first actually look at what I've written before telling me that I'm wrong.  This isn't as much an issue for you as it is for others on the board.





> My apologies if it came across that way. I was indeed expressing great surprise and implicitly asking for my impressions to be corrected or broadened when it comes to American practises (as I worked on a mixed dairy/sheep/arable farm as a youth and part of the job was making sure that the animals were clean, healthy and happy (as far as we could tell )).
> 
> So ...
> 
> ...


I'll be interested to hear what you think.


----------



## cdunn (Dec 15, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Just so it's clear, I haven't endorsed any kind of "raw food" movement, in case anyone is thinking about trying to pin that one on me, too. I'll admit that I try to eat my food as unmolested by factory processing as I can, but there are some things we do that make sense. Sometimes, though, we're processing food in order to make it safe to eat only because we've first made it unsafe to eat.


 
Fair enough, and you weren't one of the ones I was trying to point to. There are bad practices, that I won't deny. However, my essential point remains: We cannot throw out the security and safety of our food supply in the name of a romanticized past or mad juju. Where a bad practice is found, it should be replaced with a better practice, however, good practices cannot be discarded in the process.


----------



## K-man (Dec 15, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I don't know about you, but I don't have anything against farmers. My opinion is based on the easily found information about factory farming, antibiotics, growth hormones and the conditions in these farms. The sources are more credible than an anonymous guy in Australia who likes to say he's sorry for things he's clearly not sorry about.





> Of course you have a bias. You can try to be objective, but that is simply trying specifically to react independent of your bias.


If you say so. And, "*I hate milk personally*, but do enjoy cheeses. In general,* I'm in the camp that believes that cow's milk is perfect for baby cows, not for human beings"*, is totally without bias and will lead to a balanced discussion on the article.


> Sinister? If you're doing things for which you feel you need to apologize, perhaps you shouldn't do them.


I'm sorry for apologising for using your post as an example. I should not have apologised and hereby unreservedly withdraw the apology. 





> The point of the OP was looking for reactions to a specific article. I reacted to the article. And my opinions, on an online forum, are always relevant. Yours are, too.


I'm glad my opinions are relevant. I do try to base them on fact. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





> If you don't care what people think, I again have to wonder why you're posting on an online forum.


Fair question. I have too much spare time on my hands so I look for people to irritate. Really? When there is a discussion such as this what people think or perceive is relevant to them but before they voice those feelings as fact they should research the issue and produce some peer reviewed documentation to back up their claims. US milk may not be as wholesome as milk in the rest of the world. I don't know! Your claims seem a little extreme to me but as I said, I want to believe you. You say the cows in factory farms are knee deep in cowsh then obviously, you're the one that's there looking at it. Who am I to disagree?


> And I will once again point you to my first post where I said, *"it's the processing that we do to it along the way, from the way we treat the cows to the way we treat the milk in order to extend the shelf life."* Are you even reading the posts?


Yep! I sure am reading the posts and I'll repeat the question I asked of you. "What I want to know is, is there any *scientific evidence* to show that milk is good for you or is there evidence it is bad for you?" I highlighted the important bit.


> Okay. Anecdotally, you've never seen those conditions in Australia or in the USA. Can you give me an idea of what your credentials are? How long were you in the USA? Where did you go? Your anecdotal position is really only as strong as your credibility. If you aren't credible, or your credibility is questionable, your stories are irrelevant. I'm not saying you are not credible. What I'm saying is that we need now to establish your credibility if you want to use your own personal experience in what you are describing is a fact based conversation.


Let's assume I have no credibility so there is no argument. The fact that I grew up on a farm, my brother in law and cousins are or have been dairy farmers and the fact that I have tertiary qualification in science and health is irrelevant. I didn't go to the US to visit dairy farms but driving through the countryside was an enjoyable experience.


> Sounds great. And again... I wonder if you've read my previous posts completely. Where I said that it's not the milk, but how we treat the cows and the processing that's done to the milk along the way. I also, in the post to Sukerkin, suggested reading about factory farming/dry-lot farming. It may very well be that the USA is doing things in a uniquely unhealthy fashion.


I did read the posts, completely. How you treat the cows in the US may well be a problem, I am relying on you to show me. As to the treatment of the milk, I have seen no evidence that that is a problem. In fact I would think that the processing is essential to ensure a safe product is available for consumers.


> Why is this unfortunate? Are you going to apologize again?


It is unfortunate that what you wrote is just not right and not only am I not apologising again for saying that I disagree, I didn't apologise in the first place. Reread what you wrote "_My personal opinion based on what I've read is that it isn't the milk that will kill you, it's the processing that we do to it along the way, from the way we treat the cows to the way we treat the milk in order to extend the shelf life." Do you disagree with this? "_ So yes, I disagree. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



My quote: 


> What you have said here is the milk won't kill you but the farming methods and processing will.


 Your reply *"I have said that, yes."* Really?


> If you're going to be dickish about things, Florence Griffith Joyner was in milk ads who died from complications related to her drinking milk. It's a tragic story. But in conversations like the one we're having, I think _*it's pretty obvious to anyone other than you*_ that I wasn't being literal. Tsk Tsk


Maybe you should contact the coroner. You obviously have information they haven't seen. 


> *On September 21, 1998, Griffith-Joyner died in her sleep at the age of 38. The unexpected death was investigated by the sheriff-coroner's office, which announced on October 22 that the cause of death was suffocation during a severe epileptic seizure. She was also found to have had a cavernous angioma - a congenital brain abnormality that made Joyner subject to seizures. According to a family attorney, she had suffered a grand mal seizure in 1990, and had also been treated for seizures in 1993 and 1994.*





> It's a conspiracy. Of course. Because antibiotics are awesome, nevermind that antibiotic resistant strains of staph and other infections are becoming alarmingly common. I don't know about you, but I don't have anything against farmers. My opinion is based on the easily found information about factory farming, antibiotics, growth hormones and the conditions in these farms. *The sources are more credible than an anonymous guy in Australia who likes to say he's sorry for things he's clearly not sorry about.*


 All I asked for was evidence! I make no claims and clearly I am not sorry. But, I am enthralled by the twists and turns of your interesting posts.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2010)

cdunn said:


> Fair enough, and you weren't one of the ones I was trying to point to. There are bad practices, that I won't deny. However, my essential point remains: We cannot throw out the security and safety of our food supply in the name of a romanticized past or mad juju. Where a bad practice is found, it should be replaced with a better practice, however, good practices cannot be discarded in the process.


I agree with you, and I really had Archangel and K-man in mind when I was posting.  I've found that you have to be extremely careful how you phrase things when they're involved, because they're inclined to misunderstand.


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2010)

K-man said:


> If you say so. And, "*I hate milk personally*, but do enjoy cheeses. In general,* I'm in the camp that believes that cow's milk is perfect for baby cows, not for human beings"*, is totally without bias and will lead to a balanced discussion on the article.


Once again, I'm really not sure why you have such a problem with plainly written English.  Those are my opinions and I am perfectly entitled to have shared them.  





> I'm sorry for apologising for using your post as an example. I should not have apologised and hereby unreservedly withdraw the apology. I'm glad my opinions are relevant. I do try to base them on fact.


It is a fact that I don't care for milk.  It is also a fact that the liberal use of antibiotics on farms is leading to the proliferation of resistant strains of bacteria. 





> Fair question. I have too much spare time on my hands so I look for people to irritate. Really? When there is a discussion such as this what people think or perceive is relevant to them but before they voice those feelings as fact they should research the issue and produce some peer reviewed documentation to back up their claims.


And once again, I'm asking you to show me something that I wrote that is factually incorrect.  We can nitpick each other until, ahem, the cows come home, but if you're truly interested in having a conversation, I'm asking you to read my posts, make some attempt to understand my points and then address those points.  I really don't believe you've even taken the time to read them.  





> US milk may not be as wholesome as milk in the rest of the world. I don't know! Your claims seem a little extreme to me but as I said, I want to believe you. You say the cows in factory farms are knee deep in cowsh then obviously, you're the one that's there looking at it. Who am I to disagree?


And it's because you say things like this that I believe you aren't really reading my posts.  Where have I suggested that cows are knee deep in crap?  Please point me to that post.   





> Yep! I sure am reading the posts and I'll repeat the question I asked of you. "What I want to know is, is there any *scientific evidence* to show that milk is good for you or is there evidence it is bad for you?"


And... jesus christ this is ridiculous...  I'll ask you again where I've said that milk is bad for you.  You're pressing a point that I've never contradicted.  What I've said is that factory farms/dry-lot farms are a problem for many reasons, that they use antibiotics which are a real issue, and that I personally don't like the idea of drinking milk from cows that have been raised using BGH.  The milk my kids drink is low fat, organic and certified to be from cows raised without antibiotics or growth hormones.  





> Let's assume I have no credibility so there is no argument.


Okay, although that's not what I was suggesting.  I was just pointing out that in an argument, if you're going to depend upon anecdotal evidence, it's really only as credible as the source.  Since I don't know you, your stories may be interesting, but they're not all that credible. '





> The fact that I grew up on a farm, my brother in law and cousins are or have been dairy farmers and the fact that I have tertiary qualification in science and health is irrelevant. I didn't go to the US to visit dairy farms but driving through the countryside was an enjoyable experience.


Ah.  Nevermind.  You do want to establish your credentials.  Well, thank you for that, and for pointing out that your experience is from outside of the USA.  





> I did read the posts, completely.


I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.





> How you treat the cows in the US may well be a problem, I am relying on you to show me.


I've led you to the water.  All you have to do is drink.  If there were one site to point you to that contained information on any of the things I've mentioned so far, I'd point you to it.  But, since it's so pervasive as to be common knowledge, I figured that using specific verbiage would give you all you need to find all of the information you'd want to get.  





> As to the treatment of the milk, I have seen no evidence that that is a problem. In fact I would think that the processing is essential to ensure a safe product is available for consumers.


You won't see anything if you don't take the time to look for it.





> It is unfortunate that what you wrote is just not right and not only am I not apologising again for saying that I disagree, I didn't apologise in the first place. Reread what you wrote "_My personal opinion based on what I've read is that it isn't the milk that will kill you, it's the processing that we do to it along the way, from the way we treat the cows to the way we treat the milk in order to extend the shelf life." Do you disagree with this? "_ So yes, I disagree.


When you said, "sorry sbjj," and then later, "I apologize," you weren't apologizing?  Being completely serious now, I'm beginning to wonder if there is a dialect issue at work, and that you and I are speaking fundamentally different flavors of the English language.


----------



## K-man (Dec 15, 2010)

OK, heres my take on the subject. 
Milk produced from healthy cows that have not been injected with BGH is likely to be nutritious and safe for Human consumption.
Milk taken in moderation, as part of a normal balance diet is a beneficial source of nutrition.
Processing of milk uses the process of Pasteurisation and I have include a brief article below from the Food Standards requirements of Australia and New Zealand. (web reference included below.)




> *Safe supply of dairy products in Australia*
> 
> In Australia, we are fortunate to have a very safe supply of milk and dairy products. Current regulations and practices in the Australian dairy industry ensure a high level of dairy product safety.
> If there are no control measures to manage potential microbiological hazards, raw milk and products made from raw milk can present a high level of risk to public health and safety. Pasteurisation has been the most effective control measure for eliminating pathogens that may be present in raw milk, including _Listeria monocytogens_, _Campylobacter _spp., _Salmonella _spp. and pathogenic _E.coli_. Before pasteurisation was introduced, dairy products including drinking milk were frequently implicated in many different food-borne illness outbreaks such as tuberculosis, typhoid and Q Fever, both in Australia and around the world.
> In addition to pasteurisation, milk production, transport and dairy processing businesses in Australia are required to control potential food safety hazards associated with their business by implementing documented food safety programs.


http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/primaryproductionprocessingstandardsaustraliaonly/dairyrawmilkproducts/

In my opinion Pasteurisation is not only safe but is necessary to provide the safe supply of milk to the community. There is no scientific evidence that I can find to suggest Pasteurisation is harmful.

Reduced fat milk. Does this make a difference? Well to balance the discussion Ill place a reference that not only says reduced fat milk increases the risk of various cancers but also doesnt like homogenisation or pasturisation.

http://www.healthy.net/scr/Column.aspx?Id=983

 ....  but theres another side to the argument. 

http://www.kitchenstewardship.com/2010/06/23/the-real-story-of-homogenized-milk-powdered-milk-skim-milk-and-oxidized-cholesterol/

Now, plastic milk containers. Are they safe? Its hard to find anything that says its not safe to market milk in plastic bottles, environmental issues aside. In fact, 
Most plastic water bottles are made from #1 polyethylene terephthalate (PET/PETE), which has been thoroughly tested and deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It's recommended for one-time use only.

Suffice to say that yes I agree that Bovine Growth Hormone is not a good idea. But how extensive is its usage? A 2007 USDA Dairy Survey estimated rBGH use at 15.2% of operations and 17.2% of cows. As the US is the worlds biggest producer of milk it stands to reason that there is an enormous volume of milk produced using this hormone, but by the same token, there is about five times as much produced that is hormone free. 


Sorry for such a long post but my previous concerns were not met and the discussion was based on emotion rather than fact. Unfortunately it is hard to find a lot of factual information, which is why I asked for so evidence in the previous posts.   :asian:


----------



## Steve (Dec 15, 2010)

To sum up, you agree with me on every one of my points except for the use of antibiotics, which you didn't address at all.  I'm presuming you either forgot about that or are avoiding it somehow.

See?  When you read someone's posts, it's actually pretty easy to communicate.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Dec 15, 2010)

There have been several studies about the risks of  dairy products as well as studies that prove the benefits of dairy and calcium-rich milk that I don't know what to believe anymore.

The conflicting results may probably come from the fact that the human body is so complex that when one thing is found to be good for something, there are also some adverse effects for something else.

I do believe, however, that milk is one of the best food to build the muscle.   Protein in milk is about 80 percent whey and 20 percent casein and is quickly broken down into amino acids and absorbed into the bloodstream that makes it a very good to consume after a workout/training.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 15, 2010)

Mark Jordan said:


> I do believe, however, that milk is one of the best food to build the muscle.   Protein in milk is about 80 percent whey and 20 percent casein and is quickly broken down into amino acids and absorbed into the bloodstream that makes it a very good to consume after a workout/training.



I don't just believe it, I know it to be true that milk is excellent for building muscle, unfortunately I also know that generally it isn't good for your health and the best kind of milk is raw, GH free.


----------



## K-man (Dec 16, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> To sum up, you agree with me on every one of my points except for the use of antibiotics, which you didn't address at all. I'm presuming you either forgot about that or are avoiding it somehow.
> 
> See? When you read someone's posts, it's actually pretty easy to communicate.


Not at all. I just decided that I would ignore you and try to restart a sensible discussion because the topic is really quite important. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






> Claim 3 has to do with antibiotics, and personally, suggesting that this isn't a terrible thing is contrary to reams of documentation. _*The reason these cows have to be fed a steady stream of antibiotics is that they live in filthy, unhealthy conditions and wouldn't be able to survive otherwise.*_


 
This is not true and it is not in the article. Antibiotics aren't used in the rest of the world in the way you intimate so you can work on the US problem of antibiotics in the filthy unhealthy conditions you believe your cows live in and let the rest of us know when you have solved the problem.

I did do some reading on the subject and discovered the following. If BGH is used there is a much higher level of mastitis in the herds. This causes reduced milk production so the animals are no longer useful to the farmers. They are dosed with antibiotics to reduce the infection load before the animals are slaughtered. Hence the antibiotics get into the food chain through the meat which is used in things like hamburgers. 

As far as I can tell, in the US not much in the way of antibiotics is used in the way they are in the poultry industry. The use of antibiotics there is to promote muscle growth. That is of no benefit in a dairy herd. :asian:


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2010)

K-man said:


> Not at all. I just decided that I would ignore you and try to restart a sensible discussion because the topic is really quite important.


LOL.  By not reading my posts in an effort to try and understand what I actually wrote, you have been ignoring them all along.  At least you're being up front about it now.





> This is not true and it is not in the article. Antibiotics aren't used in the rest of the world in the way you intimate so you can work on the US problem of antibiotics in the filthy unhealthy conditions you believe your cows live in and let the rest of us know when you have solved the problem.


And I've said more than once now that I live in the USA.  My milk doesn't come from Australia.  We've hashed this out before.  Look.  I've tried to be very explicit.  You started talking about how awesome your dairy farms are and I pointed out that I am specifically referring to factory farms here in the USA and invited you to look them up.  You've admitted that you don't know anything about them, and seem to want to refuse to do any research on the subject. 

But you did look up BGH.  





> I did do some reading on the subject and discovered the following. If BGH is used there is a much higher level of mastitis in the herds. This causes reduced milk production so the animals are no longer useful to the farmers.


It makes you wonder why they'd use it.  Doesn't it?  But many do.  While it's clearly bad for the cows, and arguably bad for people, the use of a growth hormone makes cows produce milk at a younger age and also increases the production of milk by around 25%.  As you said, the rates of mastitis and increased percentage of lameness are side products.  BGH also causes cancer in many cows, too.  I guess in the grand scheme, on a large scale such as what you'd find at a factory farm, the level of production outweighs the increases in rates of cancer, mastitis and lameness among the cows.   

Like you, I don't frankly understand why anyone would use it, why the USA has not banned it, or why anyone would want to drink milk that is from dairy cows injected with it.  


> They are dosed with antibiotics to reduce the infection load before the animals are slaughtered. Hence the antibiotics get into the food chain through the meat which is used in things like hamburgers.


They're dosed regularly with antibiotics throughout their lives.  Not only are the antibiotics used to help ensure that they're not infected when they're slaughtered, they also need the antibiotics to stave off infection when they have mastitis as a result of the use of the BGH, and as a preventative measure, kind of like a very unhealthy multivitamin.  

And when treating the cows becomes cost prohibitive, they are slaughtered and often (depending on why the cow was culled) the meat is used commercially in our food. 





> As far as I can tell, in the US not much in the way of antibiotics is used in the way they are in the poultry industry. The use of antibiotics there is to promote muscle growth. That is of no benefit in a dairy herd. :asian:


The use is very much the same in that both industries are abusing antibiotics, and that's leading to a predictable rise in rates of infection from drug resistant strains of bacteria, such as MRSA.


----------



## K-man (Dec 16, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> LOL. By not reading my posts in an effort to try and understand what I actually wrote, you have been ignoring them all along. At least you're being up front about it now.
> 
> And I've said more than once now that I live in the USA. My milk doesn't come from Australia. We've hashed this out before. Look. I've tried to be very explicit. You started talking about how awesome your dairy farms are and I pointed out that I am specifically referring to factory farms here in the USA and invited you to look them up. You've admitted that you don't know anything about them, and seem to want to refuse to do any research on the subject.


What total crap! I have read every one of your posts and you have made many outrageous statements. 

I also understand that you live in the US and that you are unhappy with the conditions your fellow countrymen have allowed to develop. 

Now WRT reading posts, I have researched factory farms and what I requested from you was that you provide some evidence to support your point of view. You failed to provide even one example of the conditions you described!

So let's look at factory farms.

I'll put my position straight up. I am firmly against factory farming but not for the same reasons as you. In Australia factory farming is pretty much restricted to poultry and piggeries. The issue from my perspective is animal cruelty. It is cruel and unnatural to confine animals in small cages or stalls, in close proximity.

It is possible to produce a top class environment in a factory farm if you throw enough money at it, but it still doesn't make it right, and there will still be problems. It is not essential to use hormones and regular antibiotics but such practice produces more profit and many people lack the ethics to see that profit is not the most important part of the process.

So lets define what we are discussing.




> Dairy Cows
> Dairy cows are bred today for high milk production. For cows who are injected with Bovine Growth Hormone, their already high rate of milk production is doubled. Half of the cows in the national dairy herd are raised in intensive confinement, where they suffer emotionally from being socially deprived and being prohibited from natural behavior. Dairy cows produce milk for about 10 months after giving birth so they are impregnated continuously to keep up the milk flow. Female calves are kept to replenish the herd and male calves are usually sent to veal crates where they live a miserable existence until their slaughter. When cows become unable to produce adequate amounts of milk they are sent to slaughter so money can be made from their flesh. The cows are kept in a holding facility where they are fed, watered and have their waste removed mechanically and are allowed out only twice a day to be milked by machines. Chemicals and Factory Farms
> Animals raised in confinement create an ideal setting for bacteria and disease to spread rapidly. Antibiotics were developed around the time of World War II and were soon adapted into the farming system. In the U.S., almost 50% of all antibiotics are administered to farm animals. These drugs form a toxic residue in animal tissue. It is much of this same tissue that is sold to consumers as food products. Each year, we see an increase in the number of salmonella poisoning cases from contaminated eggs, meat and milk. These strains of salmonella are difficult to treat because they are antibiotic resistant. Antibiotics are not the only chemicals administered to factory farm animals; many animals are fed growth-promoting hormones, appetite stimulants and pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and aflatoxins that collect in the animals' tissues and milk.


 
To restrict the discussion a little I would like to ignore the other classes of factory farms and look in detail at the dairy industry since milk is the OP.

Now let's look at the number one problem. A cow yielding over 9,000litres of milk per lactation will produce about 64 litres of waste per day, but a cow giving 6,000-9,000litres will only produce about 53 litres of waste per day. (approx)


> Storage volume considerations include daily animal manure and related wash/flush water inputs. Dairy cattle generally generate larger manure volumes per live weight than swine, beef, or poultry. A mature dairy cow weighing 1,400 pounds can generate around 14 gallons (about 120 pounds or 1.9 cubic feet) of feces and urine each day with an average as-excreted solids content of around 12 percent.
> The total excrement for cows housed in freestall total confinement, along with milking wash wastes would bring the total to more than 2.5 cubic feet per cow per day. For 100 cows, this is nearly 9 tons and 9+ cubic yards of manure per day. For cows on pasture part-time, manure handling and storage needs would be less and in direct proportion to actual confinement time. A 100-cow herd on half-time pasture would accumulate nearly 5 cubic yards (4.5 tons) of manure per day in confinement, including milk wash wastes. This daily manure volume for the confinement operation is multiplied by the planned storage period days to get the manure storage volume for the planned storage period.


Increasing milk production with hormones causes increase in excrement. Now, I don't know if you've ever been in a milking shed but the yard prior to milking is awash in s**t. One hundred cows or more produce a huge amount of waste and they tend to let go just before they are milked.
So with factory farming, to maintain hygiene and handle the waste you need a pretty high tech sewage facility and often this is not available.
Once hygiene is compromised infection and disease come into play. The situation spirals downward.
Unless your legislators are prepared to stand up to big business, and companies like Monsanto, more and more problems like this are likely to arise. :asian:


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2010)

K-man said:


> What total crap! I have read every one of your posts and you have made many outrageous statements.


Really?  If I've written anything that is either untrue or, in context, not clearly intended to be hyperbole, please point that out to me.  I have invited you to do so several times.  I've also avoided any hyperbole since you made it clear that you don't appreciate it.  Tried to, at least. 





> I also understand that you live in the US and that you are unhappy with the conditions your fellow countrymen have allowed to develop.


I wouldn't take it quite so far.  I have problems with some very specific things that I've outlined several times in this thread.





> Now WRT reading posts, I have researched factory farms and what I requested from you was that you provide some evidence to support your point of view. You failed to provide even one example of the conditions you described!


Example?  Have you been looking for me to tell you a story about a specific cow?  Bessie was born in 2007, and because she was injected with growth hormones, was producing milk within 2 years and by age 3 was culled from the herd because she had an infection related to mastitis and is now a hamburger at Jack In the Box.  What are you looking for that I haven't provided?  

Better yet, where do you and I disagree?  That's really what I'm struggling to figure out.  You got upset because I don't like milk personally, have problems with the overuse of antibiotics, with factory farming and with injecting growth hormones into livestock.  You took it personally because you have direct experience with dairy farms in Australia, you planted your heels firmly in the ground and are determined to argue with me even though it's pretty clear that you don't disagree with anything I've said.  Even further, the more you argue, the more you support the points I've made.

For clarity's sake, here are my points:

Factory Farms are driven by profit, not by health (either for the livestock or for the product being consumed by us)
Because factory farms are unsanitary, livestock are given regular doses of antibiotics as a preventative measure against infection. 
Factory farms routinely use growth hormones to increase milk production, and to get cows to produce milk at an earlier age.
That growth hormones cause health problems for the cattle including mastitis and cancer.
Mastitis often leads to infection which again leads to abuse of antibiotics.
That cattle are culled from the herd and are often used commercially, resulting in meat being consumed with BGH and antibiotics by humans.
This is all just flat out inhumane.

does any of that seem unreasonable to you?  Do you believe that any of these claims are incorrect?  If so, maybe that's a good place for us to start.

In addition to the points above, on milk in general and in response to the article in the OP, I've shared my opinion that it's yucky.  I've also pointed out that milk is only one way to get protein, that milk isn't necessary for good health, and that if your milk comes from a factory farm, it might not be as good for you as you think.  The article suggested that antibiotics weren't a bad thing.  I disagree, but more importantly, just about every doctor in the world disagrees.  





> So let's look at factory farms.
> 
> I'll put my position straight up. I am firmly against factory farming but not for the same reasons as you. In Australia factory farming is pretty much restricted to poultry and piggeries. The issue from my perspective is animal cruelty. It is cruel and unnatural to confine animals in small cages or stalls, in close proximity.


Cruelty is a big part of it for me, too.  But in the context of a discussion about the nutritional value of food, it's irrelevant.  Again, I agree with you, but I haven't brought it up because it's not relevant to the discussion.  





> It is possible to produce a top class environment in a factory farm if you throw enough money at it, but it still doesn't make it right, and there will still be problems.


I don't know about Australia, but the factory farm is about maximizing profit.  IF there's a corner to be cut, I have absolute faith that it will be cut.  





> It is not essential to use hormones and regular antibiotics but such practice produces more profit and many people lack the ethics to see that profit is not the most important part of the process.


Exactly.  I'm 
 tearing up with joy.  You're actually supporting my position now.  





> So lets define what we are discussing.
> 
> To restrict the discussion a little I would like to ignore the other classes of factory farms and look in detail at the dairy industry since milk is the OP.
> 
> ...


I hope it's clear that I am not trying to be snarky at all in this post.  I'm being completely serious when I ask you whether you understand that everything you've posted is pretty much, point for point, what I've been trying to say all along.  Do you see that?

The conditions you're outlining above are EXACTLY why factory farming is a huge issue.  While I said before that the "knee deep in s***" comment was hyperbolic, you've illustrated clearly how close to reality it really is.  After reading your own words above, it's not unreasonable to see what I and Sensiblemaniac are referring to when we talk about the filth in which these dairy cows live.  Is it?


----------



## K-man (Dec 17, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> For clarity's sake, here are my points:
> Factory Farms are driven by profit, not by health (either for the livestock or for the product being consumed by us)
> Because factory farms are unsanitary, livestock are given regular doses of antibiotics as a preventative measure against infection.
> Factory farms routinely use growth hormones to increase milk production, and to get cows to produce milk at an earlier age.
> ...


See what happens when you debate an issue? Precise and factual. Total consensus!! 

Yeah! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	















> In addition to the points above, on milk in general and in response to the article in the OP, I've shared my opinion that it's yucky. I've also pointed out that milk is only one way to get protein, that milk isn't necessary for good health, and that if your milk comes from a factory farm, it might not be as good for you as you think. The article suggested that antibiotics weren't a bad thing. I disagree, but more importantly, just about every doctor in the world disagrees.


 
Fantastic!! (I wish there were more exuberant emoticons!!) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







My point here is that now everything you're saying is objective. (Apart from 'Yucky' which is subjective and I accept it is your opinion.)

Now that all that is water under the bridge, we come back to the discussion on milk itself. 

Let's assume a couple of things.

We are living in Camelot. Everything is perfect.
The cows are happy and contented munching on sweet fresh grass, drinking crystal clear spring water. They never see the inside of a barn and they have a new area to graze every day. They are meticulous in their hygiene and the milk produced goes straight into sterile containers for storage. (See I really understand hyperbole. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

As Mark Jordan pointed out:


> There have been several studies about the risks of dairy products as well as studies that prove the benefits of dairy and calcium-rich milk that I don't know what to believe anymore.
> 
> The conflicting results may probably come from the fact that the human body is so complex that when one thing is found to be good for something, there are also some adverse effects for something else.
> 
> I do believe, however, that milk is one of the best food to build the muscle. Protein in milk is about 80 percent whey and 20 percent casein and is quickly broken down into amino acids and absorbed into the bloodstream that makes it a very good to consume after a workout/training.


And I don't know what to believe anymore either! What I would like is for people to find some research papers, for or against, on the health benefits of pasteurisation, homogenisation, low fat, full cream, extra calcium, etc etc.

There are groups in the community making all sorts of claims that are unsubstantiated but because they are in print they have credibility that does not stand up to scrutiny.

What I would love to read are some scientifically verified facts. Does pasteurisation destroy much of the nutritional benefit? Does homogenisation reduce fat globules to a size that causes health problems? Is the additional calcium so little that it does not justify the cost? Does full cream milk produce health risks from the excess fat or if you reduce the fat does that mess with your cholesterol?

Lets see what we can dig up. :asian:


----------

