i am all i am
29-05-2007, 11:40 PM
"As a fourth-generation family farmer in Montana for almost 40 years, I speak from a background of personal experience when I say that chemically based agricultural production methods today are unsustainable, and therefore ecologically disastrous. My experiences range from working in a large organic dairy to raising registered beef cattle to owning a large factory feedlot. I have farmed thousands of acres of grain and reproduced a herd of over one thousand commercial beef cows. In addition to raising cows, I have raised chickens, pigs, and turkeys. I have also grown crops such as wheat, barley, oats, corn, alfalfa, and grass.
I was involved in agriculture at a time when the call dictated getting bigger and better or getting out. I was educated in modern agriculture, and I can tell you from firsthand experience -- it is not sustainable. I followed all the modern advice and turned a small organic family farm into a large corporate chemical farm with a thousand range cows, five thousand head of cattle in a factory feedlot, thousands of acres of crops, and as many as thirty employees. I saw the organic soil go from a living, productive base to a sterile, chemical-saturated, mono-cultural ground produced by my so-called modern methods.
In 1979, a tumor on my spinal cord caused me to be paralyzed from the waist down. That changed my life forever. I promised myself that, whatever the outcome of the surgery, I would dedicate the rest of my life to doing what I believed to be right -- no matter what changes that necessitated.
The period before and after the surgery gave me much time to think about the changes resulting form my methods of farming. Convinced that we were going the wrong way, I decided to become a voice for the family farmer and the land. In 1983, I sold most of my farm and started working for farmers in financial trouble. This led to my working for the Montana Farmers Union and from there to Washington, D.C. as a lobbyist for the National Farmers Union.
For five years I worked on Capitol Hill for America's family farmers. In that time we had some small successes, such as passing the National Organic Standards Act. But even after the act became a law, it took the administration several years to allow funds for its implementation. I became convinced that the changes needed had to come from the producer and the consumers at the grassroots level. Until that alliance is put into play, the big money interest will continue to control public policy in the Congress of the United States."
"The question we must ask ourselves as a culture is whether we want to embrace the change that must come, or resist it. Are we so attached to the dietary fallacies with which we were raised, so afraid to counter the arbitrary laws of eating taught to us in childhood by our misinformed parents, that we cannot alter the course they set us on, even if it leads to our own ruin? Does the prospect of standing apart or encounttering ridicule scare us even from saving ourselves?
That prospect intimidated me once, and I can only wonder now what I was frightened of. It's hard to imagine, now that I'm a hundred thirty pounds lighter, infinitely healthier, more full of life and energy, much happier. Now that I have vegetarian friends wherever I go, and feel part of a movement that is not so much political as it is a march of the human heart. Now that I understand how much is at stake. Now that I've come to relish shaking people up.
I would love to see the meat industry and the pesticide industry shaken up, too. I would love to see feedlots close and factory farming end. I would love to see more families return to the land, grow crops for our own species, and raise them organically. I would love to see farm communities revive. I would love to know that I've wandered into my nation's heartland by the sweet smell of grain and not the forbidding smell of excrement.
When you can't take it with you, all that really matters is what you leave behind."*
Howard F. Lyman, LL.D
http://www.madcowboy.com/01_AboutPS.000.html
SCHWARZENEGGER SIGNS BILL THAT ENDS SECRECY ABOUT MEAT RECALLS: (10/02/06): " California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill, SB 611 (Speier), that allows California public health officers to notify the public of the names of retailers that receive USDA-recalled meat and poultry, so that consumers can better protect themselves from food-borne illnesses. In 2002, California's Department of Health Services (DHS) signed a secrecy agreement with USDA, agreeing not to release the names of the stores and restaurants where tainted, USDA-recalled beef and poultry have been shipped and sold. Federal and California state agencies maintain that secrecy is necessary in order to protect the proprietary interests of the beef and poultry industries. But eighty percent of Californians believe that the public should be told the names of retail stores and restaurants that receive and sell potentially contaminated, USDA-recalled beef and poultry, according to a 2006 Field Research Corporation survey. Greater than eight in ten Californians (84%) favor mandatory recalls when unacceptable levels of contaminants are found in beef and poultry products, compared to just 11% who favor the current system of voluntary company recalls.
In 2004, California was one of seven states that received a shipment of beef products subject to a USDA recall because it included meat and bones from the first U.S. cow that tested positive for mad cow disease (the country's third confirmed case of mad cow disease was discovered on March 10, 2006 in Alabama). But California consumers had no way of knowing which grocery stores and restaurants received the products because the state had agreed with the USDA to keep that information secret. The state's secrecy agreement covers all recalls of unsafe beef and poultry not just those that involve mad cow disease. The names of retailers selling recalled beef and poultry products tainted with other hazards, such as E. coli and listeria, are also kept secret from the public under the current agreement."
http://www.madcowboy.com/01_FactsMC.000.html
FDA Delays Mad Cow Feed Rules: (07/09/04): "The Food and Drug Administration on Friday banned brains and other cattle parts that could carry mad cow disease from use in cosmetics and dietary supplements, but delayed some similar safeguards in animal feed for up to two years. The FDA said it will adopt some regulations, initially announced in January, that prohibit the use of brains, skull and spinal cords from older cattle in human food and cosmetics. The USDA, which regulates the meat industry, adopted similar measures in January.
Consumer groups criticized the agency for taking six months to issue only some of the new safeguards. "Action that was urgent in January has become action that can be delayed until the last mad cow comes home," said Carol Tucker Foreman, food policy director for the Consumer Federation of America. The American Meat Institute, a trade group representing U.S. meatpackers, said it was against a mandatory elimination of cattle brains and spinal material from all animal feed."
http://www.madcowboy.com/01_FactsMC.000.html
Hot Debate Over Chicken Dung; FDA Wrestles With Whether To Ban It And Other Waste From Cattle Feed: (04/22/04): "A mountain of chicken dung - among other things - is preventing the Food and Drug Administration from banning blood, chicken waste and restaurant leftovers from cattle feed, a top administration official said yesterday. In the scramble to keep mad cow disease from spreading after a Holstein from Yakima County was diagnosed with the brain-wasting illness, the FDA recommended in January what seemed like simple and sensible restrictions on cattle feed.
In an interview yesterday, Sundlof [director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine] provided no likely deadline for the new bans, only assurances that progress was being made. But Sundlof did offer some explanations for the delays. He said, for example, that the proposed ban on adding chicken litter (fecal matter, dead birds, feathers and spilled feed) generated huge concern from chicken producers. Sundlof said adding chicken litter to cattle feed is one of the primary methods of waste disposal for the chicken growers, especially in the Southeast. "From an environmental standpoint, what are people going to do with the poultry litter?" he asked. "One of the benefits of doing this was that it was an environmentally sound way of recycling the material.""
http://www.madcowboy.com/01_FactsMC.000.html
WHAT DO COWS EAT?
Were you under the mistaken impression that dairy cows ate grass?
The March 25, 2002 issue of Hoard's Dairyman (the dairy farmers magazine) reveals a mixed menu of gourmet foods in a
dairy cow's diet, including chicken feathers, blood, pork, fish, and soybeans.
Does that grass-fed cow portrayed on a carton of milk reflect what really goes into moo-juice?
Better check what's in Elsie's medicine cabinet. Few cows ever see those grassy fields. The page 232 Hoard's article reveals:
Nearly seventy-nine percent of cows are fed sodium bicarbonate. Greater than half of the cows in America receive selenium, yeast, and magnesium oxide. More than one third of America's dairy cows take supplements including zinc methionine, niacin, anionic salts, and tallow (rendered fat) from their deceased brothers and sisters.
Forty-eight percent of dairy cows are fed roasted soybeans! Yummm. Thirty-nine percent receive dried blood from their own brutally murdered children, mothers, sisters, and aunts. Makes me sick to my stomach.
Fifteen percent receive ground-up fish. Ever see a cow working a trout stream? Four percent of cows eat feathers. Don't let a cow near your down comforter. Two percent of cows are fed pork.
All of those feathers and blood must make for a thirsty bovine. How much water does a cow drink? Over two hundred pounds per day! Since the average cow in America yields just 50 pounds of milk each day, where does that other 150 pounds go? Multiply the 9,115,000 dairy cows in America by 150 pounds of urine each day, by 365 days in a year, and you'll end up with enough pee to fill the Potomic.
You'll end up with enough pee to fill every one of 50 million bathtubs in America for two months so that each day they overflow. (One-half trillion pounds!) Not to worry, though. The pee is actually filtered into our groundwater, and you can hardly taste it when brushing your teeth. (Perhaps you now understand why water is chlorinated, fluoridated, and disinfected before you turn on your tap.)
http://notmilk.com/forum/859.html
Nursing calves reduce milk production.
The farmer's solution is to feed soymilk to baby cows!
I was thumbing through an old issue of Hoard's Dairyman (January 10, 1956) and learned that 9-10 pounds of milk are required for a nursing calf to gain just one pound of body weight.
Farmers today receive about $14 for every 100 pounds of milk that they produce. The break-even point for his baby "veal" is nearly $1.40 per pound. Farmers receive around 40 cents per pound when selling that calf to the meat processor, which would represent an enormous loss.
Therefore, milk-fed veal is impossibility at today's prices.
WHAT HAPPENS TO CALVES?
Baby females are raised to become milk producers. Males suffer a different fate.
These days, calves are kept chained to a stall in a tiny crate that keeps them from standing and exercising, which would add muscle fiber to their flesh. They remain weak and anemic so that their pale white flesh resembles the milk-fed veal of days long ago. These animals cannot even turn in their stalls. They are force-fed and lay in their own feces.
Those who call themselves compassionate vegetarians and still use milk and dairy products are unaware of the cruelest aspect of the factory-farm business.
In order for cows to give milk, they must first give birth. Milk drinkers indirectly support the veal industry.
Dairy farmers cannot afford to be compassionate to their animals. Compassion is bad for business.
The 43-year old Hoard's article directs this ending comment to the dairy farmer:
"The nursing calf is a big milk waster as well as eater, and in the end he may not be the only sucker in the barn."
http://notmilk.com/deb/babycows.html
http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/notmilk.jpg
http://www.notmilk.com/nmbanner2.gif
HOW MUCH PUS IS IN MILK?
Dear Friends,
Pus is not dangerous. Pus is rather delicious, especially when it's mixed with sugar and frozen, or bubbly hot atop marinara sauce and pizza. Fermented pus with acidophilus bacteria makes for a tasty breakfast, especially if jellied fruit preserves are mixed in. I used to enjoy Dannon's pus, but Brown Cow makes a brand where the saturated fat rises to the surface. Now, that's 'hearty' food!
Many of my dairy-producing adversaries get upset when I reveal that milk is merely pus with hormones. Ten pounds of milk are used to make one pound of cheese. Cheese is concentrated pus.
Jim Dickrell's story in the March, 2001 issue of Dairy Today asks:
"WHAT IS NORMAL MILK?"
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a milk ordinance governing milk safety. USDA does not allow milk containing 750 million or more pus cells per liter to be shipped across state borders. That should be good news to milk drinkers.
Last year, the average liter of milk in America contained only 323 million pus cells, according to Hoard's Dairyman, the dairy industry magazine. Author Jim Dickrell reports that the level of pus cells has been rising ever since farmers began using Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Before approval (February 1994), the average pus cell count in milk was under 300 million cells per liter. By 1996, that average count had reached 307 million. In 1997, the average count was 313 million, and by 1998, the number had reached 318 million.
Researchers working for the National Mastitis Council define normal and abnormal milk based on the number of pus cells. According to Dickrell's story, the concentration of pus cells in "normal milk" is almost always less than 100 million cells per liter.
The number of pus cells in milk is an indicator of the state of health of the mammary glands and udders in cows. Stressed and infected cows have cell counts above 100 million. What does that say for the average milk in America? Not very healthy, even by dairy industry standards.
According to this article:
"When cell counts in milk exceed 200 (million per liter), the odds favor that the [udder] is infected or is recovering from infection."
The dairy magazine reports:
"Abnormal milk will be discolored and have flakes, clots or other gross alterations in appearance."
Gross is certainly an appropriate word to describe pus-filled milk with clots. This analyses of mastitis researchers reveals:
"At 400 (million) cells per liter, some 35% of cows will be infected."
This means that approximately one-third of the cows being milked at any one time in America are stressed and infected. Milk from these cows contains large amounts of bacteria, virus, and pus. As a consequence, farmers must treat their herds with increased amounts of antibiotics.
Pam Ruegg, a University of Wisconsin mastitis researcher, examined more than one million records, and concluded that the higher the herd's pus cell count, the greater the risk of antibiotic residues in milk.
Her results were published in the December 2000 issue of the Journal of Dairy Science.
http://www.notmilk.com/pusmilk.html
WHAT IS MILK?
Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning.
IS ALL MILK THE SAME?
Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal?
Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one.
Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans.
Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations.
Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's
hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.
Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast
milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?
In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared.
In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.
In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas
without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.
http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html
Monsanto has filed papers in federal court, arguing that
milk from cows treated with their genetically engineered
bovine growth hormone is no different from untreated milk.
http://www.notmilk.com/monsantoland.html
CALCIUM AND BONE DISEASE
Important UPDATE 1/2001:
A study published in the January, 2001 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition examined the diets of 1,035 women, particularly focusing on the protein intake from animal and vegetable products. Deborah Sellmeyer, M.D., found:
ANIMAL PROTEIN INCREASES BONE LOSS
In her study, women with a high animal-to-vegetable protein ratio experienced an increased rate of femoral neck bone loss. A high animal-to-vegetable protein ratio was also associated with an increased risk of hip fracture.
WHY DOES ANIMAL PROTEIN CAUSE BONE LOSS?
I spoke with Dr. Sellmeyer, and here is her explaination:
"Sulphur-containing amino acids in protein-containing foods are metabolized to sulfuric acid. Animal foods provide predominantly acid precursors. Acidosis stimulates osteoclastic activity and inhibits osteoblast activity."
MEAT EATERS HAVE MORE HIP FRACTURES
Sellmeyer's remarkable publication reveals:
"Women with high animal-to-vegetable protein rations were heavier and had higher intake of total protein. These women had a significantly increased rate of bone loss than those who ate just vegetable protein. Women consuming higher rates of animal protein had higher rates of bone loss and hip fracture by a factor of four times."
Milk has been called "liquid meat." The average American eats five ounces of animal protein each day in the form of red meat and chicken. At the same time, the average American consumes nearly six times that amount (29.2 ounces) per day of milk and dairy products.
How ironic it is that the dairy industry continues to promote the cause of bone disease as the cure.
Deborah Sellmeyer's brilliant work is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Sellmeyer may be reached by EMAIL: dsellmeyer@psg.ucsf.edu
Original column:
Human breast milk is Mother Nature's PERFECT FORMULA for baby humans. Even dairy industry scientists would not be foolish enough to debate this UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED FACT. In her wisdom, Mother Nature included 33 milligrams of calcium in every 100 grams, or 3 1/2-ounce portion of human breast milk.
Adults do not drink human breast milk. At the end of this column is a list of calcium values in the foods we eat. Each food is compared to human breast milk as the standard. You might be surprised to learn how many foods naturally contain an abundance of calcium. One must wonder why Asians traditionally did not get bone-crippling osteoporosis...that is, until they adopted the "American Diet," a diet of milk and dairy products.
The dairy industry owns the psychological exclusive rights to calcium in foods found in super markets. Few food manufacturers would dare to compete with the dairy message which infers that no other foods contain the calcium contained in milk, and without milk and dairy products you're certain to one day end up with bone-crippling osteoporosis. Tropicana Orange Juice has been marketing a Fruit-Cal orange juice which, according to the Tropicana company, contains a more absorbable type of calcium than other calcium supplements. Each cup of Tropicana's pure premium calcium contains 350 milligrams of calcium as opposed to only 302 in one cup of milk and 172 in one ounce of American cheese. Minute Maid also has a Calcium-Orange Juice product and claims that it contains fifteen times the amount of calcium as contained in an equivalent sample of regular orange juice. Gerber's Baby cereal sells a box of single grain barley upon which they write, "An excellent source of iron and a good source of calcium." The side panel of their box reveals that their cereal contains barley flour and tri and di calcium phosphate. Other than orange juice and baby food, no visible claim to calcium is made by any food manufacturer. The reason, of course, is that milk holds the monopoly. They hold title to and make claim to America's calcium perception. Few would dare challenge that claim.
A tour through a typical American supermarket reveals aisles dedicated to specific food groups...There are fresh fruits and vegetables in one section and meats and poultry in another. Rice and grains are kept separate from beans and canned vegetables. Milk and dairy products (which represent America's most sought after foods) are usually placed furthest from the market's front door. Junk foods are conjointly placed in the same aisle with cookies and potato chips. These high calorie/low fiber snacks are stacked within walking distance of both artificially sweetened and high sugar sodas.
Hostess Twinkies contain calcium. Those golden sponge cakes with creamy fillings are as much a part of our cuisine as they are a part of our national culture. To many, Twinkies represent all that is artificial and unhealthy about our collective fast food diet. To others they epitomize instant snacks, a quick source of energy and mother's easy-to-prepare dessert for her school-age child. When I was in college, Twinkies represented one of the four major food groups (along with French fries, alcoholic beverages and McDonald's hamburgers.) To read a Twinkies ingredient label is to marvel at how far mankind has progressed these past twenty-five thousand years, eating fruits and nuts and vegetables and grains, and occasional mastodon steaks, to:
"Enriched wheat flour, (niacin, a "B" vitamin), ferrous sulfate (iron), thiamin mononitrate (B1), riboflavin (B2), water, sugar, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated vegetable and/or animal shortening (contains one or more of: canola, corn, cottonseed or soybean oil, beef fat), eggs, dextrose. Contains 2% or less of: modified food starch, whey, leavenings (sodium and pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), salt, starch, yellow corn flour, corn syrup solids, emulsifiers mono and diglycerides, lecithin, polysorbate 60, dextrin, calcium caseinate, sodium stearoyl, lactylate, cellulose gum, wheat gluten, natural and artificial flavors, caramel color, artificial colors (yellow 5, red 40), sorbic acid (to retain freshness)."
The Dairy Industry and milk processors invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year to guarantee that Americans will continue to drink milk and eat dairy products, investing their money to continually let Americans know that milk tastes good and the intake of milk and dairy products must be continued to insure good health. Milk mustaches are stylish. Drink milk and you're beautiful! Gorgeous models, actors, actresses, sports heroes, even President Clinton and Bob Dole have posed for milk advertisements. All have asserted by the milky white goo artificially applied to their upper lip that drinking milk is healthful and wholesome. Who would argue with such an overwhelming endorsement? Billboards spanning America ask the question, "Got milk?" Cal Ripken of the Baltimore Orioles broke Lou Gehrig's record for consecutive major league baseball games played. Ripken, holding a baseball bat, smiles from inside the front cover of a "GOT MILK" brochure proclaiming, "With all the skim milk I drink, my name might as well be Calcium Ripken, Jr."
Common knowledge of osteoporosis is based upon false assumptions. American women have been drinking an average of two pounds of milk or eating the equivalent milk in dairy products per day for their entire lives. Doctors recommend calcium intake for increasing and maintaining bone strength and bone density which they call bone mass. According to this regimen recommended by doctors and milk industry executives, women's bone mass would approach that of pre-historic dinosaurs. This line of reasoning should be equally extinct. Twenty-five million American women have osteoporosis. Drinking milk does not prevent osteoporosis. Milk contains calcium. Bones contain calcium too. When we are advised to add calcium to our diets we tend to drink milk or eat dairy foods.
In order to absorb calcium, the body needs comparable amounts of another mineral element, magnesium. Milk and dairy products contain only small amounts of magnesium. Without the presence of magnesium, the body only absorbs 25 percent of the available dairy calcium content. The remainder of the calcium spells trouble. Without magnesium, excess calcium is utilized by the body in injurious ways. The body uses calcium to build the mortar on arterial walls which becomes atherosclerotic plaques. Excess calcium is converted by the kidneys into painful stones which grow in size like pearls in oysters, blocking our urinary tracts. Excess calcium contributes to arthritis; painful calcium buildup often is manifested as gout. The USDA has formulated a chart of recommended daily intakes of vitamins and minerals. The term that FDA uses is Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA). The RDA for calcium is 1500 mg. The RDA for magnesium is 750 mg.
Society stresses the importance of calcium, but rarely magnesium. Yet, magnesium is vital to enzymatic activity. In addition to insuring proper absorption of calcium, magnesium is critical to proper neural and muscular function and to maintaining proper pH balance in the body. Magnesium, along with vitamin B6 (pyridoxine), helps to dissolve calcium phosphate stones which often accumulate from excesses of dairy intake. Good sources of magnesium include beans, green leafy vegetables like kale and collards, whole grains and orange juice. Non-dairy sources of calcium include green leafy vegetables, almonds, asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, oats, beans, parsley, sesame seeds and tofu.
Osteoporosis is NOT a problem that should be associated with lack of calcium intake. Osteoporosis results from calcium loss. The massive amounts of protein in milk result in a 50 percent loss of calcium in the urine. In other words, by doubling your protein intake there will be a loss of 1-1.5 percent in skeletal mass per year in postmenopausal women. The calcium contained in leafy green vegetables is more easily absorbed than the calcium in milk, and plant proteins do not result in calcium loss the same way as do animal proteins. If a postmenopausal woman loses 1-1.5 percent bone mass per year, what will be the effect after 20 years? When osteoporosis occurs levels of calcium (being excreted from the bones)in the blood are high. Milk only adds to these high levels of calcium which is excreted or used by the body to add to damaging atherosclerosis, gout, kidney stones, etc.
Bone mass does not increase after age 35. This is a biological fact that is not in dispute by scientists. However, this fact is ignored by marketing geniuses in the milk industry who make certain that women this age and older are targeted consumers for milk and dairy products. At least one in four women will suffer from osteoporosis with fractures of the ribs, hip or forearm. In 1994, University of Texas researchers published results of an experiment indicating that supplemental calcium is ineffective in preventing bone loss. Within 5 years of the initial onset of menopause, there is an accelerated rate of loss of bone, particularly from the spine. During this period of time, estrogen replacement is most effective in preventing rapid bone density loss.
Bone Mass is Genetically Determined
In December of 1994 a study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, revealed that skeletal size and bone mass are genetically programmed. Optimal skeletal size is achieved through adequate calcium intake in an individual's youth. However, excess calcium has an effect upon bone mass. Once enough calcium is introduced, the excess is either excreted in the urine or absorbed by the kidneys, arteries and liver. This excess calcium can cause great damage. The decrease in skeletal mass associated with osteoporosis in women is primarily caused by the age-dependent decrease in hormonal steroid secretion by the ovaries. While optimal calcium intake in childhood and adolescence is important for achieving proper bone density, calcium intake in adulthood has little significance.
An overview based upon recent findings regarding the pathogenesis of osteoporosis was published in Germany in 1994 and translated into English where the abstract appeared on MEDLINE, a computer service containing scientific abstracts of research. The premise of this study is that osteoporosis is an unavoidable consequence of aging for which no prevention was previously possible. However, recent hormonal therapies have slowed down the process of rapid bone loss. The lack of estrogen and progesterone play an important role in the development of osteoporosis.
Human breast milk contains 33 milligrams of calcium per 100-gram portion and potato chips contain 40 milligrams!
GOTMILK? GOT BONE DISEASE!
Find your favorite snacks on the following list and substitute them for pus-filled, antibiotic laden, allergenic and hormonal MILK.
Calcium content of foods (per 100-gram portion)
(100 grams equals around 3.5 ounces)
Human Breast Milk................33(lowest!)
Almonds.............................234 mg
Amaranth...........................267 mg
Apricots (dried)....................67 mg
Artichokes..........................51 mg
Beans (can: pinto, black)......135 mg
Beet greens (cooked)...........99 mg
Blackeye peas.....................55 mg
Bran..................................70 mg
Broccoli (raw).....................48 mg
Brussel Sprouts...................36 mg
Buckwheat.........................114 mg
Cabbage (raw)....................49 mg
Carrot (raw).......................37 mg
Cashew nuts......................38 mg
Cauliflower (cooked)............42 mg
Swiss Chard (raw)...............88 mg
Chickpeas (garbanzos).........150 mg
Collards (raw leaves)............250 mg
Cress (raw)........................81 mg
Dandelion greens.................187 mg
Endive...............................81 mg
Escarole.............................81 mg
Figs (dried)........................126 mg
Filberts (Hazelnuts)..............209 mg
Kale (raw leaves).................249 mg
Kale (cooked leaves)............187 mg
Leeks................................52 mg
Lettuce (lt. green)...............35 mg
Lettuce (dark green)............68 mg
Molasses (dark-213 cal.).......684 mg
Mustard Green (raw)............183 mg
Mustard Green (cooked).......138 mg
Okra (raw or cooked)...........92 mg
Olives...............................61 mg
Orange (Florida).................43 mg
Parsley.............................203 mg
Peanuts (roasted & salted)..74 mg
Peas (boiled).....................56 mg
Pistachio nuts...................131 mg
Potato Chips.....................40 mg
Raisins.............................62 mg
Rhubarb (cooked)..............78 mg
Sauerkraut.......................36 mg
Sesame Seeds..................1160 mg
Squash (Butternut)............40 mg
Soybeans.........................60 mg
Sugar (Brown)...................85 mg
Tofu...............................128 mg
Spinach (raw)..................93 mg
Sunflower seeds...............120 mg
Sweet Potatoes (baked)....40 mg
Turnips (cooked)..............35 mg
Turnip Greens (raw)..........246 mg
Turnip Greens (boiled).......184 mg
Water Cress....................151 mg
Related commentary:
Harvard Nurse Study 78,000 nurses!
Bad Bones Who gets bone disease?
Boneheads Crippling boneheads
For much more on the subject of calcium visit http://www.notmilk.com/calcium
Robert Cohen
Executive Director
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/092098.html
A is for ALZHEIMER'S
Swiss Cheese and Alzheimer's
Swiss Cheese: A delicious waxy substance that smells a bit funny, is filled with holes, and tastes quite delicious, especially in fondues.
Alzheimer's: That disease of dementia in which neural cells die, turning human brains into Swiss cheese.
Now revealed: Scientific evidence that Swiss cheese contains a substance that is positively correlated to Alzheimer's Disease.
The building blocks of proteins are amino acids. The one factor making animal protein so unhealthy for human consumption is the abundance of sulfur-based amino acids such as methionine and homocysteine.
Homocysteine has been linked to heart disease by William Castelli, senior investigator of the largest clinical heart study in history, the Framingham Study.
The key to understanding heart disease is recognizing the destruction caused by that rotten egg smell of sulfur infusing throughout one's cardiovascular system. See:
http://www.notmilk.com/h.html
Osteoporosis occurs as a result of the body's attempt to neutralize the acid condition caused by the consumption of foods rich in sulfur. Internal "thermostats" neutralize that acid by drawing calcium from one's own bones. See:
http://www.notmilk.com/o.html
The February 14, 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 346:476-483, Number 7) contains a study proving that the risk of Alzheimer's Disease doubles for those people with the highest levels of homocysteine in their bloodstreams.
Neurologists at the Boston University School of Medicine obtained blood samples from 1092 elderly healthy subjects over an eight-year period. During the course of the study, 111 of those subjects developed dementia, diagnosed as Alzheimer's Disease.
Those who developed Alzheimer's had enormous increases of homocysteine in their blood when compared to those who did not develop dementia.
There are 28 amino acids in nature. Your body's liver manufactures 19 of them. The other 9 are called "essential," which means that they must be obtained in the foods you eat. Methionine is one such "essential" amino acid. After ingestion, methionine converts to homocysteine.
Animal proteins contain greater amounts of methionine than do plant proteins. Milk is liquid meat, and dairy products contain high levels of methionine, which has sulfur as its center atom. The sulfur converts to sulfates and causes an acid condition in the blood that results in cellular destruction.
Here are some values of methionine for 100 gram portions of various foods. You will find that a result of consuming dairy products and/or eating meat creates a methionine-rich and subsequent homocysteine-rich environment of Alzheimer-causing substances in human blood serum.
MILK COMPARISON
Cow's milk = .083 grams of methionine
Soy milk = .040 grams
SOLID FOOD COMPARISON
Mori-Nu silken soft tofu = .074 grams
Chicken (broiled breast meat, no skin) = .859 grams
Swiss cheese = .784 grams
Parmesan cheese = .958 grams
Cow's milk contains twice as much methionine as does soy milk. Chicken has nearly 12 times the amount of methionine as does tofu, and Parmesan cheese has an unlucky 13 times more methionine than does tofu.
The neurologists who conducted this study did not consider how or why people have high levels of methionine. Pity. They were close to determining the cause and cure of Alzheimer's.
These neurologists who published the study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggest that folic acid reduce levels of homocysteine. Folic acid can be found in green leafy vegetables, grains, and fruits, particularly citrus. However, the best cure may very well be to not eat what causes the problem.
Scientific research has provided the proof that Alzheimer's Disease can be controlled or prevented by eliminating the standard American diet that includes milk and dairy products as its foundation.
http://www.notmilk.com/alzheimer.html
http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/nixon.jpg
"The people have got to know if their President is a crook.
Well, I am not a crook."
Richard Nixon's immortal line was delivered during an hour-long televised question-and-answer session with 400 Associated Press reporters on November 11, 1973.
http://www.notmilk.com/trickydick.html
http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/pres.jpg
Clinton and Dole
http://www.notmilk.com/clintonms.html
ONE DOZEN MILK LIES FROM CLINTON
Monday, February 8, 1999 begins a momentous week in America's history. William Jefferson Clinton will NOT be impeached, so this column is dedicated to our President. Clinton told America that he did NOT inhale, did NOT pluck Jennifer's Flowers, did NOT have relations with Monica...and he had the audacity to pose for a milk moustache ad while running for president, despite the fact that he is allergic to milk and dairy products. Notwithstanding his denials, we clearly recognize, and history will ultimately record the truth about this man.
http://www.notmilk.com/impeach.html
shame.html
Yet, Mr. Clinton has committed a greater crime against Americans and for that we cannot forgive or forget.
In his State of the Union Address of 1997, Clinton praised MONSANTO, the manufacturer of the controversial genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Clinton's friendship was offered to MONSANTO in 1996 when he enacted the ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT, public law number 104-294. That law was signed while America patiently waited for a federal judge's overdue decision as to whether the incriminating study (proving that the lab animals had gotten cancer) would be released. In addition to protecting MONSANTO'S financial interests, President Clinton's act became their insurance policy. That law would have sent any individual to jail for releasing Monsanto's secret study.
The evidence reveals that laboratory animals treated with that milk hormone got cancer. That fact was revealed by Canadian scientists who recently had the opportunity to review the data with unbiased eyes. The same poison is now contained in the milk, cheese and ice cream that Americans consume.
MONSANTO'S genetically engineered bovine growth hormone was approved in November of 1993. Due to the great controversy, a moratorium was placed on its use while the Executive Branch (the Clinton White House) had an opportunity to "STUDY" the issues. The "EXECUTIVE BRANCH REPORT" was issued in January of 1994 and, shortly thereafter, BST was approved.
The White House REPORT, analyzed five years after its issue date, imparts tragedy and comedy, lies and deceit. In issuing its report, the White House arrived eleven conclusions, each one glowing brightly as a beacon of irrationality. Taken together, these eleven conclusions illuminate the massive fraud perpetrated by MONSANTO and the White House. The trail leads from Monsanto to FDA to the Oval Office.
THE WHITE HOUSE CONCLUSIONS, with commentary:
POINT #1 "BST-TREATED MILK IS SAFE BECAUSE IT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM NORMAL MILK."
We know that BST-treated milk and untreated milk are different. Levels of IGF-I always increase in BST-treated milk. That must logically change the conclusion of Point #1. If we assume that BST milk is safe because it is indistinguishable from non-BST milk, then the converse must be true. BST-milk is unsafe and it IS different from non-BST milk.
POINT #2 "INCOME FOR INDIVIDUAL FARMERS WHO USE BST IS LIKELY TO INCREASE BECAUSE BST FAVORS GOOD HERD MANAGEMENT."
There were 140,000 dairy farms in America in 1994 when this report was issued. At the beginning of 1997 there were just 100,000 dairy farms. By January 1, 1999 there were just 92,000 dairy farms in America. Many farmers went out of business due to horrible effects from this hormone. FDA denied that there were adverse effects on cows while actually receiving formal complaints from 500 farmers during the first 12 months following its approval.
POINT #3 "BST WILL LEAD TO LOWER MILK PRICES."
In 1998 the price of butter exceeded $4.50 per pound in many markets. Milk production increased, inventory increased and the price of dairy products soared. This was no typical supply and demand economic theory. Farmers who survived deleterious effects of BST were delirious with joy in 1998, achieving the most profitable year in their history from artificially inflated prices.
POINT #4 "LOWER MILK PRICES WOULD RESULT IN DECREASED FEDERAL COSTS FOR FOOD STAMPS AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAMS."
I do not know who wrote this report, but, as it comes from the White House, I must assume President Clinton had to be aware of it. Doesn't the "buck" stop on his desk? Hey, Mr. President, you're pushing it here. You've lost credibility, yet you're sinking even deeper. In other words, public welfare costs will decrease because we allow MONSANTO the right to distribute a genetically engineered hormone that causes cancer to laboratory animals and makes the milk different? You're pulling my leg, aren't you? Milk prices have INCREASED since BST approval. This has added costs to all of the above programs. Guess who continues to pay the price?
POINT #5 "FEDERAL DAIRY PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM WOULD INCREASE BY APPROXIMATELY $150 MILLION PER YEAR AND DECLINE IN LATER YEARS."
The first part contradicts points #2, #3, and #4. The second part suggests costs will decline in later years. We've heard things like this before from politicians promising tax hikes for next year and then adding, "Don't worry, taxes will decrease in later years."
POINT #6 "SAVINGS IN THE COSTS OF FEDERAL FEEDING PROGRAMS WILL COMPLETELY OFFSET THE CUMULATIVE COSTS OF THE FEDERAL DAIRY PRICE-SUPPORT SYSTEM OVER 10 YEARS."
Federal feeding program? You mean to tell me that the government also feed farmer's cows? The government subsidizes the milk, buys the surplus, gives tax breaks to companies doing research designing chemicals to poison us, and feeds their animals. What's the point? Why not just pay the dairy farmers to come to Washington, D.C., and sit at a desk like the rest of the bureaucrats and do nothing? It would probably save Americans money, and we'd be a heck of a lot healthier.
POINT #7 "CONSUMERS WILL BENEFIT OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS WITH BST USE BECAUSE OF LOWER PRICES."
If you believe that one, I've got a bridge to sell to you. I request that each American consumer give me just one penny saved from a quart of milk. That would add up to 270,000,000 people times one cent = $2,700,000. Turn over the money and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
POINT #8 "NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF DEMAND IS EXPECTED TO RESULT FROM BST USE. SOME CONSUMER SURVEYS REVEAL RESISTANCE TO BST MILK."
The milk controversy resulted in decreased liquid milk consumption, despite more milk moustache ads. However, butter, ice cream and cheese consumption rates soared, as did obesity rates. In 1998, 1.5 billion less pounds of milk were consumed by Americans than in 1997. If every American realizes that the "new milk" contains increased levels of hormones, will milk consumption increase or decrease?
Point number nine is worthy of nomination for a very special classification by itself. The category is "The Environment." This conclusion is a transparent attempt to seduce and brainwash the public.
POINT #9 "BST IS EXPECTED TO HAVE A MINOR, BUT BENEFICIAL NET IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. IT SHOULD LEAD TO A SLIGHTLY SMALLER U.S. DAIRY HERD, AND THEREFORE LESS POLLUTION THROUGH DECREASED USE OF FERTILIZERS FOR FEED PRODUCTION, AND LESS COW MANURE AND METHANE PRODUCTION."
This kind of manure is appropriate for something coming out of the Executive Office. There was a lack of sound reasoning applied by our government scientists when they assumed that fewer cows would result in less flatulence. I wonder, just how many federal dollars did the White House spend to come up with the data for this brilliant deduction? Consider that BST-treated cows will eat more food to produce 20 percent more milk. If they do not eat more food, then they will have to dissolve their own bones and burn up their own muscle and fat to produce that 20 percent more milk product. So, if they eat more food, then they're going to pass more gas. Perhaps we can get the author of this study a job writing for Saturday Night Live, Leno or Letterman.
POINT #10 "BST SHOULD HAVE LITTLE, IF ANY, EFFECT ON U.S. DAIRY EXPORTS. NEARLY HALF OF U.S. DAIRY EXPORTS GO TO COUNTRIES THAT HAVE APPROVED THE USE OF BST, AND MORE COUNTRIES ARE EXPECTED TO DO SO."
The Canadian Health Ministry recently turned down MONSANTO'S application for the genetically engineered hormone. They no longer accept American dairy products.
The European Community also placed a moratorium on the use of BST in their markets until the year 2002. This ban occurred sometime after the publication of this Executive Report. This not only invalidates point #10, but helps to invalidate points #1 through #9 as well. Both bans were done for safety reasons.
POINT #11 "U.S. LEADERSHIP IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, AS WELL AS PRIVATE-SECTOR INVESTMENT FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY, WOULD BE ENHANCED BY PROCEEDING WITH BST, AND WOULD BE IMPEDED IF THERE WERE NEW GOVERNMENT OBSTACLES TO SUCH BIO-TECH PRODUCTS FOLLOWING THEIR APPROVAL FOR USE BY FDA AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES."
THIS WAS ALWAYS MUCH MORE THAN JUST A MILK ISSUE. IT WAS ALL ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING OUR ENTIRE FOOD SUPPLY. MILK WAS JUST THE MODEL. WHEN CANCER POPPED ITS UGLY NAME INTO THE EQUATION, EVERY FAVOR, BOTH POLITICAL AND LEGAL, WAS CALLED IN BY MONSANTO. THE WHITE HOUSE BECAME A KEY PLAYER IN THIS ENORMOUS FRAUD. THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF EVERY AMERICAN HAS BEEN PLACED IN JEOPARDY.
In other words, if we had determined that BST was not safe, we would have hurt the prospects of the new genetic engineering technology. That technology has NOT yet been perfected. In Steven Spielberg's movie, Jurassic Park, we became witnesses to a scenario where errors in genetic engineering caused horrible consequences.
When just one amino acid in a hormone or protein differs from the normal genetic code there can be dire consequences. Sickle cell anemia is just one example. Another example occurs in Alzheimer's disease. The substitution of just one amino acid, phenlyalanine, appears to be the basis for one type of hereditary Alzheimer disease. With BST, improper research developed a product with a resulting gene transcription error. That error surfaced long after all of the research on BST had been performed and submitted to FDA. (Amino acid number 144 should have been lysine; it was manufactured as epsilon-N-acetyllysine, a bacterium amino acid).
The "buck stopped" on Clinton's desk for one last opportunity to reveal an ugly truth. The WHITE HOUSE report became the final obstacle and simultaneous to its release came BST approval.
When laboratory animals became sick, the incriminating data were hidden. When data proved laboratory animals get cancer from BST, the government, in its great display of bureaucratic strength, did not allow such data to be released. "BST-treated milk is indistinguishable from normal milk." Approval was based on this assumption. On page 22 of the 64-page Executive Report the White House wrote:
"There are slight variations in milk fat and milk-protein content immediately after BST treatment."
"The meat from BST-treated cows tends to have a lower fat content."
"A slight shift in the Kjeldahl nitrogen factions (casein, whey protein, and non-protein nitrogen) has been observed."
These were unconsidered clues in a puzzle not yet solved. Combined with the irrefutable fact that levels of IGF in milk increase after cows are treated with BST, this becomes one more White House fabrication in a long series of lies that have become acceptable to most Americans. The two milks were not indistinguishable.
This becomes more than an impeachable crime. Cancer in laboratory animals from an additive now in our food supply portends a new millennium filled with unnecessary suffering.
Robert Cohen (1-201-871-5871)
Executive Director
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/020799.html
http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/bushp.jpg
How big?
John Grisham wrote the best selling novel. Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington starred in the blockbuster movie.
THE STORY
Two Supreme Court justices are assassinated so that an evil oil billionaire can petition the president to appoint environmentally unfriendly justices to America's highest court. It's all about politics, multi-national firms, and dollars.
http://www.notmilk.com/graphics/fraud.gif
TODAY'S PELICAN BRIEF
In 1994, Monsanto Agricultural Company gained approval for their genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. That hormone became the most controversial drug application in the history of America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Monsanto's hormone caused cancer in laboratory animals, and was banned in Europe and Canada. Monsanto's genetically engineered crops continue to make headline news throughout the world, and their patented seeds have become the seeds of controversy.
In the 2000 election, Monsanto donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in PAC money and soft money to political candidates.
The man receiving the second highest total dollars from Monsanto was Larry Combest (R-TX). He got $2000. Combest is the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.
Who got the most from Monsanto? The winner of the Monsanto sweepstakes with $10,000 was John Ashcroft (R-MO). Ashcroft will be George Bush's Attorney General.
Follow the Monsanto connection to George Bush's presidency. This brief will be more convincing than Grisham's Pelican Brief.
FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT
Monsanto's lawyer was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Bush, Sr. The deciding swing voter gave the election to George, Jr. That justice: Clarence Thomas, Esq.
SECOND
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, purchased by Monsanto.
THIRD
Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceuticals, purchased by Monsanto.
FOURTH
Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health, was a supporter of Monsanto in Wisconsin. He received $50,000 from biotech firms is his election run, and used state funds to set up a a $317 million biotech zone in Wisconsin.
FIFTH
Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, was the vice president of corporate strategy at Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company. Eli Lilly and Monsanto developed the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Lilly "owns" the European "franchise." Daniels' presence insures that the bovine growth hormone will one day be approved for use in Europe.
SIXTH
The House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Chairman, Larry Combest (R-TX), named Richard Pombo to head Agriculture's dairy, livestock, and poultry sub-committee. Pombo will have enormous power in chairing this committee.
In 1994, the Dairy Committee considered a bill that would label milk and milk products containing the genetically engineered hormone. The Dairy Committee stalled the proposed bill until the 1994 elections. When the 1994 session of Congress expired, the bill died. It was never even voted upon. A subsequent investigation of Pombo revealed that he accepted money directly from Monsanto while voting on a bill that impacted Monsanto's future, and the future of biotechnology.
SEVENTH
Last, but not least. John Ashcroft, Attorney General. The one man out of 535 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate receiving the greatest amount of financial support from Monsanto. He received five times the amount of money as the congressman finishing second.
Where do Americans finish in this stranger than fiction real-life drama? Last.
http://www.notmilk.com/pelican.html
http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE. http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif