Ok, it ranks 12th. Does that help you at all? Brian, if this topic doesn't interest you, don't read it. I honestly can't figure out what game you're playing and, frankly, you're becoming a bit tedious. On the off chance that you are being genuine, I'll say that I don't list my concerns in order of priority. I think that's pointless and not even possible. I have categories, I suppose, and while I wouldn't consider this a primary concern, I would consider it a secondary concern. It is very significant me and a lot of other people, and it is clearly an issue that will grow in importance. But why do you ask, Brian? What possible importance could it be to you if I rank it 12th or 25thor 125th? You are hiding behind you insinuations, and not clearly stating your position. You finally get to some substance when you question the cruelty to animals issues the effects of bovine growth hormone on young girls, but at this point I have no interest in engaging in a serious discussion with you because of the way you've conducted yourself in this thread to this point. Do some research Brian. There's plenty of information on the web. If you come back with some kind of semi-informed, thoughtful, open minded position, then we can discuss it.
BK: I am answering for myself, not Mrs JB, however, the suggestion that serial killers begin on animals is nothing new. In fact, in juvenilles, police have found that their behavior toward animals are a fairly good determinant of how they will behave later. Over the past two years, I have read several stories of animal abuse from kids in and around the Houston area. In each case, police testified AGAINST the kids saying that this type of abuse is very often indicative of tendencies that COULD lead to violent behavior as adults. Cops actually follow abuse cases very closely - more closely than you think - in kids for this very reason. I don't think anyone would suggest a slaughterhouse worker is a serial killer. I actually have an acquaintence who worked on the kill floor. He did it because he was broke and needed the money. He managed about a month and left because it was too disgusting. On the subject of the healthy effects of animals in the diet, there are a couple of studies I can cite off the top of my head. 1. There was a study done with British Naval officer's wives and women from a village in Africa. The wives had a normal "western" diet consisting of meat, dairy and foods higher in cholesterol. The African women had a remarkable similar lifestyle in terms of exercise (which is why they are chosen) but they did not eat meat (because it wasn't available) and only drank goat's milk. In the study, they found that transit times for the digestive system (the amount of time it takes for food to get from one end of the body to the other) in the African women ranged from 12 - 24 hours. This is considered by health experts to be optimum efficiency for human digestion. The British women, however, showed transit times of 36-72 hours. The researchers noted that meat, which is not fully digested in the small intestine because of it's physical properties, literally sat in the intestines for nearly three days. In addition, they found that the incidence of disease in the British group of women (everything from the common cold to breast cancer to osteoparosis) was as much as 10 times higher than the African women. The African women reported NO incidence, in particular, of osteoparosis or heart disease. 2. A Chinese scientist at Oxford studied the link between estrogen in meat and milk to the increases in asthma in westerners over the course of the last 30 years. I know this one because Mrs. JB actually emailed him and he politely, and candidly, responded. He found that the presence of estrogen in meat and dairy products were at least partly responsible because the existence of these cases of asthma were not found prior to the introduction of hormones, the number of incidences increased parallel to the increase in the use of hormones and the existence of additional estrogen in the body is one of the key indicators in asthma, particularly in children. He explained to my wife that they were further looking into the effects of those same hormones on puberty because many researchers had noted that the average age of puberty in underdeveloped countries and Asia was well below that of the US. There was even a study going on that measure the onset of menstruation in women prior to 1960 and women of today. The average age of girls in Asia who reach puberty is 16, which is similar to women in the US prior to 1960. Today, the average age of women reaching puberty in America is 11. The reduction of those pubescent ages corresponds directly with the rise of hormone use in cattle. That is exactly why the European Union has commissioned a study on the use of hormones in meat and dairy products and the cumulative effect on the human body. For me, this isn't an issue of human-ness or even economics. This is simply a matter of consumer protection. If the practices of companies are even remotely putting the health and well-being of their customers at risk, we should know about it. Consumer groups had to fight tooth and nail just to get food packages labeled so we could see the ingredients in our foods. They are still fighting to get irradiated meat labeled and inorganic produce or produce treated with industrial sludge better labeled. It is our right to know what we are putting into our bodies. Period.
It depends. Are the hormone molecules able to withstand cooking temperatures without breaking down? I haven't heard any research on the subject, but they're small molecules so I will say "quite possibly". (anything in protein, peptide, or nucleic acid (DNA) form will have its chemical structure hopelessly destroyed by cooking and you won't have to worry about it) Also, what happens to them once they enter the body through the digestive system? Most things we take in are broken down into smaller components by the digestive system, or else have trouble passing into the bloodstream (not just anything can get through those membranes, you know) and go out the other end. Assuming that these are steroid hormones (such as estrogen, testosterone, and various well-known human hormones), you very well could have a problem. Cholesterol has a similar structure; obviously cooking doesn't get rid of it, and the body has a way to get that into the bloodstream. (these things tend to be lipid-soluble, which does make it easier to get through membranes) Human and other mammalian biochemicals tend to be very similar. Has anyone seen any definitive research done in this regard? Of course, some of this research would involve animals (which some animal rights activists would not like). This could be a concern... but, on the other hand, my husband eats fast food meat every day of his life and never did bulk up.
It's not always about taste. An organic banana may taste the same as a conventional, pesticide laden regular banana, but just knowing that the organic banana doesn't have pesticides is enough to convince me to buy organic. Same with meat or chicken. It may taste the same as antibiotic, caged, inhumane meat, but know that it isn't laced with antibiotics and it is raised free-range and humanely treated is enough to steer me in the opposite direction. it's not always about taste.
***Note to Jeff when you read this: I am trying. I really am. *** The issue of just how important, relatively, this is to people who genuinely care about it does interest me. That's why I'm asking. Tedious. That's not very nice. I think I established that in my last post. I don't see why it's so hard for you to accept. You seem very defensive about this entire topic. You have an infinite amount of time and energy, then...? That's sort of the crux of the issue. You have to allocate resources out of every day. You typically can't do two things at once (unless they're coincidentally related). So if you choose to become involved in fighting a political cause, you're doing so at the expense of other activities. When I see someone fighting for the rights of steak, I see that as time that I would not spend. So, I become curious as to just how important it is to them personally. There are all sorts of problems in our society; I consider the humane treatment of livestock to be comparitively unimportant. I really did not think I would have to explain my curiosity in such excruciating detail to you. I think I've been entirely forthcoming. See, that wasn't so hard! You could have saved thousands of words of discussion with that answer the first time you were asked. Thanks for the answer. There are all sorts of ways I could respond.... let's see: "I pretty much could not care less about it, so I'm wondering how important it is to those of you that do care about it."-- Brian Kagy, 3/31/02, 6:07 PM. I cannot be any more clear than that. Asking questions offends you? Why are you so insecure about your position on this issue? I asked in very plain terms if rimbaud could provide information on the subject, since he seems to have an informed opinion. And you tell me to "do some research". Nice. I don't see how we can. I ask you how important the issue is to you, and I'm told that's inappropriate. I ask a poster for more information, and you tell me to do some research. Evidently, on this issue, unless someone has already studied it in detail, they're not supposed to be part of the discussion. I'm confused. How do you and the Save Our Steak brigade recruit new members?
I'll say this, we buy Horizon organic eggs and they taste markedly better than regular eggs. They also LOOK a lot better. My wife bakes a lot and the quality of eggs is fairly important to making great cookies, etc. She won't use regular eggs because they don't taste the same or look good. I guess I keep looking at this from a protection standpoint. America is all about choice - in business, in life, etc. If we are unable to make informed choices because we just don't have all the information, that is not a good thing. If the information is there and we are just to lazy or stupid to read it, fine, but most of the information on ingredients and methods used to make food products (like Department of Energy documents) are mysteriously unavailable. No one here buys a car without reading at least SOME of the specs. No one buys a home without hiring a home inspector to make sure it isn't infested with termites or has a giant crack in the foundation. We should have the same choices available to us in food. In fact, I'd argue that food choice should be the most fundamental right of every consumer. We've heard it a million times: you are what you eat. We have a right to know what we are eating. If the companies tell us and, as a result, we don't buy their food. Tough. Sell something else. That's capitalism.
But it's hard, and it's not working! That's interesting that the Horizon eggs taste better. Do you know what the cost difference is? I buy the absolute El Cheapo Hill Country Fare brand... so to me, price is more of an issue than taste. Hell, I'm not even sure HCF eggs come from chickens. But I'm told they're rich in vitamin R, just like Malk.
BK, At first I didn't think I'd think much of this topic, but I checked it out anyway. The more I read, the more it seemed like something I should be concerned about. If you care about what effects the food you eat has on your body this is an important issue. Sure, there are many other things that I'd rather have taken care of, but something that will help me live a healthier life is almost always an important priority. Many seemingly mundane things can end up to be extremely important. I can understand that talking about hormone free/humane treatment of cattle can seem very dull or unimportant, but once you start examining the possible effects, than the issue becomes much more interesting. Now that I have read this topic I am going to try to make a more conscious effort to buy organic produce, and if I have a choice between "humane" beef vs. regular beef, I'll take "humane" as long as the cost isn't double or triple. B
***Note to Jeff when you read this: I am trying. I really am. But much more of this and you may find me blasting this fool *** Just a statment of fact, Brian. I might add that I, and others, have found you presentation to be not very nice. So if this is a concern of yours, perhaps you should consider that the way you respond to people inflences the way they respond to you. You didn't ask how much time and energy I spend on it, you asked how I rank it. These are very different. You are suggesting to me that you don't know the difference then? If this is the level you are operating at then I need to change the way I've been dealing with you. My apologies for assuming too much of you. This is a very different issue than what you've raised earlier in the thread. If, in fact, this is what you were thinking of from the start, it's too bad you didn't say so, because it's a good question. One way I devote time to it is to engage in discussions, like the one being carried out by the others in this thread. I'm going to go back to that discussion after this post, and stop wasting my time on this adolescent drivel. Is that all you've understood from this thread? That's very sad. I see. Reading between the lines, I think this is what BK is really all about. You've earned a spot on my ignore list BK, not because you are particularly offensive, you're not good enough for that, but because you are an astonishingly small minded man, and this type of discussion doesn't rank high enough on my priority list.
Isabel, Don't get scientific with me! Seriously, though...I am not sure what chemicals/hormones survive and what don't but, apparently, some due - based on research done by science freaks. I, personally, have found it a bit surprising how many medical-based nutrition books (meaning they weren't written by nutty vegetarians for vegetarians, but doctors written for the general public) have come out where doctors essentially advocate vegetarian and vegan diets - usually without using those terms. A lot of the reasoning seems to be based upon what goes into meat and dairy products. There is a doctor in California who has a program/facility who can essentially get people off of medication for various minor illnesses (high blood pressure, etc) simply by changing their diets away from chemical-fed foods. Of course, some scientists say in 100 years we will all be vegetarians of some sourt because of increased meat prices, infections, and scarcity...but I don't think that can really be known with any certaity. BK, I think grizzled responded negatively to you and mentioned you being vague for comments such as: There is no way I can speculate on why that is without, probably, insulting you.. Not, sure though...just a guess. Jeff and MJB, I don't understand why you guys bring up the serial killer-types killing animals first. I know that this is true, but don't understand how it fits here. Also, have any of you guys heard about McDonalds and Burger King now haveing vegan veggie burgers? While I don't trust McDonalds - they make no assurances, even PETA is supporting BK. Obviously more and more people are getting concerned with diet and the demand is starting to cause a little change. Interesting.
I brought it up originally, because this thread didn't start out as an "anti-hormone in meat" thread. It began as a thread about treating livestock/animals more humanely. And I gave my reply as to why it is important to treat all living creatures with respect. It was only after that the thread began to veer into the organic/no-hormone/strictly-dietary direction. Hope that clarifies it.
So, does torturing animals represent a more innocent step that will lead to human torture, or is it just something people with that disposition will do in thier younger, experimental years?
Certainly, not everyone who has purposely hurt an animal will go on to harm people -- in fact, I assume the vast majority don't. However, nearly everyone who systematically harms people on a regular basis (serial killers, abusers, etc...) began by hurting or killing anmals. At some point they lost a basic respect for all life -- animal and human.
Very mature of you. I apologize for disagreeing with you-- wasn't aware that only people who share your opinion are open-minded. You might want to watch the name-calling, by the way.
Thank God for the EU, they seem to have a firm grasp on the seriousness of the situation. Really, who wants to eat a "depressed" pig, wouldn't that just make the meat tougher? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EU rules make piggies want to stay at home By Michael Leidig in Vienna (Filed: 17/02/2002) GERMAN pig farmers are buying their animals toys and giving them "quality time" in order to meet the requirements of a new directive from the country's agriculture ministry. The rules, introduced last week, are part of a series of EU guidelines for pig farmers which the German government has decided to phase in by the end of 2003, beginning with the states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig Holstein. Dr Karl-Heinz Placke, who is responsible for animal welfare in Schleswig Holstein, said that, according to the rules, "all pigs should get at least 20 seconds of the farmer's time each day - 10 seconds in the morning and 10 seconds in the evening". "For larger pig farms with up to 1,500 pigs it will obviously be necessary for the farmers to either take on more staff, or get family members involved in this duty," he said. "The pigs should be kept happy with two or three toys to stop them fighting each other, namely toys that have wooden grips or straw dummies. "Every pig must have daylight, and in winter extra lighting should be provided to stop the pigs becoming depressed. "The drains in a stall must be kept out of the way and the floor must be given a soft covering with a rubber mat or straw. Air conditioning must be installed in the pig pens. "A special hospital area should also be set up for sick pigs to recover in peace." The German agriculture authorities say that spot checks are being carried out to make sure that farmers are following the rules, which are effective immediately for all new farms. Many larger pig breeders are unhappy about the amount of care they are now forced to give to their animals. Breeders in North Rhine-Westphalia received their guidelines from Baerbel Hoehn, the regional agriculture minister, at the end of last year. The region's agriculture ministry spokesman, Leo Boften, said: "These rules will bring large and small pig farms into line with each other, and within two years make sure there is equal competition between European countries. "The rules are a result of political pressure from a European public which no longer finds the idea of mass production methods for pig farming acceptable." Gunter Volker, a pig farmer from Rheda-Wiedenbrueck in North Rhine-Westphalia, said: "I, like many other small farmers, readily welcome the new laws because they force pig stalls to be more hygienic, and the pigs will be much more comfortable. "It is very important for a pig's mental state to be kept busy. Boredom amounts to cruelty. "I know other farmers who are unhappy. Those with large farms are against the move because they believe it will cost them more money. "The new law requires that each animal be given a certain amount of space. This means that more stalls may have to be built." Michael Starp from the German Union of Farmers said he accepted that EU regulations for the protection of animals are vital, "but we are worried that Germany has taken the measures too far and will be too strict on our farmers. "It will cost more to farm pigs, which in turn will reflect on the price of meat products. "Therefore people will start to buy their products from abroad, from countries such as Austria, which does not have the same regulations on keeping animals." Maximilian Herbegg, who has more than 1,000 animals at Alsberg in Hessen, and every year sells 4,000 young pigs, said that the rules would be impossible to enforce. He said: "How can you prove that the farmer has not checked an animal, and how can even we be sure, in my case, with more than 1,000 animals and all the young ones that all have to be seen for 10 seconds in the morning and 10 seconds in the evening. "It's an impossible job. They don't all line up to be counted." http://www.dailytelegraph.com/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/17/wpig17.xml
Here's an interesting link on the humane treatment of animals issue. http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~csaw/index.html Here is a pretty good overview of the hormone issue. http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/animal/growth-hormones-cattle.html And here are more links than you ever wanted to know existed. http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/animal.htm
Considering we have close to some 1 billion people who are starving or are near starvation, and I think it takes 10+ times the nutrients to feed livestock that will then feed people than to directly feed people w/o the livestock step, among the other points raised I think there is an overwhelmingly powerful humanistic argument for vegetarianism. Further, I also understand the argument of why put an animal through suffering when we don't need to for us to get our nutrients. I have thought of it this way, if people in my city started eating and selling in the market stray cats and dogs I would want to put a stop to it immediately. That said, until soy based meat-flavored products get a little better, or until I start to identify with cows, pigs and chicken's like I do with my own pets and their species, I doubt I am not going to give up meat. What can I say, I do recognize the inconsistencies inherent in this, though I think down the line myself and most others will be vegetarians.
Desert Scar, I was very impressed with that point too when I first heard it. I'd never thought about meat production like that. I too haven't thought much about the use of hormones, etc. in food production (vegetables in addition to meat), but I concur with others that this and anything else that could potentially be harmful to people is something that consumers should have a right to know, just like the use of pesticides. I think it's great that people are trying to make the production of meat more humane, but as someone else said, I don't see why they dub it "humane" when the animal is still summarily executed in the prime of its life. But I guess I'm just nitpicking.
