The human body contains hormones too. Therefore it can't possibly be bad for you to take hormone supplements when you don't need them, according to the "logic" posted in that article, DAPUNISHER.
Quite the contrary. The problem is, you don't understand the basic principles of science as you have now REPEATEDLY demonstrated. Wasn't it you who said it's the dose that matters? And now you claim that it is not true when it comes to hormones? Yeah... ok... :roll: Also, as someone who has worked in the agribusiness industry I can say with certainty that I HAVE seen damage to cows from hormones.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 142
- 106
Actually, I buy the supermarket branded organic milk ($1 cheaper than Horizon) - Harris Teeter - and it's still a world of difference than their non-organic. All of their products are high quality and they're one of the best supermarkets on earth... yet their organic milk is way way tastier. I'll have to check if their normal milk is ultra pasteurized because the organic is; I'm wondering if that process adds a lot to the taste.
Maybe you should? It states that hormones are not bad for cows. I can assure you they are. Just as they are bad for humans when injected into humans. If you go to dairy expos enough times, you will see this pretty obviously. But that would require you to actually do some research instead of whining like a baby for "valid studies".
- Aug 22, 2001
- 31,501
- 31,009
- 146
The points I took away from it-
"The FDA has categorically stated that there is no difference between milk. All milk contains bST, and milk from treated cows contains no more bST than any other. In fact no test can distinguish between them." and that the synthetically produced bio-identical hormone is safe for humans. If it is unsafe for the cows, that is a good reason to cease using it, but that seems to be in dispute. You provided anecdotal evidence, the Veterinarian provided his, they are at odds, is this where I am told he is a shill for the industry? Or could it be some are using a safe level and practices, while others are not?
Now, as I stated earlier, provide good counter-arguments, I am always willing to accept facts, and be better educated on a topic. Unfortunately, all that continues here, is shooting the messenger, and ad homs designed to make it appear as though anyone that does not dismiss the show outright is an idiot. Oh, and also, that we could not have possibly done any research of our own. That adds nothing to the discussion, just obfuscates it.
The bias of the show isn't what I came in here to discuss, but the information provided as "facts" that episode contained. I am still waiting for someone to provide a substantive rebuttal or debunking of some of it. That they omit data that is counter to their stance, I can readily see, but only one point in that area has been made thus far. The rest has just been dumping their clip in the messenger.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,084
- 18,575
- 146
Um...
Wait, are we worried about the cows, or us? Of course cows are going to be a little uncomfortable because they provide and are FOOD. That's why we bred them to be dumber than a box of rocks.
I bet being slaughtered for meat sucks too. But hey, that's what cows are for.
As for us:
"All milk contains bST, and milk from treated cows contains no more bST than any other. In fact no test can distinguish between them."
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
I was just going to chime in that until our recent move, we used to buy local organic milk from a dairy farm that was about the same price as the grocery store conventional milk.
Neither the wife and I noticed any significant taste difference, and we are both milk lovers. We bought that particular variety, though, to support our local farmers. I think that is the key that most people need to understand: You are better off supporting local growers/farmers regardless if they are conventional or organic.
Neither the wife and I noticed any significant taste difference, and we are both milk lovers. We bought that particular variety, though, to support our local farmers. I think that is the key that most people need to understand: You are better off supporting local growers/farmers regardless if they are conventional or organic.
I agree with the overall assessment DAPUNISHER, and the quote. I didn't take issue with that. I take issue with the reasoning used to justify homrone supplements in cows by claiming they occur naturally anyway in the cow. However, the quality of milk does suffer and the health of the cow most likely suffers, just as human health suffers from human growth hormones taken unnecessarily.
Any cow that has very high yields of milk will suffer greater Clinical and Subclinical Mastitis. The pro-rBST crowd will try to hide behind the fact that [high-yield] cows who aren't treated with rBST will have high incidence too, but this is just smoke and mirrors because such cows are not that common (thus the "need" for rBST). As long as the herd has an overall "somatic cell count" below accepted limits, that is all that many or most dairies will care about. If their cows have painful mastitis more often because of rBST, that is of secondary concern so long as the overall somatic cell count is ok.
A side-effect of increased mastitis is increased antibiotic use. Again, forgetting the effect on humans, I think we can all agree that we don't want to use antibiotics excessively in any animal because antibiotic resistance is not a good thing.
Any cow that has very high yields of milk will suffer greater Clinical and Subclinical Mastitis. The pro-rBST crowd will try to hide behind the fact that [high-yield] cows who aren't treated with rBST will have high incidence too, but this is just smoke and mirrors because such cows are not that common (thus the "need" for rBST). As long as the herd has an overall "somatic cell count" below accepted limits, that is all that many or most dairies will care about. If their cows have painful mastitis more often because of rBST, that is of secondary concern so long as the overall somatic cell count is ok.
A side-effect of increased mastitis is increased antibiotic use. Again, forgetting the effect on humans, I think we can all agree that we don't want to use antibiotics excessively in any animal because antibiotic resistance is not a good thing.
In this case, I (not you, obviously) am worried about the unnecessary pain caused to the cow by mastitis incidence, and the subsequent unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Also, dairy cows don't make for great meat.
Good points, I don't buy "organic" anything but you can't jack up a cow on hormones, even ones that they produce naturally and not expect health consequences to the animal.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 36
- 91
Science is, by nature, time-bound. It is disingenuous to claim that scientists have, "frequently been proven wrong" without acknowledging the fact that, where scientific theories have been superseded, the superseding theory is the result of having gathered additional information. There is a difference between having the best explanation based upon available data that is later proven inaccurate based on new data and being wrong due to a hunch.
A scientific theory being "proven wrong" is vastly different from a layman's hunch being proven wrong.
ZV
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
That article clearly stated that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between milk from cows that aren't given that hormone & cows that are. NONE. Milk from both sources contains the *exact* same hormone (at the same levels).
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 36
- 91
His point being somewhere above your head, apparently.
If there is absolutely no difference between milk from cows that are given rbST and cows that are not given rbST, then there is absolutely no additional risk involved in drinking milk produced by cows that were given rbST.
I see in other posts that you are arguing from the position of the cow's welfare; that is fine. However, that was not the point addressed by the article. The article addressed the issue of health risks to humans by milk from rbST-treated cows; it did not address the issue of the cows' welfare.
ZV
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Some cows get mastitis from time to time regardless of the use of hormones. That's the last thing a farmer wants, because it hurts his bottom line. Once the animal is on antibiotics, and it will be, that cows milk can not be used for human consumption. You're treating this as if the farmer will simply ignore that their cow has mastitis. They don't. I don't know how lax they are where you are, but when that milk is tested, if antibiotics are present, the entire load (or tank - the trucks are divided into 3 or 4 sections) is dumped - at the farmer's expense. Farmers are 100% concerned about the health of their herd - if their herd is unhealthy, the farmer is going to lose money and end up going out of business.
Also, mastitis is caused by bacteria, not hormones.
Some cows get mastitis from time to time, but cows on rBST have higher incidence, because mastitis is much more common in cows that produce a high amount of milk during lactation cycles. Also, you have to differentiate between sub-clinical and normal mastitis. One is not immediately obvious except by looking at the milk itself, typically. The farmer won't necessarily know immediately unless they are monitoring the SCC count of each animal.
Antibiotics can be used in fairly high doses when the cow is not in a lactation cycle. As long as the cow's milk isn't completely tainting the SCC of the overall yield, the farmer can let things go until the lacation period ends, administer high doses, then milk them again later once they start the lactation cycle again.
You seem to make this repeated assertion that farmer's are 100% concerned about the health of x. This is simply not true. They are 100% concerned with making money in some cases. If they were 100% concerned about the health of the cows, the SCC would be much lower.
Yea, milk testing in any state will require dumping of any milk containing traces of antibiotic. Maybe it's an unfounded knee-jerk reaction on my part but I have a hard time believing a cow can be induced to produce that much more milk without consequences. After treatment is through the cow's milk can again be sold. Maybe it's story after story of the overuse of antibiotics in general, not just in agriculture that makes me wonder if there will be a huge price to pay down the road..
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Jesus fucking reading comprehension. Read what I typed again:
I gave you the freaking history of what they derived aspirin from.
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
eits
Lifer
100% honestly, i like the taste of regular milk better than horizon... and i'm pro-organic.
however, i've switched to dean's brand milk because their farmers don't use hormones, which is almost the same thing as organic milk and cheaper, but still tastes better than horizon to me.
there are other brands of organic milk that are delicious as hell, but they're too expensive for us... we go through milk like crazy (8 year old and 3 year old)
KeypoX
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2003
- 3,655
- 0
- 71
hehe sweet. My new roommate uses nothing but organic. Why are these people that eat this stuff are all hipsters?
Whats really funny is that I was at publix the other day and this douchebag paid $9 for three bell peppers (organic, what ever he thinks that means). The funny part is, we goto the asian grocery that grows there own peppers and they are 3 for a dollar (i dunno if they are organically grown but they are local) .
Whats really funny is that I was at publix the other day and this douchebag paid $9 for three bell peppers (organic, what ever he thinks that means). The funny part is, we goto the asian grocery that grows there own peppers and they are 3 for a dollar (i dunno if they are organically grown but they are local) .
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter