Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
Popular content
Today's Top News
Organic Dairy Farms Being Crushed by Factory Operations
Family farmers who produce organic milk are petitioning for the swift adoption of new strict rule-making that would rein in the abuses of a handful of factory farms, which are violating both the spirit and letter of the federal organic law.
The pending rewrite of the organic livestock standards, with an emphasis on assuring compliance with provisions that require grazing for dairy cows, is under review at the Office of Management and Budget, where the administration is being heavily lobbied by industrial farming interests to water down the rules.
To meet the explosive growth in the organic industry, over the last five years a number of large industrial dairies, milking as many as 7,200 cows, have exploited the stellar reputation that organic dairy products have earned in the eyes of consumers who are looking for safer and more nutritious food for their families.
With the flattening of demand for organic food, these giant dairies have flooded the market with cheap milk that is now crushing the family farmers who have built this industry. These CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are anathema to organic consumers investing in a more environmentally sensitive approach to food production and humane animal husbandry. Ironically, one of the reasons they are willing to pay extra for organic milk is they think that the farmers who produce it are being fairly treated.
The current surplus of organic milk, caused by factory farms, has forced prices down for family farmers. Sadly, there have been reports around the country of a number of suicides of both conventional and organic dairy producers. Some organic farmers are now facing foreclosure, a stark contrast to the economic promise of organics over the past two decades of growth.
Organic farmers are particularly resentful of two corporate players that heavily lobbied the USDA during both the Bush and Obama administrations, attempting to weaken regulatory language that requires dairy cows to be managed in a way that promotes their natural instinctive behaviors, including grazing on open pastures rather than spending most of their lives confined in barns and feedlots.
The largest villain, in the eyes of dairy farmers, is Aurora Dairy. The $100 million corporation owns five “factory farms,” each with thousands of cows, in arid regions of Texas and Colorado. Owning its own manufacturing plant, Aurora packages and ships milk for sale as store-brand products at Walmart and a number of leading supermarket chains. Aurora’s factory farm milk reaches every corner of this country, undercutting ethical farmers and their marketing partners.
Although the president of Aurora Dairy, Mark Retzloff, has heavily contributed to the Democratic Party, President Obama, and Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor who is now USDA secretary, we trust that the current administration will focus on the suspect practices of his company rather than its past financial and political support.
In what has been described as the largest scandal in the history of the organic industry, in 2007 the USDA found that Aurora had “willfully” violated 14 tenets of the federal organic law, including confining its animals instead of grazing, and bringing illegal conventional cows into its factory farm operations.
The Bush administration let Aurora off without a cent in fines, instead placing the company on a one-year probation. Since then, 19 class-action lawsuits by consumers, charging Aurora with consumer fraud, have been working their way through the federal court system.
Bruce Drinkman, an organic dairy farmer from Glenwood City, Wis., who milks 55 cows, is right when he says:
“It would be a national scandal, as some of us face losing our farms due to the industrial dairy scofflaws, if the Obama administration sides with the ‘bad actors’ in our industry. We are in dire financial straits because of the same kind of unethical competition from factory farms that put so many of our conventional neighbors out of business. We need the president and the USDA on our side!”
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
59 Comments so far
Show AllThese corporations have more free speech to spend to crush the little guys.
This is no doubt despicable. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to the largest diary business in India, AMUL !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amul
Please read the The Three-tier "Amul Model" section closely and understand what sets them apart from our nation's self-defeating model. It all starts at the village level and is bottom up unlike the factory farm models in the USA. The Milk Union has a large part to play in the company's success and yet all of its products are healthy grass fed diary products.
I have kept a reminder to call these diary businesses and be one of those ready to demand change in their business practices and follow AMUL's model for a change and I hope you will do the same.
maxpayne, I think you should read more about ecological footprint and water footprint, as well the implications of dairy industry on democracy and lives of tribals in Inda before you talk about the benefits of the "Amul Model" - which was considered a good model in the past, and may still work for other farm products, but not dairy. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you CANNOT get around the basic requirements of land, cattlefeed (including grass) and water - no matter where these cows are raised. Largescale dairy and beef industries *seem to be* viable only in settler countries - such as the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, etc., without affecting local food supply or causing soil erosion, shortages of water, etc. They are NOT sustainable in countries like China and India, without external input in the form of cattlefeed - either from land within their own countries (thus diverting farmland) or through imports. Desertification is a danger that cannot be ignored, and there is a good chance that increased grazing of cattle is directly responsible in some regions of the world.
Compared to the factory farm model which is causing more soil damage, the Amul model looks more promising. But if not grass, then hemp can fill in the needs which I discussed in the other reply. Importing surplus cattle might not be a bad idea as long as they are treated well and not imprisoned and tortured unlike factory farms. I was thinking trade could be a good thing but only if done properly.
No, I meant importing cattlefeed - not the cattle :)
As for torture, you know, it's inevitable, though probably not intentional. I say inevitable, because, in a country like India, everything is in limited supply. People in urban areas have it much better - so, a lot of the cruelty is hidden from them. But the poor people cannot always be overly mindful of cruelty - because they just need to survive first. You can check out this story by PETA India:
Dairy Suffering in India
http://www.milliondollaryack.com/meat/archives/290
Some religious fanatics go so far as to beat up people (often from the so-called "lower caste") who slaughter cows, but fail to realize that it is their dairy consumption that is the primary cause of cow slaughter. I read that some people are even pushing for legislation in some states in India to ban cow slaughter, and I think this is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance, not to mention dangerous, socially. I personally do not want to see animals killed for food, but if I am consuming dairy, I have no right to call for a ban on cow slaughter - unless I am willing to pay for the cow's retirement after it stops providing milk.
It may be organic, but it's not natural. It's not natural for adult mammals to drink the milk formulated by evolution for the needs of another species' young.
In order for a cow to lactate, she must first be forced to get pregnant. Give birth to a calf who will be taken from her (regardless of her feelings and the calf's feelings) and auctioned off for "veal" or whatever. The cow will spend the rest of her life forced to get pregnant, give birth, lactate, until her body wears out in about 5 years (cows can live to be up to 20). Once she's no longer "productive" or is barren to begin with, she's sent off to the slaughter factory.
I once asked Gail Eisnitz, author of "Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry," if those animals raised "organically" and "free-range" were also sent to the same slaughterhouses as those commercially raised elsewhere, and she replied that, with few exceptions, yes, they are.
>>>rodent wrote: It may be organic, but it's not natural.
Thank you for pointing out. Not natural, not required (for human health) and not sustainable - unless you have a large area of land and lots of water.
It was not natural 1M years ago. But, for human populations in many areas, it is now natural for human adults to eat dairy because that has been a vital part of the diet for thousands of years. This does not mean that dairy consumption is not often tremendously inefficient and destructive.
I don't drink cows milk, but I certainly do enjoy cheese. I already live substantially meat-free, but I have little tolerance of the vegan-extremist's preachings about this.
Sadly, Obama will not go against his paymasters (corporate campaign donors...aka...bribers) and stupid (but rich) white men co-horts....anything small and good must be crushed in the USA....so it is up to CONSUMERS to stop buying Aurora produced milk....STOP SHOPPING AT WALMART and inform our friends and neighbors with information like this to give them the tools to make the decision to support small dairy farmers and not big AGRA businesses!! : )
The USDA has become the champion for industrial agriculture, not farmers. Milk over-production has been a problem for decades- I remember my cousins in Wisconsin arguing over the merits of signing on with the NFO - National Farmer's Organization - in terms of dumping their milk in the fields. This was back in the early 60's. This article makes me think of the happy cow commercials. Little do people realize those "happy" cows are in a huge confinement facility, being loaded with antibiotics, steroids, and Rbst. Yum.
The primary function of food should be to feed a hungry population. Overproduction is the consequence of the primary function of food being a means to make profit.
Since profit to be had from raising food is of greater importance then the Nutrition we all need from food in order to survive, it inevitable that the safety of food and the nutrition it provides takes a back seat to profit.
The enviromental havoc caused by modern agricultural practices is not due as much to people having to eat, as it is due to those that raise food having to increase profit margins. The fact a Haiti once all but fed itself and today is totally reliant on imported food is again due food becoming first and foremost a means to make PROFITS rather then one of lifes requirements.
The Mantra of "Growth, Jobs and Profits" which virtually every Government in the World advocates WILL destroy ecosystems and will lead to total collapse.
While the Corporate and factory farms mantra of "Profits at ANY Cost" is exponentially more harmful then that of the small Organic farmer , this does not mean that the small Organic farmers pursuit of profit is not harmful.
While profit may not be necessarily bad, more often then not in order TO profit it comes at the expense of something else.
We have never been able to quanitify or properly examine the long term effects of what that "something else" will entail and it something we should be doing as a matter of course if we wish to have a future.
Perhaps we have to rethink how we grow our food. Perhaps these Organic farmers who practice safe practices are one day seen as "Public Servants" and rewarded accordingly rather then having to compete in a marketplace that is anything but free in order to remain in business.
These are not "happy cows," that's for sure:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/cow-torture-video-willet-_n_438403.html
From time to time I force myself to watch videos like this, to remind me where that cheese or ice cream I'm craving comes from. Or I pull out my copy of T. Colin Campbell's, "The China Study" to remind myself how unhealthy it is.
anne faith, yes, "The China Study" is a good book on the health effects of meat and dairy. After reading it, everytime I see something on cancer research and cancer awareness, I have to wonder, why there's not enough research on the possible dietary cause. John McDougall, M.D., also talks about how eliminating dairy from his patients' diet has helped in many cases of chronic disease. "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins is another great book. But there seems to be a general belief (more like a wishful thinking) that organic dairy farms are somehow good. Maybe marginally better than the industrial dairy production, but other 'benefits' are open to question.
I'm with you, Alcyon. While organic dairy is preferable to factory-farmed dairy pumped up with pesticides, antibiotics and Monsanto's Frankensteinian bovine growth hormone, it's still bad for us and very bad for those cows who suffer horrible deaths at the slaughterhouse.
You're confusing beef cattle with dairy cattle. The latter don't go to the slaughterhouse. They generally die on the farm and are rendered.
Actually, in America, they do.
They are "retired" after a short number of years, around 5, and then slaughtered.
Ephraim,
DAIRY COWS, after being confined, kept CONSTANTLY pregnant by force-insemination, have their BABIES TAKEN away from them (which is gut-wrenching, mother and baby cry and wail), have their udders so full from the growth hormones that they scrape the cement ground and are INFECTED (the pus is in your milk), and become so sick they are unable to walk and are called "DOWNERS", they are dragged, ELECTRICALLY PRODDED, and sometimes forklifted to the SLAUGHTERHOUSE, where they are further brutalized before being slaughtered, often SKINNED WHILE STILL ALIVE.
Yes, ephraim, they go the slaughterhouse after a cruel and painful existence, they do not die on the farm.
Putting aside ethical debates for the moment, no, it isn't "very" bad for humans. Whey and casein are probably the best proteins of any type of proteins, with the beset nutritional profiles. Furthermore, the microfractions of whey such as lactoferrin and immunoglobulin G, have many beneficial effects on health. Only human milk has higher amounts of lactoferrin and IgG than cow milk.
The problem is that the extreme processing that happens nowadays, the extreme processing that has nothing to do with food safety, but is purely for the convenience of the mass market producers, ends up denaturing or destroying the beneficial aspects of milk.
>>>rfloh wrote: Whey and casein are probably the best proteins of any type of proteins, with the beset nutritional profiles.
Again, the "benefits" of dairy are highly questionable. Doctors such as Dr. John McDougall, M.D. have studied the effect of *eliminating* dairy from their patients' diet and recommend this in the treatment of certain chronic conditions - such as endometriosis, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, etc. Everyone knows there's an increase in certain conditions or diseases - from autism to cancer, but the mainstream medical establishment has been amazingly quiet about possible dietary linkages.
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/nov/fav5.htm
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/teresa_rodriguez.html
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/051205starpaula.html
Even though people have always consumed meat and dairy, the quantities were nowhere near present day levels. There is very little that is natural about today's diet - it simply COULD NOT HAVE come about without the conquest of the New World only a few centuries ago. Prior to that, the limited availability of land and water ensured that regular meat consumption was mostly for the aristocrats, and commoners had to be satisfied with eating meat on special occasions. Same with milk - it was not so abundantly available.
The first link you posted argues for the benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption. What has that to do with the so-called negative effects of dairy?
What does the benefits of eating veg have to do with dairy? What does that have to with whey and casein?
2nd link,
" love candy, especially Skittles. Sometimes I would even fall asleep with a mouthful of them. In the morning I would look in the mirror and hate the obese person I saw, yet I never connected the two. So, I stopped looking in the mirror, thinking that if I didn't see the problem it wasn't really there. This was in 2005. I was 30 years old, stood five-foot-eight, and weighed 245 pounds.
Aside from the Skittles, my diet consisted of processed foods, such as Hamburger Helper, macaroni and cheese, and canned pasta and rice dishes. My exercise program consisted of walking to the kitchen to get food and back to the living room to watch TV. "
And the fault here is DAIRY? Rodriguez overdosed on candy, a high carbohydrate high calorie diet, while not exercising at all, and you are blaming dairy? Really?
As for endometriosis, there is some speculation that in some women, hormones from cow's milk affects them. Do you know that soy has hormonal effects too?
What about the health benefits of lactoferring and immunoglobulin G (IgG) in whey?
Lactoferrin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactoferrin
Immunoglobulin G:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IgG
Since you want to claim that the mainstream medical establishment has been amazingly quiet about the possible health effects of dairy, might you want to address how those promoting high-carb diets, which includes the mainstream establishment, and many vegetarians, have been amazingly quiet the link between high blood triglyceride levels, and high carbohydrate consumption?
"Even though people have always consumed meat and dairy, the quantities were nowhere near present day levels. There is very little that is natural about today's diet - it simply COULD NOT HAVE come about without the conquest of the New World only a few centuries ago. Prior to that, the limited availability of land and water ensured that regular meat consumption was mostly for the aristocrats, and commoners had to be satisfied with eating meat on special occasions. Same with milk - it was not so abundantly available."
Please define "natural". If you're going to use the term, you need to define what it means in terms of diet. Furthermore, dairy, in all it's forms, has long been a traditional part of Indian, and French cuisine. Dairy is a traditional part of most cuisines that have access to cows, or goats, or sheep, or even horses (the Mongols most famously) Was it so abundantly available? No. Guess what, neither were grains, neither were most other foods for that matter. In the past, any good food, yes including good plant based foods were only available to the rich. In the past, unless you were rich, you ate whatever you could get your hands on.
rfloh, each one of those links contain a part where the elimination of dairy and how it reversed certain chronic condition is discussed.
As for the high-carb diets and soy, I don't think they need to be the alternatives for a vegetarian, automatically. There is far too much confusing information about diet, and it seems like there's hardly any 'traditional' knowledge regarding diet - you know, the kind of diet that sustained people over millennia (meat and dairy included, but, like I've said before, reserved only for special occasions - and only for those who want them). In fact, my own diet draws in recipes from all over the world - where soy is only an occasional part. High-carb diets do have their place - for people who do a lot of physical work - like the farmers in Asian countries - not the kind who drive giant farm equipment, but those who get down and dirty in the farm. They don't think of it as high-carb, but something that's available and seems to work for them. Anyway, I don't want to argue based on some diet fad, but to me, a vegetarian or a vegan diet is NOT a fad, but more natural.
OK, you want me to define 'natural'. How about I describe what I consider to be natural, instead? It's to look at our own physiology and anatomy and compare them with other animals - I have no doubt that we are so much closer to herbivores than to carnivores or ominvores. In that sense, yes, even many 'traditional' diets that include meat and dairy are clear deviations from what nature intended. I agree, it's a theory - and it's not worth arguing based on that theory. It's just a way for me to make sense of what's natural. So, in that sense, we should be eating raw food, and I don't eat raw food all the time. Just because I follow a mostly vegan diet, I don't claim that I'm being close to nature - oh no. I'll be the last to pretend I'm 'holier than thou' - so you can drop that assumption about vegetarians in general.
I suggest you do some research on the link between high blood triglyceride levels and heart disease, instead of getting distracted by cholesterol ala the China Study. Guess what causes high blood triglyceride levels? Fast digesting carbohydrates. Sugar. Rice. Bread.
Boy, the dietary fundamentalists are out in force and have taken this comment section well off topic.
No meat, no cheeses, no ice cream, and, I assume, no beer or wine. They can be as insufferable as any bible-thumping fundamentalist.
While it should be as humanely as possible, of course cows are slaughtered. We all die.
"vegan-extremists", "dietary fundamentalists"...wow, you sure have a way with words, pjd412 :) Actually, why no beer or wine? I enjoy my drink occasionally, and I'm mostly a vegan (I try not to make a big deal about the occasional slice of pizza or a piece of cake that has egg in it - although they are never my first choice, and my first choice for liquor would be whiskey :). Having said that, I just did a Google search, and it looks like I may have to do a bit of homework to learn more about what goes into the making of these.
It is attitudes like yours, pjd412, that I find insufferable. Why is it that whenever anyone on CD dares to speak up about the monstrous way in which animals are abused and then slaughtered for food, they are invariably branded insufferable fundamentalist zealots? Why so defensive? Is it because you know, deep down, that what we do to these animals is simply wrong? "We all die." There are many ways to die, some far worse than others. And there's nothing "humane" about the way cattle and pigs are slaughtered at a slaughterhouse.
I have no need to reply to pjd412 now, because you took the words from my mouth. There is nothing "humane" about the abuse or murder of a sentient creature. Thank you, Anne.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22steiner.html
And your solution is what?
That the sentient creature not live at all?
Biomusicologist, great article. Thanks.
Let me put it this way. Animals are killed for food. The dairy cows are killed after a (short) number of years. Horrible. True. I agree. I'm vegetarian.
So, your solution is that they shouldn't be alive at all? Because that is what will happen. If these animals that are bred for food aren't used for food, they won't be alive at all.
So what is the solution? That they not be alive at all? Or that they should be raised in as humane conditions as possible, treated as well as possible, be allowed a life of good food and play, of care and kindness, in return for being used for food?
Which is more acceptable from an ethical standpoint? That food animals not be used for food, and thus not live at all, or that they be used for food, in return for care and kindness and as good a life as possible?
Or some other more ethical alternative?
This isn't necessary an ideal compromise, no, and not one that I necessarily agree with, but it is an argument that I hardly ever see addressed at all.
Also, ethical issues, there are, again, the ridiculous assertions about diet and nutrition.
The shouting that something is not "natural". Most things in modern human life are not "natural". Most of modern human life is not "natural". "Natural" is a meaningless term. Saying that something is not "natural" is a meaningless assertion.
The exaggerations about the evils of dairy and fat.
rfloh,
This is really too RIDICULOUS of a "argument" to even address but here goes.
Force-inseminating, keeping the cows CONSTANTLY pregnant, taking their BABIES AWAY (which is extremely GUT-WRENCHING for them as it would be for any mother, they wail and cry), pumping them with GROWTH HORMONES that enlarge their udders to the point of extreme PAIN AND INFECTION because they scrape the cement floor of their confined stall, constant REMOVAL of their milk by machine, then mostly TOO SICK TO WALK, the "downers" are dragged, ELECTRICALLY PRODDED and often forklifted to slaughterhouses where they are further brutalized and often SKINNED WHILE STILL ALIVE.
This is what YOU are the direct cause of by consuming the cow's milk.
Do you really think this is a GOOD LIFE?
Please RETHINK your choices and TRY soy, hemp, rice, or almond milk.
The alternatives are vast and you'll find the vitamin and nutrition content BETTER due to the lack of cancer-causing arachidonic acid in ALL animal products, growth hormones and antibiotics, not to mention the suffering.
You haven't addressed my argument. REREAD WHAT I WROTE.
I DID NOT SAY THAT all that stuff is the good life.
I am saying assuming that all that torture is stopped. No hormones, free to live well and play etc. No forced "retirement" and death after a number of years. Come up with whatever you consider the good life.
So, good life, and yes, be used for humans for food, including being killed after a number of years for meat, or no life? Or do you have some better alternative?
Your argument is that no life is better than being treated horrendously. I agree.
What if the conditions for those animals are improved? Would you still argue for no life?
And sorry no, you're grossly oversimplying the dietary and nutritional argument. Including the arachidonic acid argument.
>>>rfloh wrote: So, your solution is that they shouldn't be alive at all? Because that is what will happen. If these animals that are bred for food aren't used for food, they won't be alive at all.
rfloh, it's not a simple choice between being raised for food or allowed to go extinct. No. If humans greatly reduce their meat consumption, they don't have to occupy all this land and keep clearing away forests - from Brazil to Indonesia. A considerable part of deforestation is directly linked to meat production - to grow livestock feed. So, yes, certain species have been domesticated for so long, that they may find it difficult to survive in the wild That doesn't mean they will go extinct. When there is adequate forest cover, these animals (and also chicken) will grow and multiply to the extent food is available - and so will the predators that eat them. But their numbers will be regulated by the laws of the jungle - not by the laws of a capitalist, imperialist system.
You are missing my point.
Let's say that a cow, call him Cow, is raised for meat. Everyone stops eating meat. Ergo, there is no more reason to raise Cow. Cow will no longer be raised. Cow will no longer be born. Ergo, no life for Cow.
I'm not sure I missed your point. In any case, there are far too many cows - just as there are far too many people. As we move towards a sustainable society - worldwide - many more 'potential' humans will never be born, as people limit their family sizes. Same with the cows - they'll still be around, but in far fewer numbers. But the forest and wilderness areas that are freed up (hopefully) as a result will be able to stop other species going extinct, and hopefully allow some of our cousins - like the orangutans - to rebuild their populations. Fewer humans and fewer cows, so other species can live - would that be so bad?
anne faith, I agree with you.
Meat-eaters admit that they "crave" meat and can not go without it,yet we plant-eaters are the zealots?
One of their lame "arguments" is that it has always been done this way and people have always eaten meat. TOTALLY FALSE.
The industrial revolution forced meat, dairy and eggs on people and the MEAT, DAIRY AND EGG INDUSTRIES are major CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS and LOBBYISTS.
People have been brainwashed into viewing animals as "food" through deceptive commercials and heavy lobbying of children in our schools.
The truth is that people used to accept black slavery as acceptable and that changed.
The WELL-DOCUMENTED widespread harmful effects of MEAT, DAIRY AND EGGES to our health, the environment and to animals is addressed by individuals like ourselves who are conscious, compassionate and have the strength and willingness to change our bad habits to benefit ourselves and others.
Anyone who knows the truth about FACTORY FARMING and is not transitioning to a plant-based diet is clearly not a thinking, feeling or mature individual.
You are seriously going to claim that humans only started eating meat during the Industrial Revolution? You are seriously going to claim that humans only started viewing animals as "food" through deceptive commercials and heavy lobbying of children in schools?
"The WELL-DOCUMENTED widespread harmful effects of MEAT, DAIRY AND EGGES to our health, the environment and to animals is addressed by individuals like ourselves who are conscious, compassionate and have the strength and willingness to change our bad habits to benefit ourselves and others."
Sorry, the harmful health effects of animal products to human health are really not well-documented. AT ALL.
"Meat-eaters admit that they "crave" meat and can not go without it,yet we plant-eaters are the zealots?"
Some of you are zealots, yes.
"One of their lame "arguments" is that it has always been done this way and people have always eaten meat. TOTALLY FALSE."
PETA puts out a lot of propaganda. Yes, people have lived without meat at times, but that's because they couldn't get it.
"The industrial revolution forced meat, dairy and eggs on people and the MEAT, DAIRY AND EGG INDUSTRIES are major CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS and LOBBYISTS.
People have been brainwashed into viewing animals as "food" through deceptive commercials and heavy lobbying of children in our schools."
Even before television people ate meat and dairy. I don't watch much TV btw,
"The truth is that people used to accept black slavery as acceptable and that changed."
Apple and oranges my dear.
"The WELL-DOCUMENTED widespread harmful effects of MEAT, DAIRY AND EGGES to our health, the environment and to animals is addressed by individuals like ourselves who are conscious, compassionate and have the strength and willingness to change our bad habits to benefit ourselves and others."
Tobacco and hemp can be unhealthy too. Cocaine, which comes from the coca plant is bad for you. Meat and dairy in moderation isn't harmful to humans.
"Anyone who knows the truth about FACTORY FARMING and is not transitioning to a plant-based diet is clearly not a thinking, feeling or mature individual."
LOL. So once again, the self-righteousness comes shining through. You're better than the majority of humanity. Golf claps for you.
Now go to the rez, the projects, the economically depressed areas and tell those people to stop eating meat and dairy. Tell them what you told me. Go ahead. Shout your slogans at them also. Be sure to swing by Southern Africa and moralize at a Bushman while you're at it.
If I were unthinking, unfeeling, and immature, I'd never come to this site for anything. I'd never come close to losing my job, getting my ass kicked for telling regressives where to stick it.
We ate a pepperoni pizza last night. Shoot me.
If you folks can figure out a way to get the majority of the world to stop eating meat and re-educate everyone, then I'll come on board. Meat and dairy aren't things people can give up immediately, and if they quit cold turkey, they're going to have problems.
Nonsense. People do it every day. I did it 20 years ago and have had no adverse effects; in fact I lost weight and no longer have the sinus problems associated with dairy products. People usually guess that I'm ten years younger than I actually am.
Oddly, your attitude toward vegans/vegetarians is similar to the regressives you speak of. They don't want to hear your message and you don't want to hear ours.
blessthebeasts,
I also had the same experience with sinus problems.
I had at lease two sinus infections a year treated with antibiotics. My ENT finally said I would have to have surgery. I left and never returned. I started researching on the internet and books and found that DAIRY CONTRIBUTES TO SINUSITUS. One of the sources was Dr. Andrew Weil.
I ELIMINATED DAIRY from my diet and NEVER had another sinus infection. That was 10 years ago.
You make a good point about "thegreatrocky hill" not wanting to hear what PLANT-EATERS have to say and the PARALLEL with "regressives" not wanting to hear what progressives have to say. I never thought of it that way, thanks for making the connection and sharing.
It's always been puzzling to me how otherwise open-minded, intelligent people get so defensive when it comes to the vegan/vegetarian issue. It's not like anyone is taking food from their mouths! Rather, we're just trying to inform them of the horrific realities of raising animals for food, while pointing out the health benefits of eating a plant-based diet. How evil is that?!
blessthebeasts-People get defensive because it asks people to essentially change their way of life. It's not easy to do.
Thanks sue.
Maybe Obama will make a speech somewhere about this, and say if anyone has any better ideas than factory farming, where we can feed people at "affordable cost" and practice good, stable farming methods, and still COMPETE with the rest of world, they should "let me know, let me know, let me know." Then Mark Kastel and friends at Cornucopia can try to approach the president with all kinds of better ideas, and be summarily turned away, or arrested for disturbing the peace the way the single-payer doctors were the past two days.
A people chained to Aurora, I alone disarming you.
These factory feed lots are satanic.
The best solution is to buy raw (unpasteurized) milk from a family farmer in your area: $7-13 a gallon or twice that for goat's milk. Either pay for good food now or pay later at the doctor's office/hospital. That is the price is takes to care for an untortured cow or goat, eating its truly natural diet (mostly perennial grass). Pasteurizing can cover up a whole lot of stuff you don't want in your milk. Of course, you can pasteurize it at home if you want. If you're an adult, is probably best to stick with fermented dairy only (cheese, yogurt, kefir, creme fraiche, etc.). Milk is for babies and children.
Cow's milk is for baby cows. Go with soy, rice or almond milk and avoid the nasty side effects of dairy.
And the effects of soy? The changes on the human hormonal system that soy can have?
I have consumed soy, in moderation, for 20 years with no adverse effects. For those who have problems, there are the alternatives I mentioned, as well as hemp milk.
I have to agree with pjd. The plant-eaters often are as self-righteous as the Christian fundies.
People have been eating meat and dairy since before recorded time. They don't eat it because they are simply barbaric. The anti-meat/dairy crowd can be so misanthropic. You guys remind me of the band Cattle Decapitation.
If people want to choose that diet, fine. If you can get away from meat and dairy, fine. But some of the plant-eaters, many of them actually, act like moral majority types preaching about abstaining from sex, all trying to impress each other with how "radical" their lifestyle is. Here's that word again: subculture.
I agree that people should eat less meat. I try to do the same thing.
I actually tried being a vegan for one day back in high school since I thought it would clear up my acne. I lasted one day. I can't help that I crave meat. Does that make me a bloodthirsty monster? How about my cat when he catches a bug and eats it?
But what if there was a sustainable, clean way to farm meat products? I think there has to be. There must have been years ago.
Preach, preach, preach, act like Jehovah's Witnesses, show all this disdain when you see people eating chocolate or something else you find unhealthy. Act like they're taking heroin. See where it gets you. See what kind of people you reach outside of the college hipster demographic. Not everyone likes The Smiths.
On the other hand, meat is getting expensive, so maybe that'll curb the evil carnivores.
Me? I'm an omnivore. People do eat too much meat and not enough fruits and vegetables. Then they wonder why they have digestive issues and crap like once a week living on nothing but beef and potatoes.
I apologize for my tone. Sometimes I don't think I relate to many people on the Left despite my unwavering beliefs. It's just too much of a clique for me. Everybody's lifestyle has to toe the line y'know? Listen only to this music. Dress this way. Spout off slogans. Blah, blah, blah. I feel like I'm around a bunch of teenagers who are going through a phase.
Where are the poor or working class plant-eaters? Do you guys go door-to-door lecturing people in the projects or the rowhouses? It's as if all the organic, plant-based dieters are yuppies. You guys can afford to do what you do.
It's not that I dislike people who choose to do this. Many people I respect, surprising people (heavy metal singers, pro wrestlers) have done just that. But not everyone can do it. It's a big life change, especially when someone's been eating animal products their whole life. It's not like quitting smoking. You don't need tobacco to live, but ya gotta eat.
We need better food, period. Yes, our food has too many chemicals, food production is monopolized, animals are treated inhumanely and improperly. There are ways to reconcile this.
thegreatrocky,
You can't "help that you CRAVE MEAT"? Doesn't that tell you something, that maybe it is HABIT-FORMING like nicotine in cigarettes or any other drug?
Yes, we all have to eat. But, don't you think about what you put in your body?
You're reading the articles so you know the cruelty of FACTORY FARMING and the HEALTH RISKS of consuming meat, dairy and eggs.
So, you think you're HOOKED on meat? You're probably right.
It's a transition that is possible, though, to a plant-based diet. There are many products that taste and have the consistency of meat like QUORN, GARDEIN, BOCA, and more.
I'm not trying to sell you on anything, I'm just sharing my knowledge and experiences.
My husband loves tempeh, we cook LIGHTLIFE WILD RICE TEMPEH on the pan with olive oil and soy sauce and slap it on a bun with a tomato and you really would not guess it's not a burger and it has 21 grams of protein per serving.
It can seem overwhelming to change any habit but I discovered the TASTE of food all over again when I eliminated animal products from my diet. I never really knew what vegetables tasted like before I got rid of that fatty, gut-busting, taste of meat from my meals.
Anyway, eating healthy and not contributing to the suffering of animals and the negative effects on the environment does FEEL GOOD. So, just thought I'd share that with you.