Milk, Hormones, and Lawsuits

just makes me think what a sucker i am for labels, i'm all the time telling my mother not to buy the fat chickens cause they're pumped full of hormones. Yet I'm inclined to believe that if a chicken has an Amish farm sticker on it I somehow think that its better.

same here, just because the FDA has "found no significant difference between milk from recombinant hormone-treated and untreated cows" doesn't mean that there isn't one.
personally i try to stay away from food that contains a lot of artificial hormones, or artificial anything for that matter, when i can that is.

you see the government allows all dairy products to be 4% pus from the cows utter... since the cows are injected with hormones to keep producing milk the utters become diseased and very often produce pus in the utters... since I don't drink the regular store bought milk I run a miniscule risk of drinking cow pus

also just based on what animal rights should be organic milk is better... in the end I hope that it brings to light how organic is alot better than methods in hormones and maybe we can see the end of hormone induced animals...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]you see the government allows all dairy products to be 4% pus from the cows utter... since the cows are injected with hormones to keep producing milk the utters become diseased and very often produce pus in the utters... since I don't drink the regular store bought milk I run a miniscule risk of drinking cow pus

also just based on what animal rights should be organic milk is better... in the end I hope that it brings to light how organic is alot better than methods in hormones and maybe we can see the end of hormone induced animals... [/B][/QUOTE]
quote your source on that pus stat there poetry. if it's from who i think it's from, it's a highly disputed, and shouldn't be considered to actually be a fact, considering there was no testing done to back that up.
and just because they didn't use the hormone doesn't mean they are treating their livestock any better. it just means they're not spending x amount of dollars to inject the hormone in their cows.

you know... you and your goddamned proof... you can't just take my word for it...
[url]http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn381.htm[/url]
"Unfortunately, a considerable body of scientific evidence from the U.S., England and Europe indicates that Commissioner Kessler is simply not telling the whole truth. Substantial evidence indicates that milk from rBGH-treated cows is very likely to feature:

** more pus from infected cows' udders;

** more antibiotics given to cows to treat those infections;

** an "off" taste and shortened shelf life, because of the pus;

** perhaps higher fat content and lower protein content;

** more of a tumor-promoting chemical called IGF-I, which has been implicated in cancers of the colon, smooth muscle, and breast. "

plus... your man boobies come from hormones... and I'm sure the milk helps

"very likely" means that they didn't do any research to back their claim up buddy.
you're right, i don't just take people's word on things, especially since i researched it myself and found out there was no solid basis for that claim.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]plus... your man boobies come from hormones... and I'm sure the milk helps [/B][/QUOTE]
and again, that's only speculation, there's no proof to back it up.

i realize that it is a diferent hormone than the one from the companythat's suing... i hope that you don't consider that discrediting

how about "scientific evidence"

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]and again, that's only speculation, there's no proof to back it up. [/B][/QUOTE]
no proof that hormones make man boobies?... ask succotash... hormones are hormones tryp

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]how about "scientific evidence" [/B][/QUOTE]
where is your "scientific evidence"? you have only provided a link to a website that says nothing about pus except that it "might" be there.

where is your scientific evidence that it doesn't

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]no proof that hormones make man boobies?... ask succotash... hormones are hormones tryp [/B][/QUOTE]
yes, and dogs are dogs, but that doesn't mean that they all will bite you.
and since when is succotash proof that milk produced using rBST will give a man man-boobs?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]where is your scientific evidence that it doesn't [/B][/QUOTE]
bullshit kid. i'm not arguing that it doesn't, i'm saying that there's no proof that it does, which is what you claimed. since i called you on that claim of yours, and you haven't been able to provide any proof or studies, you're doing what you do in every other argument, avoiding answering my question.
my "proof" that there is not proof that there is pus in milk is the fact that despite 18 months of research i haven't found a single damn study or test that supports that "fact".

[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:wOAtceCMoQsC:members.lycos.co.uk/hfguide/cart_work/white_flag.gif[/img]

you get so angry... you need a cookie or a back massage or something?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]you get so angry... you need a cookie or a back massage or something? [/B][/QUOTE]
not from you. and i'll keep getting angry with you if you keep posting "facts" that are only hear-say and have no scientific backing or study to back it up.

at least it wasn't another one from 1995 right?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]yes, and dogs are dogs, but that doesn't mean that they all will bite you.
[/B][/QUOTE]

this argument makes no sense...are you trying to back up poetry?

hey, tlc, it make the same amount of sense his post i quoted when i posted that made.
and poetry, stop being a sore loser.

sorry... it's frustrating to have an argument with you... i do respect you more and more though each time I attempt to argue with you, just so you know... but it is kinda funny to see you get upset

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]sorry... it's frustrating to have an argument with you... i do respect you more and more though each time I attempt to argue with you, just so you know... but it is kinda funny to see you get upset [/B][/QUOTE]
poetry, i wouldn't mind having a discussion with you just as long as you back up what you're saying. i'm not going to calmly just let a statement of hear-say passed off as fact, get passed off as a fact. i have no hard feeling towards you, and look forward to a true discussion with you.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]yes, and dogs are dogs, but that doesn't mean that they all will bite you.
[/B][/QUOTE]

poetry stated that manboobs come from hormones, right? he did not say ALL hormones cause manboobs.

so, we take the abovequoted statement and change "dogs" to "hormones" and "bite you" to "give you manboobs" and we get:

yes, and hormones are hormones, but that doesn't mean that they all will give you manboobs.

right?

your analogies are flawed. please double check your logic in the future. thanks.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TastesLikeChicken [/i]
[B]poetry stated that manboobs come from hormones, right? he did not say ALL hormones cause manboobs.

so, we take the abovequoted statement and change "dogs" to "hormones" and "bite you" to "give you manboobs" and we get:

yes, and hormones are hormones, but that doesn't mean that they all will give you manboobs.

right?

your analogies are flawed. please double check your logic in the future. thanks. [/B][/QUOTE]
actually i posted that in response to his saying that "hormones are homrones".
check the post, you're confusion is ill-founded.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]actually i posted that in response to his saying that "hormones are homrones".
check the post, you're confusion is ill-founded. [/B][/QUOTE]
so let me clarify that analogy for you.
his stating that "hormones are hormones" is saying that they are all serving the same purpose. to which i replied that "dog are dogs" saying that yes, a dog is a dog, and a hormone is a hormone "but that doesn't mean that they all will bite you" is pointing out that not all sogs will bite you, and that not all hormones cause man-boobs. basically i'm just saying that just because rBST is a hormone doesn't mean that it necessarily causes man-boobs.

holy shit this started out okay but it appears to have disinegrated mightily.

indeed it did good sir.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]plus... your man boobies come from hormones... and I'm sure the milk helps [/B][/QUOTE]

soy isoflavones are the main culprit there, if i am not mistaken

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]sorry... it's frustrating to have an argument with you... i do respect you more and more though each time I attempt to argue with you, just so you know... but it is kinda funny to see you get upset [/B][/QUOTE]

poetry, mein gutest altest bruder trypd ist am besten rechtsantswalter auf der cult hier. auf anderer worte he is the man!

trypd, i do hope that things are lightening up for you. visited that website of yours. you have much to be proud of. may that keep and sustain you through these difficult times.

btw, had a couple of really good interviews. hopefully things will pick up for me too.

congrats fram, and thanks. i hope things pick up for you as well.

Ok so I work at a grocery Store in the Dairy Dept. and I was stocking some organic eggs, and I noticed they said less saturated fat and calories... So i check the milk and in fact the organic milk has less saturated fat, I check 2%, 1%, and skim, all of them had less saturated fat and calories than their hormone infested couterparts... if you ask me the hormone users don't have much of a case because last time i looked less saturated fat and calories means healthier...

come on tryp, have you checked it out yet

i don't think he's going to race out the door to the nearest grocery to check this out, pwig. my money is on trypd.

btw, have you tried almond milk. dee-lish!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]Ok so I work at a grocery Store in the Dairy Dept. and I was stocking some organic eggs, and I noticed they said less saturated fat and calories... So i check the milk and in fact the organic milk has less saturated fat, I check 2%, 1%, and skim, all of them had less saturated fat and calories than their hormone infested couterparts... if you ask me the hormone users don't have much of a case because last time i looked less saturated fat and calories means healthier... [/B][/QUOTE]
you're probably right, as fram said, i'm not going to jet out the door to check see if your info is right. i'm on vacation you see.
but remember this poetry, as health is concerned, things are only bad for you if it's in excess.
personally i don't drink milk. water is what my body needs, and i'll get my calcium from oj, or from my bread.

[SIZE=4]WYLD STALLYNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

my $0.02:

people who protest "frankenfoods" because of genetic engineering / hormone enhancement in cattle / technological tampering with the food supply are deluded morons.

for every chemical / genetic manipulation of foods perceived to be unhealthy, there is a [i]natural[/i] mutation process that could prove just as dangerous. and if these manipulations actually make food safer or more nutritious, why the hell is anyone arguing? you don't think someone from the middle ages would have jumped at the chance to eat one of our modern genetically engineered tomatoes? that someone from the era of the French Revolution wouldn't love sweet corn that wouldn't break their teeth? you think the pilgrims would stick with their scrawny turkey if they could have a modern gobbler with more meat on its bones?

and in many cases "genetic engineering" is a stupid way of referring to cross-breeding, which people have been doing with livestock, plants, etc., for centuries, all with the same goal: more nutritive and appealing foods. if it weren't for genetic engineering, and chemical manipulation, "golden rice" now saving lives in Africa and the Asian subcontinent would not exist.

that 4% pus thing is something i've heard a lot, poetry. i've also heard about the legally allowable number rodent parts in a can of green beans--and it's not zero. gross things get into food all the time. like bacteria. bacteria that build up in milk quickly, which is why fresh bottles of it should be available year round, which is why hormones are used to induce cattle to produce year round.

of course, maybe you'd rather the cows were continually impregnated. that would be a more "organic" way of getting them to lactate, wouldn't it? and it's the old-fashioned, "natural" way.

this PETA bullshit about technologically modifying foods is seriously the most mind-bogglingly ridiculous shit I've ever heard. It's just like the RIAA suing music users for downloading MP3s--rather than [i]adapt[/i] to the use of a new technology, they'll just vilify the people who use it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]my $0.02:

people who protest "frankenfoods" because of genetic engineering / hormone enhancement in cattle / technological tampering with the food supply are deluded morons.

for every chemical / genetic manipulation of foods perceived to be unhealthy, there is a [i]natural[/i] mutation process that could prove just as dangerous. and if these manipulations actually make food safer or more nutritious, why the hell is anyone arguing? you don't think someone from the middle ages would have jumped at the chance to eat one of our modern genetically engineered tomatoes? that someone from the era of the French Revolution wouldn't love sweet corn that wouldn't break their teeth? you think the pilgrims would stick with their scrawny turkey if they could have a modern gobbler with more meat on its bones?

and in many cases "genetic engineering" is a stupid way of referring to cross-breeding, which people have been doing with livestock, plants, etc., for centuries, all with the same goal: more nutritive and appealing foods. if it weren't for genetic engineering, and chemical manipulation, "golden rice" now saving lives in Africa and the Asian subcontinent would not exist.

that 4% pus thing is something i've heard a lot, poetry. i've also heard about the legally allowable number rodent parts in a can of green beans--and it's not zero. gross things get into food all the time. like bacteria. bacteria that build up in milk quickly, which is why fresh bottles of it should be available year round, which is why hormones are used to induce cattle to produce year round.

of course, maybe you'd rather the cows were continually impregnated. that would be a more "organic" way of getting them to lactate, wouldn't it? and it's the old-fashioned, "natural" way.

this PETA bullshit about technologically modifying foods is seriously the most mind-bogglingly ridiculous shit I've ever heard. It's just like the RIAA suing music users for downloading MP3s--rather than [i]adapt[/i] to the use of a new technology, they'll just vilify the people who use it. [/B][/QUOTE]
indeed.
very good post there, a lot of sensible and intelligent thoughts. it's true, "Genetically modified" foods and such aren't necessarily bad.
and the cows are still continually impregnated and their young slaughtered (yummy, veal). the hormomone only adds a few weeks onto the lactation cycle.

Just for conclusion's sake, I live here in Maine where the farm in question "Oakhurst" was finally allowed to keep their labels stating that they don't use hormones under the provision that they add the disclaimer that the FDA has not shown and significant difference between milk with and milk without, similar to what you see on the back of Ben and Jerry's. Which, over all, is not a bad outcome. Not exactly stickin' it to the man, but at least they got to keep their labels. I don't want to [B]not[/B] be allowed to know which milk does [B]not[/B] use hormones, significant differences aside. The FDA has been wrong before, see: Ephedra.