Check out this article I found on Facebook. I checked out the article and it was definitely interesting to read.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033075_milk_ … ation.html
So, what's your take?
Not interested, if your worried about it simple don't drink it
If you weren't interested, then what was your point in posting? Never mind, your response would be meaningless, just like your original post.
@Maddie- Yes, I know, I did read the article.
In all fairness, Cags, I've seen you post on numerous threads of which you had no interest..
As far as the article content, it's not surprising that they find the chemicals that they inject into the cattle to speed their growth, painkillers, etc. That has been a subject of concern for years. I generally stay away from any food which comes from a cow. I rarely eat beef and I drink organic soy milk, usually with cereal.
Well, the article says these hormones/chemicals are in human breast milk too. So obviously we've already got 'em in our bodies from other sources. Certainly the trace chemicals in a class of local organic milk (which is all we ever buy) are less harmful than eating a lot of processed foods that most people don't think twice about.
I couldn't read the article as it is behind a pay wall. if you could perhaps you could share how many of the substances were found in any one sample? Because all 20 were found in total over all samples from all three species (including human). Also at what levels? because we can now detect substances in amounts so minute they are actually harmless. Not having access to the actual data I could tell if there was anything concerning there or not. I mean, most of the positives could have been from human milk which has no legal withdrawal time and which I, personally, don't consume. The babies that do consume it depend on their mother knowing what is safe to take when nursing.
Not sure what you mean?
As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure. I just found the article interesting and wanted to share.
The article is reporting on a research paper that is behind a pay wall.
I suspect it is not interpreting that research correctly, but I have no way to determine that for sure.
Just based on the research abstract it seem that no sample actually contained all 20 substances, that the interpretation that it "could" is speculative at the very least.
I suspect the people who wrote the article may not have even read the research paper they are basing it on.
Like my uncle says milk is for baby cows and thats my take on it too dont drink the stuff
But do you also not eat it? (bread, custard, cookies, cheese (pizza), cheetos, canned tuna (yes, really), milk chocolate, scrambled eggs, pancakes, processed meat,butter, most margerines, ice cream etc etc).
The was a place that offered human breast milk ice cream for a brief time.
I do the same rebekah, Organic all the way, even my beef is range fed and no added additives, growth hormones or antibiotics. I never drink Milk, only Soya with my cereals as well. Milk should only be fed to calves from it's mother not for human consumption. Sooner drink goat mik if I was forced to drink Milk.
I drink milk. I think it is a bit poisonous, like the air, every processed food including most bread, meat, eggs, vegetables, herbs, or anything else you put in your face.
In one test marijuana proved to be less harmful than milk.
Milk was made for calves, eggs are meant to become chickens, most vegetables are only in existence through cross breeding inedible weeds and plant species. The inside of a modern home is a concoction of highly toxic chemical emissions from all the wonderful new fixtures and fittings, the oil you cook in becomes carcinogenic, the same happens if you use a wok without oil, the food become somewhat less carcinogenic if you flash it very quickly, bit it still ain't perfect.
Ya gotta die of somethin!
Interesting link by the way.
I wonder if that could be achieved with an all-bean diet?
When the time comes I will consume a large meal of beans and soda, then read the religion sub-forum for 72-hours straight before lighting a large cigar. That should do it.
I eat a lot of beans, yet have not combusted, although there is usually a gale force wind blowing through my home. Even my cat Dennis spends most of his time out of doors in protest.
There's no polite way to say this: I found the article to be mindless Scare-of-the-Month-Club tripe, with some scientific buzzwords thrown in to impress the Great Unwashed. Take the following quote:
"Traces of other drugs, such as lipid regulators, anti-seizures, beta-blockers, antibiotics and various hormones (such as ethinylestradiol and estrone) were found as well."
You could probably make a similar statement about water from any major river in the U.S. So what? There's an ancient saying that puts the whole thing into perspective:
1. "It's the dose that makes the poison."
There's no scientific way to determine an absolutely safe exposure level for the various pharmaceuticals that find their way into river water. Attempting to do so would require sample sizes involving billions of humans, and trillions of dollars. Instead, we attempt to make informed political decisions about these things. Here's an important consideration:
2. Environmental perfection can only be achieved at INFINITE cost.
The adult approach is to focus on the biggest risk factors, and to see what can be achieved at reasonable societal or individual cost. For example, if I were visiting China, I would totally avoid all dairy products there, even though I love butter. Crooked suppliers have been adding melamine to artificially boost the 'measured' protein content of dairy and other food products. Melamine-adulterated pet foods have caused some well-publicized animal deaths in the U.S. Here's the third noble truth:
3. Nothing is 100% risk-free.
Oh yeah, what about 100% pure natural water. I'm glad that you asked. Here's a thought-experiment: Parachute into the middle of Lake Michigan with no supplies of any kind, and wearing only a Speedo. Do you still think that water is 100% safe under all circumstances, and in all quantities?
In the case of milk, you need to balance the risks against the benefits. On the one hand, people with lactose intolerance and/or certain allergies will experience difficulties if they consume dairy products.
On the other hand, milk contains certain essential nutrients. If you're a vegetarian, and you don't take supplementary Vitamin B-12, you have two choices. First you can consume dairy products and/or eggs regularly.
Second, you can sign up for a Darwin Award, which you will receive after several miserable years of living with Pernicious Anemia. And it's no fair to sneak into McDonalds during a 'moment of weakness', when your Vegan buddies aren't looking.
Notwithstanding the 'evil' chemicals in milk, lacto-vegetarians tend to live longer than Vegans. Explain that fact.
by Stacie L3 weeks ago
Has anyone had requests to use your full name and permission to cite your article for their paper before?
by Deidre Shelden6 years ago
Take a look at this article by one of his former college classmates. What do you think? http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-age … 16764.html
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.