TOPICS:
AUG 01, 2009 03:39 PM
magpieboy said:
High fructose corn syrup allergy, or worse yet, a soy allergy?
High fructose, maybe. But soy and I are good friends. Tofu and Soy Milk cause no problems.
I'd go find out, but I can't afford health insurance or a non-emergency visit to the doctor. I just don't eat what I can't eat.
AUG 01, 2009 04:34 PM
OT response:
Otoki said:
You know, I started to write a long response to this, with plenty of links to my favorite organic brands, but then I realized that you won't give a fuck, so how's this:
Perhaps you should avoid reading posts about non-vegan food on the boards. Crying all the time must be exhausting. And when you post shit like this, it's like posting PETA links in response to an "I love steak" post. It's obnoxious, and does nothing to make me sympathize with your "cause". It's especially annoying because I'm a huge proponent of buying organic/free-range as much as possible, and I put my money where my mouth is.
Way to go being all fucking uppity hon. I was actually joking, drawing on the whole notion of food as a source of sadness. Are you really gonna cry over someone not obsessing about cheese? No? I'm not really gonna cry over someone obsessing about cheese.
You're right I wouldn't have given a fuck about your links. You know why? I honestly don't give a fuck what you or anyone around me eats*. In fact, I am more likely to take shit for my diet than I am to give it. People get so fucking defensive about their meat consumption. Know who gets the most defensive? People who otherwise tend to focus on otherwise healthy organic diets, and people who try to be environmentally conscious and humane. It is a mighty mean bee to have in your bonnet, isn't it?
You seem exceptionally concerned with animal welfare. That is very admirable. I'm not calling you fucking Hitler here. I was making a dumb joke about food preference. I kind of fully expected someone to make a post about how my comment made them cry, linking to a picture of a big bloody steak, or
"This is Why You're Fat," because that is how this kind of shit usually rolls.
I would post a link to how you have to be careful with "organic" brands, because labeling can be misleading, or how free-range is a misnomer, but then I figured you probably wouldn't give a fuck. (Also, I don't want to assume you haven't done your own research and made your own decisions.)
And for what it is worth, giving up cheese was the hardest part of going vegan. I fucking love that shit. I sometimes have dreams about it.
*Would I prefer people eat non-factory farmed, non-exploitative, environmentally friendly foods? Sure. Is it going to keep me up at night? Well, a little bit (especially when I think of the fucking environment), but mostly I shrug it off.
OT response to Necia:
You're right, I picked a pretty useless link. I wasn't trying to be uber-informative, just making a dumb joke. I can find more useful links, if you are genuinely interested, though it seems Oktoki has provided ample information.
Oh, and everything causes cancer. Duh.
Back on topic, with regards to the presentation of the material, the excuse of "scientists being scientists" may be true, but the way the information is being disseminated is highly propagandist. This is the kind of misleading, sleight of hand trickery that distracts people from recognizing the benefits of healthier food and the gross realities of non-organic farm practices.
AUG 01, 2009 04:40 PM
Marge said:
OT response:
Otoki said:
You know, I started to write a long response to this, with plenty of links to my favorite organic brands, but then I realized that you won't give a fuck, so how's this:
Perhaps you should avoid reading posts about non-vegan food on the boards. Crying all the time must be exhausting. And when you post shit like this, it's like posting PETA links in response to an "I love steak" post. It's obnoxious, and does nothing to make me sympathize with your "cause". It's especially annoying because I'm a huge proponent of buying organic/free-range as much as possible, and I put my money where my mouth is.
Way to go being all fucking uppity hon. I was actually joking, drawing on the whole notion of food as a source of sadness. Are you really gonna cry over someone not obsessing about cheese? No? I'm not really gonna cry over someone obsessing about cheese.
You're right I wouldn't have given a fuck about your links. You know why? I honestly don't give a fuck what you or anyone around me eats*. In fact, I am more likely to take shit for my diet than I am to give it. People get so fucking defensive about their meat consumption. Know who gets the most defensive? People who otherwise tend to focus on otherwise healthy organic diets, and people who try to be environmentally conscious and humane. It is a mighty mean bee to have in your bonnet, isn't it?
You seem exceptionally concerned with animal welfare. That is very admirable. I'm not calling you fucking Hitler here. I was making a dumb joke about food preference. I kind of fully expected someone to make a post about how my comment made them cry, linking to a picture of a big bloody steak, or
"This is Why You're Fat," because that is how this kind of shit usually rolls.
I would post a link to how you have to be careful with "organic" brands, because labeling can be misleading, or how free-range is a misnomer, but then I figured you probably wouldn't give a fuck. (Also, I don't want to assume you haven't done your own research and made your own decisions.)
And for what it is worth, giving up cheese was the hardest part of going vegan. I fucking love that shit. I sometimes have dreams about it.
*Would I prefer people eat non-factory farmed, non-exploitative, environmentally friendly foods? Sure. Is it going to keep me up at night? Well, a little bit (especially when I think of the fucking environment), but mostly I shrug it off.
OT response to Necia:
You're right, I picked a pretty useless link. I wasn't trying to be uber-informative, just making a dumb joke. I can find more useful links, if you are genuinely interested, though it seems Oktoki has provided ample information.
Oh, and everything causes cancer. Duh.
Back on topic, with regards to the presentation of the material, the excuse of "scientists being scientists" may be true, but the way the information is being disseminated is highly propagandist. This is the kind of misleading, sleight of hand trickery that distracts people from recognizing the benefits of healthier food and the gross realities of non-organic farm practices.
I apologize for my reaction to your post. I totally took it the wrong way and thought you were trying to provoke me or accuse me of cruelty to animals. As I said, there are many people on this site who actually post PETA type links in discussions about meat, and I thought you were doing the same thing. I'm really sorry for being such a bitch to you.
I feel awful.
As for your last paragraph, I agree that it does seem to have a slightly anti-organic slant, or at least the presentation seems dismissive of organic food because there isn't a significant difference in nutrients. I think that's more an issue in how the media is presenting it, as Sick said, rather than a bias on the part of the scientists, but the effective result (reactions of people who like to listen to pundits rather than read studies) seems pretty anti-organic.
AUG 01, 2009 05:17 PM
Otoki said:
As for your last paragraph, I agree that it does seem to have a slightly anti-organic slant, or at least the presentation seems dismissive of organic food because there isn't a significant difference in nutrients. I think that's more an issue in how the media is presenting it, as Sick said, rather than a bias on the part of the scientists, but the effective result (reactions of people who like to listen to pundits rather than read studies) seems pretty anti-organic.
Quite right. Unfortunately, the pro-organic reactions to the study I've been reading aren't much better. Essentially amount to "the study is biased because [insert organization for the promotion of organic food] says so."
It's unfortunate because the nutritional content of organic food vs. non-organic food wasn't an issue until this made it so, and now the pro-organic side is so caught up in debunking the study they're missing the opportunity to address genuine reasons for eating organic food*; rather than saying, "I don't eat organic food for it's increased nutritional content, I eat it because..." they're saying, "It is too more nutritional!"
*The other reasons have been brought up in what I've been reading, but more as an aside than the focus.
AUG 01, 2009 07:07 PM
Otoki said:
I apologize for my reaction to your post. I totally took it the wrong way and thought you were trying to provoke me or accuse me of cruelty to animals. As I said, there are many people on this site who actually post PETA type links in discussions about meat, and I thought you were doing the same thing. I'm really sorry for being such a bitch to you.
I feel awful.
As for your last paragraph, I agree that it does seem to have a slightly anti-organic slant, or at least the presentation seems dismissive of organic food because there isn't a significant difference in nutrients. I think that's more an issue in how the media is presenting it, as Sick said, rather than a bias on the part of the scientists, but the effective result (reactions of people who like to listen to pundits rather than read studies) seems pretty anti-organic.
No harm, no fowl! (Ha! Okay. That was dumb.) Let's hug and sing Kumbaya or somethin', and go back to promoting healthy greens instead of fighting.
So, on topic, I'm a little alarmed and confused.
It is studies like this that make me acutely aware of how biased and subtly influential the media can be on unexpected issues. I mean, it is clear that the phrasing of the article, and even to some degree the media interest in it, is intended to cause readers to feel that something has been "disproved" about organic foods, thereby lessening credibility of the benefits of eating organic.
I understand or expect (but, don't get me wrong, do NOT condone) media bias in, say, politics, but in something like this? Slightly baffling.
AUG 01, 2009 07:15 PM
I eat Corporate-Farmed food to support Corporations, their employees and their families (Though i do go to the organic section from time to time).
AUG 01, 2009 07:17 PM
hoorayparade said:
Roethke said:
silversoul7 said:
hoorayparade said:
Lufy said:
lil_tuffy said:
I don't recall anyone ever claiming that organically grown plants or meat were somehow more nutritious. The argument is that they are less likely to harm you.
Which is why that study is so odd. Did anyone respectable ever posit that organic produce was more "vitaminy?" It makes no sense.
the episode tonight of Penn and Teller's BS is about how organic food isn't more nutritious then conventionally grown.
I can't stand those guys. They try to pass off punditry and partisan grand-standing as skepticism. Leave out the humor, and they're basically no different than John Stossel(and they'd probably take that as a compliment).
Agreed. They pick and choose counter arguments, and rarely show any legitimate counter evidence. Generally, I agree with them, but that's also because they usually take a swing at the low hanging fruit like astrology.
they also tend to get the absolute wackiest people to represent the opposing viewpoint. which sort of drives me crazy, although i understand that they feel it makes their argument look stronger.
I think it's less about making their argument look stronger (although I can't imagine they'd mind if it did) and more about those people being more entertaining to watch.

meatpieboy
Korea, D.P.R.
June 2004
AUG 01, 2009 07:17 PM
SergeantPsycho said:
I eat Corporate-Farmed food to support Corporations, their employees and their families (Though i do go to the organic section from time to time).
Why not eat locally farmed organic food to support those families and their employees, and not waste as much energy and get better food?
AUG 01, 2009 07:28 PM
magpieboy said:
SergeantPsycho said:
I eat Corporate-Farmed food to support Corporations, their employees and their families (Though i do go to the organic section from time to time).
Why not eat locally farmed organic food to support those families and their employees, and not waste as much energy and get better food?
Because it's generally cheaper to get the Corporate food. ![]()
AUG 01, 2009 07:35 PM
magpieboy said:
SergeantPsycho said:
I eat Corporate-Farmed food to support Corporations, their employees and their families (Though i do go to the organic section from time to time).
Why not eat locally farmed organic food to support those families and their employees, and not waste as much energy and get better food?
This is one of those times, my friend, where I should slap you and go "Do not feed the troll! Organic or otherwise!"
This is one of those should-have-known-better moments.
AUG 01, 2009 11:34 PM
Marge said:
OT response to Necia:
You're right, I picked a pretty useless link. I wasn't trying to be uber-informative, just making a dumb joke. I can find more useful links, if you are genuinely interested, though it seems Oktoki has provided ample information.
Oh, and everything causes cancer. Duh.
Oh, fair enough! I just hadn't heard that stuff before and wondered (the medical claims, I mean, not the stuff about poor/inhumane dairy farming practices--the latter I had heard before). ![]()

meatpieboy
Korea, D.P.R.
June 2004
AUG 02, 2009 09:03 AM
TheFuckOffKid said:
magpieboy said:
SergeantPsycho said:
I eat Corporate-Farmed food to support Corporations, their employees and their families (Though i do go to the organic section from time to time).
Why not eat locally farmed organic food to support those families and their employees, and not waste as much energy and get better food?
This is one of those times, my friend, where I should slap you and go "Do not feed the troll! Organic or otherwise!"
This is one of those should-have-known-better moments.
Actually, he gave me a decent answer.
AUG 02, 2009 10:57 AM
Marge said:
It is studies like this that make me acutely aware of how biased and subtly influential the media can be on unexpected issues. I mean, it is clear that the phrasing of the article, and even to some degree the media interest in it, is intended to cause readers to feel that something has been "disproved" about organic foods, thereby lessening credibility of the benefits of eating organic.
I understand or expect (but, don't get me wrong, do NOT condone) media bias in, say, politics, but in something like this? Slightly baffling.
This is politics. At least, it's business, and business and politics are frequently related. If organic products are proven as "less nutritious" and thus "lose value" in the mainstream perspective, that means more people will go back to buying non-organic products, which works well for a lot of the larger companies in the food industry.
AUG 02, 2009 11:00 AM
Sick commented that this post was really confusing, so to clarify, I am pro-dairy, and love cow's milk, and was simply trying to answer Necia's question about the health problems claimed on the anti-dairy farming website.
Otoki said:
Necia said:
Marge said:
Your post made ME cry a little. Then again, I'm an animal freak.
Off-topic, but I have to ask: does that site have any info indicating the supporting sources for any of the claims* they're making about milk consumption and all of the health problems to which it's supposedly linked? I looked, but I couldn't find any citation of actual medical research backing any of it up. I'd be curious to read about that research.
I'm going to continue with a mostly off-topic post about cheese:
Firstly, the only real "health problems" that are common from dairy are lactose intolerance and dairy allergies. These are two separate issues, which are often confused. I ended up doing a lot of reading on the subjects because I have so many friends that suffer from one or the other.
Basic overview:
From the wiki
Milk allergy is a food allergy, an adverse immune reaction to a food protein that is normally harmless to the non-allergic individual. Lactose intolerance is a non-allergic food sensitivity, and comes from a lack of production of the enzyme lactase, required to digest the predominant sugar in milk. Lactose intolerance is not actually a disease or malady. Adverse effects of lactose intolerance occur at much higher milk consumption than adverse effects of milk allergy.
Lactose intolerance usually shows up with cow's milk. Goat's and Sheep's milk, while having approximately the same amount of lactose per serving, they are generally more easily digested by those with and without lactose intolerance. There is a chance that those with LI may have problems with it ( wiki goats milk link) but it is less likely than when consuming cow's milk.
A nice summary of the benefits of goat's milk for milk-sensitive people:
Although goat milk, like cow's milk and human milk, contains lactose, many people with lactose intolerance can drink goat milk. Why? It has been hypothesized that the reason lies in goat milk's superior digestibility. Goat milk is more completely and easily absorbed than cow's milk, leaving less undigested residue behind in the colon to quite literally ferment and cause the uncomfortable symptoms of lactose intolerance.
As for dairy allergies, this is a common conjecture:
It may also be that the patient is not lactose intolerant at all, but instead is one of the 1-in-10 people who are allergic to the major protein of cow's milk ... alpha S1 casein protein. The symptoms are almost identical to those of lactose intolerance. Both goat milk and human milk lack this offending protein.
Cheese also has less of a detrimental effect on those with LI:
Cheeses. Traditionally made hard cheese (such as Swiss cheese) and soft ripened cheeses may create less reaction than the equivalent amount of milk because of the processes involved. Fermentation and higher fat content contribute to lesser amounts of lactose. Traditionally made Swiss or Cheddar might contain 10% of the lactose found in whole milk. In addition, the traditional aging methods of cheese (over 2 years) reduces their lactose content to practically nothing.[3] Commercial cheese brands, however, are generally manufactured by modern processes that do not have the same lactose reducing properties, and as no regulations mandate what qualifies as an "aged" cheese, this description does not provide any indication of whether the process used significantly reduced lactose.
wiki
Addressing the "human's aren't meant to digest milk" argument:
Cows’ Milk vs. Goats’ or Sheep’s Milk
There are two main advantages to going less mainstream and avoiding cows’ milk in favour of goats’ milk or sheep’s milk products.
1. Goat and sheep’s milk are less likely to contain hormones and additives (see above).
2. Goats’ milk is more easily digested.
On a basic level, humans were never “designed” to digest cows’ milk or goats’ milk. Our bodies are meant to consume (human) mother’s milk for the first several months or years, and then move on to other foods. Many people only become lactose-intolerant as teens or adults, when the enzymes to digest any kind of milk stop being produced by the human digestive system.
Goats’ milk is the easiest for humans to digest, because goat milk proteins are most similar to the protein found in human milk.
In areas where cows’ or goats’ milk has traditionally been a staple, people have for the most part evolved the ability to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Yet in those whose ancestors did not consume milk - such as people of Chinese or Japanese descent – lactose intolerance is especially common.
Read more: http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/milk#ixzz0MxR7oTmS
"Scientific research links the consumption of cow’s milk and dairy products with a wide range of health problems including acne, runny noses, wheezing, coughing, ear infections, rashes, stomach upsets, asthma, eczema, arthritis, heart disease, diabetes and prostate cancer."
^^This list is partially show in the Symptoms section of the wiki on dairy allergy.
Diabetes:
Overweight individuals who drink milk may benefit from decreased risk of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.
and I'm not finding anything about arthritis or prostate cancer, except possible connections between increased vitamin D in milk helping to lower prostate cancer risks, and a possible link of CALCIUM intake to prostate cancer.
For the record, 100g of milk has 113 mg of Calcium. For the same serving size, broccoli has 47mg, oranges also have 47mg, and almonds have 248mg!
The problem with the "may be linked to cancer" disclaimer is that pretty much ANY food can be linked to some kind of cancer. Some cancers react to vitamin A, some react to fat, etc etc.
I just find websites arguing against animal or animal product consumption for cancer/disease reasons to be disingenuous, because there are plenty of fruits and veggies that are "possibly" linked to cancer/diseases as well.








meatpieboy
Korea, D.P.R.
June 2004
AUG 01, 2009 03:36 PM