Too much milk?
By Chris Woolston Special to the Los Angeles Times
July 12, 2010
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."
The PCRM website says that milk raises the risk of breast cancer, but even Barnard isn't convinced. " Breast cancer is unclear," he says, adding that he doesn't often look at the organization's website. A 2005 report from a researcher with the Australian equivalent of the Dairy Council combined results of 52 previous studies examining the issue. When put together, the studies didn't show any connection between dairy and breast cancer.
Read More
With all of the studies mentioned in this article that may suggest this or that, we do know that no single food has ever been proven to cause cancer. That is undeniable fact. So with that in mind we need to go back to common sense. When it comes to food it’s important that we eat a balanced diet that includes meat and diary products. And just to show you how radical groups like the PCRM are, Dr. Barnard (founder of the PCRM) even admits that he doesn’t agree with everything they are saying about milk on their website. You would think that they’d at least try to get their story straight while trying to mislead the public.
Showing posts with label vegan activists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vegan activists. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Pacelle Is Paranoid of "Paranoid" Agriculture
HSUS calls ag response “paranoid”
March 29, 2010 by Julie Harker
Brownfield Ag Network
Increasing efforts to restrict livestock industry practices by animal rights groups in the U.S. are defended by the head of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Wayne Pacelle recently spoke with Brownfield, “All of our campaigns related to food animal production are about humane production standards, humane transport and humane slaughter. I mean, I defy anyone to show me any statement where we say we want to eliminate animal agriculture.”
Pacelle says concerns in agriculture that HSUS campaigns to crack down on irresponsible dog breeders, like the one in Missouri, have anything to do with livestock agriculture are unfounded. Pacelle says, “It’s an irrational and paranoid response.”
Pacelle says the goal of HSUS is not to shut down livestock production but to improve the treatment of animals raised for food. Members of ag groups in states such as Ohio and Missouri continue to work toward stopping what they say are HSUS attempts to eventually shut down livestock production in their states.
Dale Ludwig is one of the leaders of the Missouri Animal Ag Coalition and is the Executive Director of the Missouri Soybean Association. He tells Brownfield one only need to look at the track record of HSUS in other states, where they often start with an issue that deals with pets, raise vast sums of money, then follow up with additonal regulations on animal agriculture. “I think they continue to misrepresent what the facts are and they can say things like we are paranoid,” says Ludwig. “All you have to do is look at what they have done in other places” and ” you could make the assumption that’s what they will do here.” Read More
You can always tell what the biggest threat is to an organization by what they are focusing their time on. In this case HSUS is losing supporters like rats off a sinking ship. That is why we have seen Wayne doing so many interviews with ag media as of late trying to portray him and the HSUS as the victims in this debate. He wouldn’t be playing this card if it weren’t for the impact that everyone is contributing to. They are quickly learning that no amount of slick advertising can compete with the individual stories and influence that farmers and ranchers can have.
March 29, 2010 by Julie Harker
Brownfield Ag Network
Increasing efforts to restrict livestock industry practices by animal rights groups in the U.S. are defended by the head of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Wayne Pacelle recently spoke with Brownfield, “All of our campaigns related to food animal production are about humane production standards, humane transport and humane slaughter. I mean, I defy anyone to show me any statement where we say we want to eliminate animal agriculture.”
Pacelle says concerns in agriculture that HSUS campaigns to crack down on irresponsible dog breeders, like the one in Missouri, have anything to do with livestock agriculture are unfounded. Pacelle says, “It’s an irrational and paranoid response.”
Pacelle says the goal of HSUS is not to shut down livestock production but to improve the treatment of animals raised for food. Members of ag groups in states such as Ohio and Missouri continue to work toward stopping what they say are HSUS attempts to eventually shut down livestock production in their states.
Dale Ludwig is one of the leaders of the Missouri Animal Ag Coalition and is the Executive Director of the Missouri Soybean Association. He tells Brownfield one only need to look at the track record of HSUS in other states, where they often start with an issue that deals with pets, raise vast sums of money, then follow up with additonal regulations on animal agriculture. “I think they continue to misrepresent what the facts are and they can say things like we are paranoid,” says Ludwig. “All you have to do is look at what they have done in other places” and ” you could make the assumption that’s what they will do here.” Read More
You can always tell what the biggest threat is to an organization by what they are focusing their time on. In this case HSUS is losing supporters like rats off a sinking ship. That is why we have seen Wayne doing so many interviews with ag media as of late trying to portray him and the HSUS as the victims in this debate. He wouldn’t be playing this card if it weren’t for the impact that everyone is contributing to. They are quickly learning that no amount of slick advertising can compete with the individual stories and influence that farmers and ranchers can have.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
OH Politicians Agree That HSUS Ballot Plan Is A Bust
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Ohio’s political rivals — Strickland and Kasich — denounce HSUS ballot plan
by Other News
COLUMBUS — Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and his GOP rival candidate John Kasich both declared their opposition to a ballot measure being planned by the out-of-state activist organization the Humane Society of the United States.
The Washington, D.C.-based animal rights organization has prepared to use paid petition gatherers to place on the November ballot a measure to overturn Issue 2, which was approved by Ohio voters by a nearly 2-1 margin just under four months ago.
The candidates spoke Feb. 23 to approximately 400 farmers, lawmakers, and guests during Ohio Farm Bureau’s Ag Day at the Capitol event in Columbus.
Issue 2 created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to allow broad public input into farm animal care issues. The HSUS plan would force the board to adopt HSUS-backed minimum care policies.
Both gubernatorial candidates endorsed Issue 2 and now agree that it’s wrong for HSUS to attempt to overturn the will of Ohio voters.
No deal. “If we want to eat, and if we want access to affordable and inexpensive food, it is important for the agricultural community within our state not to be hamstrung and to have their hands tied behind their back by those who do not fully appreciate the value of what happens on our farms,” said Strickland.
Referencing HSUS’ “extremism,” candidate Kasich said, “No outsiders ought to come in here and try to destroy our farms.”
Others agree. They join Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern and Ohio Republic Party Chairman Kevin DeWine, who also condemned the HSUS plan during a broadcast of OFBF’s radio program Town Hall Ohio.
“It’s pretty remarkable. We haven’t even had a chance to write the rules and somebody else is going to tell us what the rules should be,” said Redfern.
HSUS, which is not the parent of locally operated humane organizations, advocates for reducing and eliminating consumption of animal products.
In a statement following the Redfern and DeWine broadcast, HSUS alleged politicians “are stumbling over themselves to curry favor.” Link
As everyone knows, our political parties can barely agree that the sky is blue. However, both of the Ohio Governor’s candidates do agree that the Humane Society of the United States is bad for Ohio and bad for the country. They realize that their own residents are much more qualified to determine livestock care standards as opposed to animal rights lobbying group lead by a man with a history major.
Ohio’s political rivals — Strickland and Kasich — denounce HSUS ballot plan
by Other News
COLUMBUS — Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and his GOP rival candidate John Kasich both declared their opposition to a ballot measure being planned by the out-of-state activist organization the Humane Society of the United States.
The Washington, D.C.-based animal rights organization has prepared to use paid petition gatherers to place on the November ballot a measure to overturn Issue 2, which was approved by Ohio voters by a nearly 2-1 margin just under four months ago.
The candidates spoke Feb. 23 to approximately 400 farmers, lawmakers, and guests during Ohio Farm Bureau’s Ag Day at the Capitol event in Columbus.
Issue 2 created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to allow broad public input into farm animal care issues. The HSUS plan would force the board to adopt HSUS-backed minimum care policies.
Both gubernatorial candidates endorsed Issue 2 and now agree that it’s wrong for HSUS to attempt to overturn the will of Ohio voters.
No deal. “If we want to eat, and if we want access to affordable and inexpensive food, it is important for the agricultural community within our state not to be hamstrung and to have their hands tied behind their back by those who do not fully appreciate the value of what happens on our farms,” said Strickland.
Referencing HSUS’ “extremism,” candidate Kasich said, “No outsiders ought to come in here and try to destroy our farms.”
Others agree. They join Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern and Ohio Republic Party Chairman Kevin DeWine, who also condemned the HSUS plan during a broadcast of OFBF’s radio program Town Hall Ohio.
“It’s pretty remarkable. We haven’t even had a chance to write the rules and somebody else is going to tell us what the rules should be,” said Redfern.
HSUS, which is not the parent of locally operated humane organizations, advocates for reducing and eliminating consumption of animal products.
In a statement following the Redfern and DeWine broadcast, HSUS alleged politicians “are stumbling over themselves to curry favor.” Link
As everyone knows, our political parties can barely agree that the sky is blue. However, both of the Ohio Governor’s candidates do agree that the Humane Society of the United States is bad for Ohio and bad for the country. They realize that their own residents are much more qualified to determine livestock care standards as opposed to animal rights lobbying group lead by a man with a history major.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Yellow Tail Donates To HSUS
Yellow Tail Wine Gives Money to HSUS
Sportsmen Urged to Voice Protest
From US Sportsmen's Alliance
The Australian maker of Yellow Tail Wine has pledged $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s largest anti-hunting organization. This partnership offers further proof of HSUS’ work to spin its animal rights message in a way as to seem mainstream.
As HSUS states on its website:
“… the HSUS has paired with [yellow tail] for the "tails for tails" program. Through the end of March, you'll see special [yellow tail] displays bearing The HSUS name and logo in stores across the country.
Through "tails for tails," [yellow tail] is donating $100,000 to support us and our programs to help animals, including our Spay Day Online Pet Photo Contest.”
Alerted to this relationship, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) immediately contacted the American distributor of the wine, W.J. Deutsch and Sons Ltd., and urged them to ask Yellow Tail to sever its relationship with HSUS.
A copy of the letter the USSA sent to management can be found by clicking here. Thus far, the USSA has not heard from W.J. Deutsch regarding our request.
“This wine maker has fallen into the same trap as other companies who donate money to HSUS,” said Bud Pidgeon, president of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “They believe they are helping animals in shelters when in fact they are funding an agenda from an animal rights group that is largely divergent from the vast majority of Americans.” Link
Yesterday morning I became aware of Yellow Tail Wines plan to donate $100,000 to HSUS. As an amateur wine enthusiast, I was very familiar with the Yellow Tail name. They are an Australian wine company that sells many different varieties of wine at a very reasonable price. The good value you get with this wine has made it quite popular in the United States and readily available almost anywhere. Unfortunately they were somehow convinced that donating money to the HSUS would be a great way to help needy dogs and cats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m sure their heart was in the right place, but their money is headed to the wrong one.
According to the HSUS tax returns, chances are that if Yellow Tail does give them the full $100,000, only $500 would end up going to a hands-on pet shelter. Historically, only one-half of one percent of their $200,000,000 budget does.
In order to let Yellow Tail know how I felt about this, I looked up their Facebook fan page and left a comment. In addition to that, I put it out on Twitter and our Advocates for Ag Facebook fan page, and asked everyone else to do the same. And boy did they ever! In the last 24 hours, several hundred comments have been left by people from all over the country voicing their frustrations. This same scene is being played out on their Twitter page. So far, one single response has been offered by Yellow Tail, only stating that they will be announcing something soon. That’s PR speak for “Uh oh, what do we do now?”
By not doing the necessary research and having an entire industry, one of which they are part of, calling them out, Yellow Tail is now in a near no-win situation. The high paid lawyers from HSUS will no doubt put the pressure on them to fulfill their previous commitment, but if they do, it will be at the expense of thousands of upset customers. It’s not impossible for them save face though. My guess is that not many of the executives over at HSUS (where more than 40 of them make greater than $100,000) drink much Yellow Tail. I’m sure it’s beneath their standards. However, Yellow Tail has become wine that hard working Americans, many of whom are involved in agriculture, do enjoy. If they care about their customers, they will stop this from happening.
If you haven’t left your comments on Yellow Tail’s Facebook page, please do so. You can also contact them through Twitter at @YellowTail_USA . Thanks for everyone’s help. Yesterday was a great example of what can happen when Team Agriculture suits up together to make it’s voice be heard! ~Troy
Sportsmen Urged to Voice Protest
From US Sportsmen's Alliance
The Australian maker of Yellow Tail Wine has pledged $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s largest anti-hunting organization. This partnership offers further proof of HSUS’ work to spin its animal rights message in a way as to seem mainstream.
As HSUS states on its website:
“… the HSUS has paired with [yellow tail] for the "tails for tails" program. Through the end of March, you'll see special [yellow tail] displays bearing The HSUS name and logo in stores across the country.
Through "tails for tails," [yellow tail] is donating $100,000 to support us and our programs to help animals, including our Spay Day Online Pet Photo Contest.”
Alerted to this relationship, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) immediately contacted the American distributor of the wine, W.J. Deutsch and Sons Ltd., and urged them to ask Yellow Tail to sever its relationship with HSUS.
A copy of the letter the USSA sent to management can be found by clicking here. Thus far, the USSA has not heard from W.J. Deutsch regarding our request.
“This wine maker has fallen into the same trap as other companies who donate money to HSUS,” said Bud Pidgeon, president of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “They believe they are helping animals in shelters when in fact they are funding an agenda from an animal rights group that is largely divergent from the vast majority of Americans.” Link
Yesterday morning I became aware of Yellow Tail Wines plan to donate $100,000 to HSUS. As an amateur wine enthusiast, I was very familiar with the Yellow Tail name. They are an Australian wine company that sells many different varieties of wine at a very reasonable price. The good value you get with this wine has made it quite popular in the United States and readily available almost anywhere. Unfortunately they were somehow convinced that donating money to the HSUS would be a great way to help needy dogs and cats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m sure their heart was in the right place, but their money is headed to the wrong one.
According to the HSUS tax returns, chances are that if Yellow Tail does give them the full $100,000, only $500 would end up going to a hands-on pet shelter. Historically, only one-half of one percent of their $200,000,000 budget does.
In order to let Yellow Tail know how I felt about this, I looked up their Facebook fan page and left a comment. In addition to that, I put it out on Twitter and our Advocates for Ag Facebook fan page, and asked everyone else to do the same. And boy did they ever! In the last 24 hours, several hundred comments have been left by people from all over the country voicing their frustrations. This same scene is being played out on their Twitter page. So far, one single response has been offered by Yellow Tail, only stating that they will be announcing something soon. That’s PR speak for “Uh oh, what do we do now?”
By not doing the necessary research and having an entire industry, one of which they are part of, calling them out, Yellow Tail is now in a near no-win situation. The high paid lawyers from HSUS will no doubt put the pressure on them to fulfill their previous commitment, but if they do, it will be at the expense of thousands of upset customers. It’s not impossible for them save face though. My guess is that not many of the executives over at HSUS (where more than 40 of them make greater than $100,000) drink much Yellow Tail. I’m sure it’s beneath their standards. However, Yellow Tail has become wine that hard working Americans, many of whom are involved in agriculture, do enjoy. If they care about their customers, they will stop this from happening.
If you haven’t left your comments on Yellow Tail’s Facebook page, please do so. You can also contact them through Twitter at @YellowTail_USA . Thanks for everyone’s help. Yesterday was a great example of what can happen when Team Agriculture suits up together to make it’s voice be heard! ~Troy
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Animal Rights Terrorists Threaten Univ. of MN Researcher
Group targets U of MN animal scientist
By JIM SPENCER, Star Tribune
November 9, 2009
University of Minnesota police have increased patrols near the home of a Medical School animal researcher after a posting on an animal rights activist website displayed his name and photograph and noted that "... we should not be surprised when the unconscionable violence inflicted upon animals is justifiably visited upon their tormentors."
The Internet posting went up late last week on the website NegotiationIsOver.com in reaction to a Star Tribune story about a multimillion-dollar national campaign by biomedical researchers, including U Prof. Dick Bianco, to increase lagging support for medical and scientific tests using animals.
"The university police are patrolling around my house now," said Bianco, an associate professor of surgery and director of experimental surgery. "The FBI is involved to assess the threat."
Read More
Just last week, Wayne Pacelle suggested to a crowd of HSUS supporters that the use of violence would help force their agenda across the country. Now we have vegan animal rights terrorists targeting a medical researcher at the University of Minnesota. Because university employees and their families at other campuses have been violently attacked, these threats are taken very seriously. These vegan animal rights terrorists have stated in the past that they will try to accomplish their goals by any means necessary, including life threatening violence. ~TH
By JIM SPENCER, Star Tribune
November 9, 2009
University of Minnesota police have increased patrols near the home of a Medical School animal researcher after a posting on an animal rights activist website displayed his name and photograph and noted that "... we should not be surprised when the unconscionable violence inflicted upon animals is justifiably visited upon their tormentors."
The Internet posting went up late last week on the website NegotiationIsOver.com in reaction to a Star Tribune story about a multimillion-dollar national campaign by biomedical researchers, including U Prof. Dick Bianco, to increase lagging support for medical and scientific tests using animals.
"The university police are patrolling around my house now," said Bianco, an associate professor of surgery and director of experimental surgery. "The FBI is involved to assess the threat."
Read More
Just last week, Wayne Pacelle suggested to a crowd of HSUS supporters that the use of violence would help force their agenda across the country. Now we have vegan animal rights terrorists targeting a medical researcher at the University of Minnesota. Because university employees and their families at other campuses have been violently attacked, these threats are taken very seriously. These vegan animal rights terrorists have stated in the past that they will try to accomplish their goals by any means necessary, including life threatening violence. ~TH
Friday, September 4, 2009
Egg Council Responds
Iowa Egg Council CEO says methods used are humane
Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:45 PM
by Jerry Oster, KNAX, Yankton
The C.E.O. of the Iowa Egg Council says producers in the state are not using inhumane production practices, despite what was shown in an undercover video shot by the group Mercy for Animals at the Hy-Line plant in Spencer. The video showed male chicks being separated out and being thrown into a grinder.
Kevin Vinchattle says the methods used to destroy male baby chicks as part of the egg production process are approved and standard operating procedure in the industry. He says there is no market for the male chicks.
"We're in egg production, and boys don't lay eggs and girls do, and so if you could tell in the shell which was going to be a male and which was going to be a female, you'd never even incubate the male eggs and they would get diverted to different use. Right now we don't have the ability to do that," Vinchattle says.
He says the male chicks don't have enough meat on them to be economical as a meat bird, and the euthanasia process is designed to be instantaneous and that is accepted by the industry in the U.S. and Europe. Read More
It seems that many animal rights activists are just finding out that male chickens do not lay eggs. Since the video has come out, they have consistently been emphasizing this fact. This is a non-story in that respect but apparently it’s been a revelation for them. No form of euthanasia is pretty, but I can’t imagine a quicker way to do it. It’s a method that’s been approved here and in Europe, which is where many animal rights groups point to as being the example we should follow. Besides, if Mercy for Animals was really concerned about animal welfare, they would have brought this issue forward right away. This is nothing more than a staged publicity stunt.
Here's the main thing to remember. Mercy for Animals will not be happy about any form of euthanasia or use of livestock for human benefit. So this really makes the video footage a moot point. They could video tape cows standing in a pasture and they are still going to advocate that people be vegans.
Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:45 PM
by Jerry Oster, KNAX, Yankton
The C.E.O. of the Iowa Egg Council says producers in the state are not using inhumane production practices, despite what was shown in an undercover video shot by the group Mercy for Animals at the Hy-Line plant in Spencer. The video showed male chicks being separated out and being thrown into a grinder.
Kevin Vinchattle says the methods used to destroy male baby chicks as part of the egg production process are approved and standard operating procedure in the industry. He says there is no market for the male chicks.
"We're in egg production, and boys don't lay eggs and girls do, and so if you could tell in the shell which was going to be a male and which was going to be a female, you'd never even incubate the male eggs and they would get diverted to different use. Right now we don't have the ability to do that," Vinchattle says.
He says the male chicks don't have enough meat on them to be economical as a meat bird, and the euthanasia process is designed to be instantaneous and that is accepted by the industry in the U.S. and Europe. Read More
It seems that many animal rights activists are just finding out that male chickens do not lay eggs. Since the video has come out, they have consistently been emphasizing this fact. This is a non-story in that respect but apparently it’s been a revelation for them. No form of euthanasia is pretty, but I can’t imagine a quicker way to do it. It’s a method that’s been approved here and in Europe, which is where many animal rights groups point to as being the example we should follow. Besides, if Mercy for Animals was really concerned about animal welfare, they would have brought this issue forward right away. This is nothing more than a staged publicity stunt.
Here's the main thing to remember. Mercy for Animals will not be happy about any form of euthanasia or use of livestock for human benefit. So this really makes the video footage a moot point. They could video tape cows standing in a pasture and they are still going to advocate that people be vegans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)