tagged w/ dairy products
-
Latest Complete News Updates This ice cream recipe calls for the substitution of snow in the making of ice cream. While some may cringe at the thought of eating something off the ground, and while I readily agree it may not be the most sanitary thing in the world, snow ice cream was a winter treat I enjoyed as a child.Latest Complete News Updates This ice cream recipe calls for the substitution of snow... more
-
-
This is a message to all vegetarians and vegans out there. From rubber to adhesives to anti-aging creams to medicines to shampoo to instrument strings to plastic to charcoal to wallpaper to air filters: You can't run from beef!This is a message to all vegetarians and vegans out there. From rubber to adhesives to... more
-
-
PART ONE...
Ingrid Newkirk on Principled Veganism: “Screw the principle”
Posted by Gary L. Francione
In an article in Time Magazine, PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk discusses “flexitarianism,” or “[p]art-time vegetarianism.”
The goal for many activists is simply to get more people to eat less meat. “Absolute purists should be living in a cave,” says Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). “Anybody who witnesses the suffering of animals and has a glimmer of hope of reducing that suffering can’t take the position that it’s all or nothing. We have to be pragmatic. Screw the principle.”
We can make several observations about Newkirk’s statements:
First, Newkirk repeats the mantra of the new welfarist movement: that animal welfare reforms actually reduce suffering. The reforms that are promoted by PETA and the other new welfarist groups for the most part do not provide significant welfare benefits for animals. They just represent a different form of torture. Waterboarding someone on a bare board and waterboarding them on a padded board is still waterboarding.
Moreover, for the most part, industry would eventually adopt these reforms anyway because they generally increase production efficiency. Giving slightly more space to veal calves or using alternatives to the gestation crate result in increased animal productivity, lower veterinary costs, and a better bottom line for producers. PETA explicitly recognizes that gassing chickens is an economically efficient thing to do. The symbiotic relationship between large animal groups and institutional exploiters is clear when we see that groups like PETA and institutional exploiters are involved in a drama whereby animal advocates target an economically vulnerable practice; industry puts up a token fight; the reform, or some modification of the reform, is eventually accepted because it does not harm, and usually helps, industry; the animal groups declare victory; the animal exploiters bask in the praise that industry gets from animal advocates. Only the animals lose.
Second, Newkirk conveniently ignores that the relentless promotion of these welfare reforms by PETA and other new welfarist groups and the claims that these reforms make exploitation more “humane” make the public feel more comfortable about consuming animals and, as a result, consumption increases. It is interesting to note that per capita consumption of animal products is going up and not down. When groups like PETA give an award to slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin, or praise animal flesh/products peddlers, or call off the boycott of KFC in Canada because KFC agreed to phase in buying gassed chickens from producers, what does that say to the public? It is nothing less than one big stamp of “animal rights” approval.
PETA has made it possible for people who eat at KFC in Canada or at McDonald’s, or who buy “happy” meat or other animal products at Whole Foods, to proclaim themselves as “animal rights” advocates.
It should be increasingly clear that the “happy meat/animal products” movement is a giant step backwards.
Third, Newkirk conveniently misses the most important point in the debate whether to pursue a clear vegan moral baseline or instead to pursue welfare reforms.
It’s a zero-sum game. That is, we live in a world of limited resources. Every cent of money; every second of time; every bit of effort that we devote to welfare reform is less money, time, and labor that we devote to clear, unequivocal vegan advocacy. If the large new welfarist corporations put all of their resources into vegan advocacy, they could reduce suffering and death by reducing demand and helping to shift the paradigm away from the notion that animals are things that we can use if we treat them “humanely” to the notion that animals are beings with inherent moral value whom we should not be using at all.
CONTINUED...PART ONE...
Ingrid Newkirk on Principled Veganism: “Screw the... more
-
-
Cadbury’s famous ‘glass and a half’ milk claim has been dropped from its wrappers of Dairy Milk. The old claim referred to the amount of milk used in a half pound of Dairy Milk. (1)
Cadbury initially said Trading Standards was behind the change but the regulator has denied any involvement. Cadbury has since backtracked over the suggestion.
“The Trading Standards Institute would have no objection to the continued use of the slogan unless it was considered misleading by consumers,” a spokesman for the watchdog said. “The slogan is well known by consumers and should not be confused with food labeling laws.”
Cocoa and chocolate have been acclaimed for their possible medicinal and health benefits, but are consumers aware that the milk going into the chocolate may not be so healthy?
read full article at Heroin and Cornflakes... http://arch1design.com/blog/2010/10/02/chocolate-and-cancer-just-coincidence/Cadbury’s famous ‘glass and a half’ milk claim has been dropped from... more
-
-
Too much milk?
Studies abound, but there's no clear conclusion as to whether milk is good or bad for us.
By Chris Woolston
Los Angeles Times
July 12, 2010
PART ONE…
Few things in life look as pure and simple as a glass of milk. The ingredient list on the carton is refreshingly short too. All it says is "milk," perhaps along with some added vitamin A and vitamin D. No preservatives, no artificial colors, no high-fructose anything. Just milk.
But like many things that appear simple from the outside, there's a lot going on beneath milk's surface. That glass is swirling with natural cow hormones, which isn't surprising considering the source. Milk contains sugars found nowhere else in nature, and it offers a particular blend of nutrients — including protein, calcium, magnesium and potassium — that you can't get anywhere else.
Yet, almost 8,000 years after nomadic herders realized they could tug at the udders of slow-moving livestock, we still aren't sure how much of the stuff we should be drinking. The USDA recommends three cups of dairy a day for all adults, but the science behind milk hasn't been settled. "This is one of the most complicated and interesting areas of nutrition," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "and we don't have all of the answers."
Many high-profile nutritionists — often working with large research grants from the dairy industry — say that milk in great quantities is an essential part of the daily diet that can help prevent osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer and other illnesses. "Anything less than three glasses a day, and you won't get all of the nutrients that you need," says Connie Weaver, head of food and nutrition at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Most of Weaver's funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, but she's also supported by the National Dairy Council.
On the other side, groups promoting animal rights and veganism — including PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — say that cow's milk is a nutritional nightmare that doesn't belong in the human diet. "It's gross," says Dr. Neil Barnard, author and founder of the PCRM. "Milk is nutritionally perfect for one purpose: feeding a calf," he says. "The idea that we should be drinking milk from a cow is just bizarre."
Willett, one of the world's most prominent nutrition experts, doesn't belong to either camp. From his viewpoint, one or two cups of milk each day is a safe, reasonable and nutritious goal. "But beyond that," he says, "the benefits are unclear, and there may be some risk."
One or two cups? That's not as much as the USDA recommends but more than many milk critics could possibly stomach.
Of the foods that have their own tier on the pyramid, dairy products catch a lot of grief. A PETA website says that "dairy products are a health hazard" that are linked to "allergies, constipation, obesity, heart disease, cancer and other disease." For a topper, the site says that milk is often contaminated with cow's blood and pus.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has always singled out milk as a particularly dangerous part of the typical western diet. The PCRM website says that saturated fats in dairy products increase the risk of heart disease. It also says that the natural hormones in milk encourage cancer of the breast, prostate and ovaries. Turning popular wisdom on its head, the organization says that dairy products won't help prevent osteoporosis, the bone-thinning disease. The website highlights the Nurses Health Study, a 12-year examination of more than 77,000 women published in 1997 that found no link between reported dairy intake and the incidence of broken bones.
CONTINUED…Too much milk?
Studies abound, but there's no clear conclusion as to whether... more
-
-
Therefore be it resolved that the American Nurses Association:
Support the development of national and state laws, regulations and policies that specifically reduce the use of rBGH or rBST in milk and dairy production in the United States,
Work collaboratively with other nursing organizations and hospital and healthcare organizations to eliminate purchasing milk and dairy products for use in the health care industry that contain artificial hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) and any other food containing inappropriate additives,
Educate nurses regarding the known and projected harmful effects of the use of food additives, rBGH and other hormones and antibiotics in milk and dairy production and in agriculture,
Support the public's right to know through support of appropriate food labeling including country-of-origin and genetic modification, and of nutritional information for food served in institutions, restaurants, and fast food chains
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is great. Hopefully we will see more organizations lining up to denounce Monsanto and its deception. I am going to be contacting my board of education as well, because I don't want to see children served milk in school lunches and milk programs that have these hormones in them. We have to stand up together as healthcare professionals, parents, educators, and citizens to companies like Monsanto that push poison for a profit and the FDA that covers for them in lieu of protecting the health of Americans.Therefore be it resolved that the American Nurses Association:
Support the... more
-
