Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: parentsfortruth on September 10, 2010, 12:00:42 PM

Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 10, 2010, 12:00:42 PM
I didn't want to post this in the how much does a family cost thread, so I decided to start a new one.

Once you know what is in the "conventional" food, and you know it's poison, things get a lot more expensive, because you can't bring yourself to buy the garbage.

We spend between $600-$700 a month here on food, and sometimes more.

If you understand that buying conventional food will end up costing you more in the long run, especially as far as medical bills go, you'll start to really look at the ingredients in your food and feed your family the way they're supposed to be fed.

I would recommend to everyone here to look up a few docuмentaries about the food. One of the most popular is Food, Inc. That is the most publicized one. You can rent it at the video store.

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

If you want to watch online, I would recommend "The Future of Food" seen here.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html

The World According to Monsanto can be seen here:

http://twilightearth.com/environment-archive-2/the-world-according-to-monsanto-full-docuмentary/

Patent for a Pig can be seen here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669587865067156619#

There is a lot of information here about the milk. This one I consider to be the most valuable one in terms of taking the first step. People talk about how their daughters are going through puberty (thank God mine are not) early. This may answer your questions as to why, and a simple solution of not buying milk with the rBGH hormone in it would be it.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/GMODangers/rGBHinDairy/index.cfm

I'd love to discuss this further if anyone else wants to. I've been researching this for some time.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Alexandria on September 10, 2010, 12:14:38 PM
How long will you be prolonging your life by eating this way?

Some people barely eke out an existence as it is and simply cannot afford to spend any more money on food because there is no more to spend.

Some people have no medical insurance and, by the time they find out that they have a life-threatening disease, they will only have a matter of weeks to live.

Not to attack you, just to give you another perspective on things.

It doesn't matter what you do or don't eat.  You can't change what the Eternal Father has deemed for you.   :pop:
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: EcceAgnusDei on September 10, 2010, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
How long will you be prolonging your life by eating this way?

Some people barely eke out an existence as it is and simply cannot afford to spend any more money on food because there is no more to spend.

Some people have no medical insurance and, by the time they find out that they have a life-threatening disease, they will only have a matter of weeks to live.

Not to attack you, just to give you another perspective on things.

It doesn't matter what you do or don't eat.  You can't change what the Eternal Father has deemed for you.   :pop:


You also have free will and you can choose to eat twinkies every day and sit on the couch or exercise and eat healthy food. God might factor that into your plan or if he doesn't you'll just have to live the length of life God planned for you very sick/unhealthy. So really, eating healthy is worth it and so is spending that extra money for the best quality you can afford. It really makes a difference.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Alexandria on September 10, 2010, 01:24:28 PM
Quote from: EcceAgnusDei
Quote from: Alexandria
How long will you be prolonging your life by eating this way?

Some people barely eke out an existence as it is and simply cannot afford to spend any more money on food because there is no more to spend.

Some people have no medical insurance and, by the time they find out that they have a life-threatening disease, they will only have a matter of weeks to live.

Not to attack you, just to give you another perspective on things.

It doesn't matter what you do or don't eat.  You can't change what the Eternal Father has deemed for you.   :pop:


You also have free will and you can choose to eat twinkies every day and sit on the couch or exercise and eat healthy food. God might factor that into your plan or if he doesn't you'll just have to live the length of life God planned for you very sick/unhealthy. So really, eating healthy is worth it and so is spending that extra money for the best quality you can afford. It really makes a difference.


I knew that my post would be misunderstood and shouldn't have gotten involved in this.

Such are the times in which we live.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 10, 2010, 02:43:01 PM
I agree with you Alexandria.

Eating on a tight budget doesn't mean eating Twinkies, but it does mean drinking the milk on the store shelf rather than buying raw milk from the local farm (we have that choice here, but paying over 2x more just isn't an option). It does mean buying the pesticide-laden celery & peaches (top 2 produce in terms of pesticide content, btw), washing them well, and praying such doesn't kill you rather than buying the organic ones. Although, I do keep an eye on produce prices as depending on sales & seasons, the organics sometimes aren't much more.

Meat is one I haven't figured out. We buy our meat at a local meat market rather than WalMart, but I really don't know to what extent it's any different. The prices at the meat market are the same if not cheaper and we're supporting a local business. I've seen one organic, grass-fed operation in the area, but you have to buy 1/2 a cow minimum and we don't normally eat the more expensive cuts of meat -- mostly just hamburger -- so it would be way more money for us.

When an organic product costs about the same as a non-organic product (I see this sometimes, cereal is probably a good example), it usually means the non-organic really isn't that bad for you anyhow. I'll grab the organic one when the price is the same (this usually has to do with having a coupon for the organic item).

There are plenty of useful tips out there for eating better on a tight budget. I'm sure PFT can give us some tips in that respect even if her family thinks raw milk and grass-fed beef (those are just examples, I could be totally wrong about what she actually buys) are worth the cost while some others would disagree... even after watching Food Inc!  :wink:
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Matthew on September 10, 2010, 02:44:38 PM
Alexandria is right that some people can't afford anything other than the cheapest food. Coupons are only for processed food -- you don't get a coupon for "buy 1 lb. carrots, get a pound free!" More like "50 cents off Red Baron frozen pizza".

It's true that none of us, rich or poor, should eat based on taste. Many things that simply taste good are horrible for you. High Fructose Corn Syrup-laden soda and MSG-loaded flavored potato chips come to mind. Those things aren't cheap, either!

Moving on to the world in general (NOT speaking about Alexandria here!  :wink:)...

In fact, many poor people eat MUCH WORSE than they need to. I've seen countless poor families load up their carts at Wal-mart with junk food, potato chips, cases of soda, blue/green/red jugs of artificial drinks (0% fruit juice) and so forth. Some even go so far as to buy alcohol and cigarettes! They certainly can't blame their bad health on their income, since many of those things cost QUITE A BIT! Some people are even dumb enough to buy single serve packages of food/snacks/drinks.

Just like there's no excuse for a poor person's house to look like a dump. Throwing away garbage doesn't cost you anything. Bleach/water/newspaper/paper towels are pretty cheap. If you can't afford paper towels, use old towels or rags. Go to garage sales and buy old clothes and use those to clean. It doesn't cost ANYTHING to pick up a broom and dustpan, or to put your used clothes in a box or hamper or something. Baking soda is dirt cheap, and will solve cat urine and other odor problems. When there's a will there's a way. Some people just "don't care" (they don't have the will to live clean) but decent people WILL care.

I even believe it's charitable to dab some baking soda under your armpits if you're going to forego deodorant as a penance -- there's giving up vanity, and then there's consideration/charity for others! Baking soda is a perfect compromise -- you smell neutral, but you don't smell fragrant. Baking soda is dirt cheap.

Padre Pio lived under the vow of poverty -- but you can bet his cell wouldn't have been described as a "s###hole" or a dump. It was simple, spartan, frugal, poor -- but there's never an excuse for "dirty". He didn't have food crusts on the floor, old pizza boxes, stinky robes from last week in piles on the floor, piles of junk on his desk -- you get the picture.

We aren't supposed to scandalize our clean Puritan-protestant brethren. Being Catholic doesn't mean living in chaos, disorder, filth and germs. The Jesuits actually dealt with THIS VERY PROBLEM when they tried to evangelize India. The Portuguese ate more meat (and had body odor to reflect this) and didn't bathe much. The Indians bathed often and ate a completely different diet. It was a huge (and un-necessary) obstacle for the Indians' conversion to the Catholic Faith.

Read about Roberto De Nobili:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_de_Nobili

Matthew
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 10, 2010, 02:53:03 PM
I'm not sure you could have gotten much further off the topic of food.  :smile:
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Cheryl on September 10, 2010, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: EcceAgnusDei
Quote from: Alexandria
How long will you be prolonging your life by eating this way?

Some people barely eke out an existence as it is and simply cannot afford to spend any more money on food because there is no more to spend.

Some people have no medical insurance and, by the time they find out that they have a life-threatening disease, they will only have a matter of weeks to live.

Not to attack you, just to give you another perspective on things.

It doesn't matter what you do or don't eat.  You can't change what the Eternal Father has deemed for you.   :pop:


You also have free will and you can choose to eat twinkies every day and sit on the couch or exercise and eat healthy food. God might factor that into your plan or if he doesn't you'll just have to live the length of life God planned for you very sick/unhealthy. So really, eating healthy is worth it and so is spending that extra money for the best quality you can afford. It really makes a difference.


I knew that my post would be misunderstood and shouldn't have gotten involved in this.

Such are the times in which we live.


I understood you perfectly dear.   I've always tried to eat healthy and raised my children the same.  But sometimes, outside or even inside influences (husband) don't help. But that aside, as whole foods become trendy, they become expensive.  I never thought they I would see the day, that dry pinto beans would cost over a dollar a pound, ouch!  When the food budget is small, the best way to go, is ethnic grocery store shopping. Those expensive grocery store pintos are half the cost at the Latino market.  Low sodium soy at an Asian market is the same price for a liter than the eight ounce bottle at your local supermarket. Farmers' market are good options, but even cheaper than that, roadside stands.   If you can, grow your own. I grow enough tomatoes, beans, and hot peppers in a very small backyard to put up for the winter.   There's always a way around most things darling, you just have to find it.   And a few prayers don't hurt either. :pray:    
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 10, 2010, 03:02:19 PM
Here's a tip (we did this a few times this past summer)...

Go to the farmers market, but don't necessarily buy off the table. Ask if the have any "rejects" they'll sell for less. Matthew brought home a big bag of Roma tomatoes for about 1/2 price. They had all split with a sudden weather change, but were really perfectly fine for eating in their entirety. We cut a few of the splits away, but they were very superficial.

He also picked up a few "overgrown" cucuмbers for less than asking price. They weren't quite as tasty as a perfectly-sized one, but the difference was very minimal. (and you got more cucuмber, too!)

You might have to call the farmer the day before and make sure they bring you some "junk" to buy. Some produce is more worth this effort than others -- I think fresh, organic tomatoes are WAY worth it!  :ready-to-eat:
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: CathMomof7 on September 14, 2010, 10:09:55 AM
Personally, I think we have all become overly obsessed with our food.  We are spending far too much time worrying about whether this will kill you, if this has pesticides, if these are grown with hormones, if this, if that.  Enough.  For most of us that live on a very tight budget and/or food stamps, we have very few choices.  We simply cannot purchase fresh fish 5 days a week at the local market.  Last week I bought fresh Alaskan Whitefish.  It was $20 just for two of us.  I can't afford organic anything unless it's on sale and even then I'm not certain it's that much better.  What I can do is buy my produce from local farmers, which is what we do in the growing season.  That is quickly coming to a close.  We have also eliminated all junk food and sodas.  We don't eat out unless we absolutely must.  When I can, I buy whole chickens which usually aren't pumped up with hormones to make 4lb breasts.  I don't buy ANY prepackaged food like macaroni and cheese, boxed rice, boxed potatoes, etc.  I do buy prepackaged pasta noodles though.  I make my own bread, except for sandwich loaves because I can get that cheaper.  I buy dried or fresh beans.  We purchase our eggs from a friend who has a farm--I only buy grocery store eggs if necessary.  We can buy fresh milk here, but it is very expensive.  We can't afford $40 a week for milk.  

We are totally aware that the food industry in America is a product of government intervention and big corporations.  It's suppressive to the poor.  It's one sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.  God will hear our cries.  Until then, we must all do the best we can.  But we can not stop paying our mortgage to buy expensive food so that we can live healthier lives.  We must do the best we can, try harder, think rationally, and pray to God to end this insanity.  

Buy local when you can.  Stop frequenting McDonald's, Burger King, Applebee's, etc.  Grow a garden.  Befriend people with farms.  Plan carefully.  
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 14, 2010, 11:51:58 AM
I've been busy schooling and worrying about the primary election, so I've not been here much. I will try to be brief.

First, people complain about how their young daughers are going through puberty early--- that issue is MOSTLY LINKED TO MILK. So when you say you don't worry about the hormones in the milk, then don't complain when your daughter has her period at 8, 9 years old. I'm trying to give solutions, not cause you a headache, cause you to obsess, or cause you to spend more of your hard earned money.

When I warn about the pesticides, if you are not worried about it, then don't complain when one of your children comes down with severe asthma or very bad allergies. Those are two effects of pesticides.

Third: Lots of people complain about illegal immigration. Two reasons why food is cheaper not organic: 1) Illegal immigrants pick it rather than the farmers and their small amount of hired hands themselves, and 2) Government subsidies. Our tax money is going to subsidize the big gigantic farms, and by buying their stuff, you give them more power, and fewer options for yourself. You are casting a vote every time you buy food.

It's not just the health effects we should be concerned about. The people writing the laws as what is GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) are the big multinationals that are pushing all these chemicals and genetically altered food.

Every year, in a city south of where I live, the science teacher does an experiment with rats. One group of 3 rats per cage is given genetically modified VEGETABLES, the other is given organic vegetables, for 3 months.

The first group, one of the rats inevitably ends up dead, and they are quite frequently fighting with each other.... hardly normal behavior for rats. The other, acts normally, as rats normally act.

If this experiment illustrates anything about RATS, WHAT could it be telling us about the attitudes of our children.

As the old adage says, "You are what you eat."

Sometimes I can't buy organic. Certain items organically grown are scarce, and very expensive, even when in season. Some things are just completely out of the question because of their cost. You just do what you can do... and it makes it a lot easier if you do it a little at a time. Start with milk, for instance. That's what my parents did, and my dad swore up and down that he couldn't afford organic on his limited income. He does now. He found a way.

God finds a way. Sure, you might not get AS MUCH food as you were getting before, but you learn to mortify yourself by not having as much and getting by with what you CAN get. I mean, you don't starve yourself getting the stuff, but you can manage it if you pay attention and stay within a budget. Get things when they're on sale. I do that especially with granola. You watch out for coupons, and use them when you can. It can be done.

I'm not making a blanket statement. Many probably cannot afford it, but really, most people can afford it. They just have to know how to be creative.

Making a menu for the week is also a good way to be able to control what you spend. Instead of getting mercury laced soda and juices, get organic juices and serve GOOD OLD WATER (FILTERED water, get it in the gallon jugs and refill them at the store if you have a dispenser for reverse osmosis) instead of sugary drinks. Drinks are expensive and unnecessary! Instead of getting MSG laden boxed meals that cause nervous system problems (it's been proven!) get something else. Those conveniences can get expensive too.

Cook in bulk when you can. Freeze things so that you make one meal and you package the leftovers individually, so you can thaw them and spend no time on cooking for a few nights.

Get veggies and fruits when they are in season. And canned stuff is super cheap (even organic stuff is really reasonable.)

The "well something is going to kill you eventually" argument is really tired out. People say that about cigarettes too, and alcohol. This is something you actually need. We know the government is allowing these things to sterilize people, to infect people... They're thinking of adding VACCINES to corn in stealth because of how cheap it is, they can make it into syrup and starch and add it to just about anything! But if you KNOW they're doing this, and you know it's going to affect you (EVEN NEUROLOGICALLY) I don't know how you can NOT try to avoid it.

/endrant
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Alexandria on September 14, 2010, 11:57:48 AM
I find people like you tiresome as well, PTF.

Unless you have walked a mile in someone's shoes, don't presume to know what "most people" can and cannot afford.

Would that everyone cared as much for the purity and spotlessness of their souls as they do about the food they eat.

Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 14, 2010, 11:58:32 AM
Quote from: parentsfortruth
First, people complain about how their young daughers are going through puberty early--- that issue is MOSTLY LINKED TO MILK. So when you say you don't worry about the hormones in the milk, then don't complain when your daughter has her period at 8, 9 years old. I'm trying to give solutions, not cause you a headache, cause you to obsess, or cause you to spend more of your hard earned money.


Sorry, I don't have time right now to read through your whole post, but wanted to ask about this...
Is growth hormones in milk really that big of a deal TODAY? I would have to HUNT to find milk that doesn't say rbst-free. And, I buy the cheapest milk on the shelf.
Is this only true in this area or is this becoming a remote issue?
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: CathMomof7 on September 14, 2010, 05:36:18 PM
Quote from: parentsfortruth

 I'm trying to give solutions, not cause you a headache, cause you to obsess, or cause you to spend more of your hard earned money.

/endrant


No, you are not.  In Truth and Charity, I am confronting you.  You are overly obsessed with food and the things that are going into your body and you are trying to convince us of the same.  

Gluttony: According to the Baltimore Catechism, gluttony involves more than just eating too much.  It also involves being overly concerned with our food--complaining because it's not what we want or what we think is "healthy".  Obesity falls under this category of course but so does anorexia.  Worrying about how many hormones are in our milk or how many pesticides are on our potatoes, in my opinion, is really treading closely here.  

We should be more concerned with our souls getting to heaven than with our bodies living on this earth.  Of course, I don't mean we should neglect our bodies.  On the contrary, that too would be sinful.  We are only asked to do the best we can and be responsible.  God requires us to make reasonable choices.

If you are eating corn, rice, soybeans, etc. chances are your are eating genetically modified food.  So what can you do about it?  Quit eating these things or quit thinking about it.  Does it really matter anyway?

As for the early puberty in girls....clearly weight is a factor.  I was looking at girls yesterday at the elementary school where my 6 y/o daughter has cheerleader practice.  They are huge.  Why?  Because AT LEAST 4 days a week they are eating crap from fast food places.  The local Catholic school does not have a hot cafeteria and the children eat from Pizza Hut, Burger King, Subway, and McDonald's.  This is promoted upon registration.  A few kids pack lunch but most just order out.  

Also, chemicals in clothing, plastics, and cleaning products are known to be causing early puberty.

Also, study after study after study links social family roles to early puberty in girls.  Girls who have no father at home are KNOWN to go into puberty early.  Other stress factors at home are also indicated.  

Also, the entire water system is filled with estrogen from birth control pills, antibiotics from the pills we take regularly for infection, and God knows what else from the medications old people pee out in the toilet.  My mother takes 3 meds for her anxiety and/or depression, 2 meds for "pain", something to help her sleep and a blood pressure pill.  Are we supposed to all boil our water now before we drink it???

Look, I don't mean to offend, but this is obsessive.  Is our environment affecting our lives and health?  Yes.  But we can only do so much.  

80% of the world's population lives BELOW the poverty line.  BELOW.  

If you look at the U.S., 77% of families whose household actually makes more than 60K a year are TWO INCOME FAMILIES.  One income families fall between 30K and 50K a year, with about 15% falling below 20K.  I can ASSURE you these people are NOT looking for places to by hormone free milk.  They are picking up checks at the WIC office.  

We live in a technological age.  95% of Americans shop at the supermarket.  Very few people know how to grow their own food, can, or bake from scratch.  This includes lots of modern Catholics.  Our family is just trying to survive.  

In case you don't get it yet--we make less than 50K a year.
15% of that income goes to pay our health insurance premiums. 30% goes to pay our mortgage and property taxes (we are lucky).  Currently, 12% of our income goes to food.  
Almost 50% of our income goes just to pay for 2 things--a roof over our heads and visits to see the Dr.  We struggle and the LAST thing I'm going to do is spend twice as much on milk, meat, and vegetables because I'm overly concerned that my tomatoes have pesticides on them and I might develop allergies.

Wanna know what really causes allergies and diseases???  Our inadequate immune systems.  We are so concerned these days about what we eat, who we are exposed to, and how clean our kitchen counters are that our bodies can build natural immunity to common bacteria--BECAUSE we AREN'T EXPOSED anymore.

Now, MY rant is over...sorry all.




Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Emerentiana on September 14, 2010, 05:38:14 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: parentsfortruth
First, people complain about how their young daughers are going through puberty early--- that issue is MOSTLY LINKED TO MILK. So when you say you don't worry about the hormones in the milk, then don't complain when your daughter has her period at 8, 9 years old. I'm trying to give solutions, not cause you a headache, cause you to obsess, or cause you to spend more of your hard earned money.


Sorry, I don't have time right now to read through your whole post, but wanted to ask about this...
Is growth hormones in milk really that big of a deal TODAY? I would have to HUNT to find milk that doesn't say rbst-free. And, I buy the cheapest milk on the shelf.
Is this only true in this area or is this becoming a remote issue?


This may come as a surprise to all of you, but MiLK should be eliminated  or sharply curtailed  from the diet of children after they get their eye teeth.  The old testement people had a weaning ceremony when the child was weaned from the breast.  It never drank milk again!
Yes, there are growth hormones in milk that are there for the calf!  They are detrimential to a growing  body.  
No child  or adult either.should be drinking glasses of milk.  A little in cereal, a little in cooking and coffee......thats it!  Will save a bunch on the grocery bill.
Juices should always be diluted beefore serving  (1/2 water).  The sugar content is to high.  They should be drank slowly, and each mouthful swished in the mouth before swallowing.  
Good old water is what everyone should be drinking!  No one seems to get enough of it.
Drink water or any liquids 20 min before ot 20 min after a meal.......not with the meal.  Liquids dilute the digestive juices in the stomach, preventing  proper digestion of food.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Matto on September 14, 2010, 05:45:23 PM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Good old water is what everyone should be drinking!  No one seems to get enough of it.

As an aside, my brother once drank too much water. He drank so much that it caused his body to become too watery and not salty enough, which somehow makes your nervous system unable to work properly. This caused him to pass out, bang his head, and have to go to the hospital (or at least this was the doctors' theory as to why he passed out, based on tests they did).
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Emerentiana on September 14, 2010, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Emerentiana
Good old water is what everyone should be drinking!  No one seems to get enough of it.

As an aside, my brother once drank too much water. He drank so much that it caused his body to become too watery and not salty enough, which somehow makes your nervous system unable to work properly. This caused him to pass out, bang his head, and have to go to the hospital (or at least this was the doctors' theory as to why he passed out, based on tests they did).


That can happen, Matto,
I liter a day for an adult is sufficient.  Excessive water consumption overloads the kidneys and interferes with electrolyte balance in the blood.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Alexandria on September 14, 2010, 06:00:08 PM
CathMomof7

Everything I wanted to say and you said much better.   :wink:   :wink:
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Telesphorus on September 14, 2010, 06:13:57 PM
Fresh milk is without a doubt one of the healthiest foods for people of Northern European descent.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Emerentiana on September 14, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
    THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS
                       Robert M. Kradjian, MD
           Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
            Seton Medical Centre #302 - 1800 Sullivan Ave.
                      Daly City, CA 94015 USA

"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of
hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who
cared for you--and you appreciated their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with
emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we
were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken.
It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's milk
or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the
young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even
several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of "dairy
products" such as cheese, butter, and yogurt.

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of
healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages
that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body." Our dieticians insist
that: "You've got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?"
School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will
have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for
years that dairy products make up an "essential food group." Industry
spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of
milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for
schools. Cow's milk became "normal."

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on
planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them
can't drink milk because it makes them ill.

There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use
for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing
number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets
altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk
and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all
the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we
trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are
nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their
professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The
first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to
study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the
world's scientific literature on the subject of milk.

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there
were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine'
archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the
article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt
exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than
horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an
excellent food, free of side effects and the 'perfect food' as we have
been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation,
intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children
as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of
viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well
as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and
white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was
also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and
tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and
childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around
heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious
questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what
occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what
happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as 'hunter-
gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to
study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but
the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no
doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total
absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are
not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are
programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors
of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.

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.

WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE

Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk
per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this
accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and
specialized breeding; that's how.

The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone
or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk
production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does
not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers:
Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have
been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking
the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns.
One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that
the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel,
but I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A
related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent)
in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues
of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is
uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth
hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for
public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and
because the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The
country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can
consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens,
because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese,
or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991,
the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a
year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports,
May 1992: 330-32).

Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes
antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk
contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain
limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to
contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per
millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know
this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells
where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the
point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial
cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect
you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the
FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from
drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in
dairy cows.

As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's
perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the
safest product we have."

Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of
milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other
antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest
and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in
Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action
Healthletter, April 1990).

What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems.
However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria,
the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our understanding of
the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can
detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test
detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called
the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per billion.

One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever
getting infections around the udder that require ointments and
antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives
penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7
milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of
cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An
elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow
cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know
what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the
milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the study, all concealed with language such as
"macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.

IT GETS WORSE

Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed
that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by
pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are
meat and--you guessed it--dairy products. Well, why not? These
pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products.
(Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half
the levels of contamination).

A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the
breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of
women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical
literature describe problems. Just scan these titles:

1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2
(1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J.
Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906 3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign
Protein in Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt
appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-
fed! The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are
transmitted to the infant.

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported
on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253).
They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be
used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use!
Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of
Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of
acute gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron,
recurrent abdominal pain, milk-borne infections and contaminants, and
said:

Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many
of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to
recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are
available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human
nutrition to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the
first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency
anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink
an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute
gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.

I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after
infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution
to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other
diseases.

In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in
history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and
specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his
quotation:

I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the carton
has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for
babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the
breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I
haven't found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive.
And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or
economic profit involved.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella,
E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old
days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to
those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural."
This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all
cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to
raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I
would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales
where raw milk is still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne
diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483,
1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia
enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety
precautions.

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study
reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990,
describes a "...significant positive correlation between consumption of
unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes
mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative
relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and
diabetes risk.".

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher
levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-
140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study:

We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is altered in
children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their
immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the
permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than
normal.

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study
contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent
diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The
incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to
children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant
increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of
milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a
grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in
Pakistan? I don't believe that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking
here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is
strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This
study is a major blow to the "it's all in your genes" crowd. Type I
diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now
this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors
of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered
viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two
authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may
have had something to do with the disease.

The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of
Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles
Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto
and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's
highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate
of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out
of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the
United States.... Antibodies produced against the milk protein during
the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and
destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing
diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142
Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every
one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein
as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging
auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400
children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no
dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may take
10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other,"
according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain
that the breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the
results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein
in the mother's breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the
diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer,
the president of the association says: "It does not mean that children
should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw
dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein." (Emphasis
added) My God, it's the "good protein" that causes the problem! Do you
suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes
Association in the past?

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!

I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more
than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about
80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of
course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--if the pasteurisation was
done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly
collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from
two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully
monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014).

This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored
the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from
infected cows' milk from the rest of the milk. Several European
countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull"
the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be
the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We
are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela
according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in
Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public Health.

As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation.
Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these
occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk
processing plant an accidental "cross connection" between raw and
pasteurized milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would
pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How can you assure the
people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion
of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it
would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases blossoms
in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of "leukemia clusters"
elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco
Chronicle involving Northern California.

What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the
bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question and the answer is not
reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia.
This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and
chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion (both
intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are
obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know
that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of
human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is
disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to
humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles?

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect
the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of
human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case!
Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically
higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in
Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked
with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have
higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have
significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes
from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by
passing directly through the intestinal wall.

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the
Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective.
Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily
the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater
in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia
produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white
blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested "a need to
re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on
the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits
only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this
business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added
emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is
an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the
Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the
political pressures are too great. You're on you own.

What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing
leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human
leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this
one:

1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human
Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80 2.Milk of
Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981):
1014 3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine
Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant.
75:182-186; 1985

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those
drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence
of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March
1990.

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S.
Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27,
1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein
Consumption". Many people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr.
Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption
in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15
countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that
order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The
difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8
grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold
difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling
increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease
patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic
protection' seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in
frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to
the USA)!

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the
Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the
first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around
this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the
Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between
deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries
analysed. A few quotations from his article follow:

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the
recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be
one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following
manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of
antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane.

This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these
fragments gain access "Chronic immunological stimulation causes
lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid
cancers in men." The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial
barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies
to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants.
Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy,
hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been
conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are
released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of
all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses
are still antigenic and can still cause disease.

Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the
British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000
individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers
there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However,
in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds
were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of
developing a lymphoma.

There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At
this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products
and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency
virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to
England and causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been
known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been
started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains,
to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like
carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice
backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease,
swept Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate
animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have
been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to
500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is
concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while
some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several
farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE
and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease). But the British Veterinary
Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of
cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from
the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the
importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and
claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However,
there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at auction
yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too
ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are "down." If
they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by
chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they
are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death is usually
denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well
as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have
developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE.
Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in
Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow
virus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows."

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled "How
Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-30) describes cases of BSE
in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit
that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The
result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be
up to three decades, wait we must.

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is
more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human
AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV
proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The
extent of the virus among American herds is said to be "widespread".
(The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to
this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the
infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure
for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows
infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the
products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as
being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993.

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992,
Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a
horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum
of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition
to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of
89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26).
The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However,
it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in
the animal kingdom.

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was
associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial
Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole
milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk
users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the
risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous
investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed
data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant
positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita
milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of
milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose
(lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same
conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of
Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of
the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention
Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage
habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell
Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15,
1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole
milk.

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese
men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop
fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total
fat intake is the difference.

There are not many reports studying an association between milk
ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great
interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found
in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate
cancer patients and comparable control subjects:

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had
a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking
whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis
that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is
the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows'
milk?

It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple
preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best
two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids
(proteins).

Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about
calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us
against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with
calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These
are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere
with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H egsted in
England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution
of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of
dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis.
He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given
below.

Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and
especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the
development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared
recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our
dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given
three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin.
Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the
axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important.
Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the
absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people
living on a natural diet without milk.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at calcium, look at
protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an
exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total
calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their
osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive
group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein
diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium,
about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis
despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged
periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they
develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as
Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is
modified by diet.

To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?"
The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium,
from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy
vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones
(after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses.
Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems
that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their
genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent
life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion
humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think
osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people
would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly
consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant
determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and
lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades.
Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH

Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure
you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good
guy”" when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in.

As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein--"liquid
meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual
fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much
protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am
aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing, Jan.
1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National
Research Council. Of interest, the current editor of this important work
is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco.

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily
revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is
0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only
45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also
know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by.6g/kilo
per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case
you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get
by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a
half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein.
Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no
cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the
antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore
virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a
protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained
over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain
malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat
intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to
fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The
dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should
know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%)
in mammals.

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal
carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-borns with the
enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often
extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a
disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream
without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose
and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus
additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose.

Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to
metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is
Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must
drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to
the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At
least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It
was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and
the ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the
survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to
digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to
drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of
the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned
humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose
it?

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent
innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly
has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and
relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair
skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than
does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that
area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from
sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the
ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival
advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the
only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of
lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people.

How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to
90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose
intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea,
gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in
such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk
industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as
many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung
up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)

What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all
lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria
and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance.
Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have
dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the
composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).

One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content
and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel
disorders.

The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is
known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its
irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature
abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,
increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in
cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of
blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is
also the leading cause of childhood allergy.

LOW FAT

One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere
question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it?"

The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low fat. The term
"low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk
contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is also
misleading. This refers to weight. They don't tell you that, by weight,
the milk is 87% water!

"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat milk!" I hear
this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: "What do you put on your
cereal?") True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative
overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not
need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose
and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as
noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that
routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our
bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent cause of osteoporosis.
Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or
almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned about
calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same calcium concentration
as milk.

SUMMARY

To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk
products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and
because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become
accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides
down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us
and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught
us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've
heard it described "to die for".

I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He
didn't smoke or drink, he didnÂ’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was
nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You
guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a
lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire
quart -and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice
cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite
some expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which
left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional
strokes and d ied several years later never having left a hospital or
rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.

So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the
scientific evidence that it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk
will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and safety.

Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows'
milk. You can too.

It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since childhood
to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food." I'll guarantee you
that it will be safe, improve your health and it won't cost anything.
What can you lose?

  (Article courtesty of Dr. Kradjian and http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILKDOC.HTM)



Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 15, 2010, 01:01:05 PM
Cathmom,

I may not have seven children yet, but I am in a similar situation, so being really rabid when saying that I'm overly obsessing about what goes into my body is very judgmental.  

Since we're talking about how much we make now, we make less than $30,000. I have five children, and one is mainly still nursing.

I don't drink tap water. Ever. I get the reverse osmosis water (which takes the vast majority of contaminants out of the water) from the store for 30 cents a gallon. I know what's in the water. I also know that not all of it can be taken out (not even all the fluoride, no matter what kind of filter you have.) I know what they add at the plant, and what people flush down the toilet. I know that the medication people are flushing gets into the water, and that's why I don't drink it, and certainly not my children.

I live in a "marginal neighborhood," where, if you go a few blocks away, there are a couple of gang houses. When you talk about protecting souls, and that we must be worried about that, I do my best. I homeschool, and I try to go to daily Mass. What I read (and perhaps, forgive me, inferred) is that I should be more concerned about the salvation of the souls that God has put me in charge of,  than what they put in their bodies, and if you read anything that I have posted prior to this, you, perhaps, would see that it is my main focus, however, there is nothing wrong with keeping them away from contaminants I know could psychologically and physiologically damage them. Saying I "obsess" about these things is a very big exaggeration.

For me, having to budget to be able to afford it was a very big task (considering, now, that perhaps even I have less money to work with than even you do), but if you adjust gradually, it makes it easier, at least from my experience. Doing it all at once before you know what brands are the most cost-efficient, is a very big headache, and one that I wouldn't recommend.

I am not trying to point fingers at anyone here, and I believe it's tragic that people could have taken it that way. I'm trying to show you what I've researched, and hopefully it will make it a bit easier to make your decision about what you choose to eat.

Writing off organic simply because it's more expensive, I believe, is a mistake. I'd rather spend $20 more on a product made by workers in the United States, or Wisconsin, even, so that my neighbor could keep his job, rather than buy the cheaper thing for much less and support some big corporation enslaving Chinese people.

Most of the time, saying yes to organics is saying no to globalization, which has gotten the US in the mess it is in right now.

Anyway, if I offended you, Alex, or Cathmom, I'm sorry. People say I am rather blunt, and my writing evidences that.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Alexandria on September 15, 2010, 01:12:01 PM
PFT

Being blunt is not the problem, it is your inability to comprehend that when people say that they have no money, that is what they mean, they have no money.  Don't interpret it to mean what it would mean to you; some people are just having a hard time eating and paying basic bills at the same time.   Some people live on a bit more than what you spend for food in a month.  





Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: wallflower on September 15, 2010, 02:17:46 PM
I don't think that wanting to go organic equals obsession. In a way we have to be "obsessed" nowadays because the food situation has gotten way out of control. We have to relearn everything. With the losses of the homestead and the stay-at-home mom, we have turned to mass production to support us, and with mass production comes additives that are not good for us in order to give food more shelf life. (A sandwich is not supposed to last 2 months! Ew!)

This isn't limited to food either. It's a vicious circle that has gone too far but it's nearly impossible for many people to break out of it, precisely because breaking out of it is more expensive. The nasty chemical toxins used are cheap to produce in a factory, therefore cheaper to use in our food and personal care products, therefore cheaper on the shelf. It's cheaper to create a synthetic nauseating "vanilla" scented "air freshener" out of God knows what chemicals at a manufacturer's disposal than it is to actually sustain a vanilla farm and use true vanilla extracts. It's our reality.

In the long run I think making the switch to more expensive natural foods and personal care products pays itself off (not that anyone is trying to avoid death, but the quality of life is certainly improved), but the problem is that it takes money up front to make many of these changes. We have been making changes around the house but it's slow going because we just don't have that money up front even though we can see that the changes save us in the long run.  

Those who can need to vote with their dollars so that truly natural products can become cheaper with higher supply and demand, but there are many who cannot and who have to wait until that stuff is less expensive. Of course many don't change because they are lazy or stuck on bad habits or stubborn or ignorant, but I know there are some who simply can't afford it. We have to do the best we can and accept that this is the time God placed us in.



 
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Cheryl on September 15, 2010, 09:22:17 PM
Quote from: CathMomof7


Gluttony: According to the Baltimore Catechism, gluttony involves more than just eating too much.  It also involves being overly concerned with our food--complaining because it's not what we want or what we think is "healthy".  Obesity falls under this category of course but so does anorexia.  Worrying about how many hormones are in our milk or how many pesticides are on our potatoes, in my opinion, is really treading closely here.  

We should be more concerned with our souls getting to heaven than with our bodies living on this earth.  Of course, I don't mean we should neglect our bodies.  On the contrary, that too would be sinful.  We are only asked to do the best we can and be responsible.  God requires us to make reasonable choices.



CathMomof7, I can't put my finger on it, can't explain it, but in the two quoted paragraphs above, there's more sense than in the piles of books I've ever read about health and nutrition.  Thank you!
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 15, 2010, 09:26:25 PM
Quote from: Alexandria
PFT

Being blunt is not the problem, it is your inability to comprehend that when people say that they have no money, that is what they mean, they have no money.  Don't interpret it to mean what it would mean to you; some people are just having a hard time eating and paying basic bills at the same time.   Some people live on a bit more than what you spend for food in a month.  







Years ago, if we were in dire straits financially, we could first go to our families, then the church, and if all else failed, we would go to the state for help.

Nowdays it's all backwards. You have people first going to the government, hence, we have unbearably high taxes. This was by design, so that people would become dependent on the system.

That being said, for people making less than what we make here, you would absolutely qualify for the government program foodshare.

Your taxes are already paying for this "benefit." It makes no sense anymore to not take advantage of it if you can, because most of us have been supporting this program for some people that don't even need it, for many, many years, and it's about time, if you haven't looked into this option already, to take advantage of it.

The government has been subsidizing the agricultural industry for years, keeping huge farm commodities down purposefully to get the food industry dependent on it.

When I was growing up, my father had a heart attack at a shockingly early age (38). For years he suffered with a condition that was caused by Agent Orange (the same people that grow most of the conventional food, and own the seeds and "copyrights" on those genes in the seeds, by the way). For 15 years he fought with them, and by the grace of God, we made it through that time, being able to at least eat, if we had nothing else.

With people losing their jobs, being underemployed, and having their standards reduced, more taxes being collected from average people by the prices rising on things, there is a good case for going and getting what you have been charged for all these years, hence, my belief that people are entitled to it.

If the government is going to make these laws that make us dependent on their assistance despite our fighting to stop socialism, we might as well go after those programs whilst they're still there to take care of ourselves when we don't have enough.

People need to stop being ashamed of going to get help when they need it, instead of biting someone's head off for alerting them to the dangers of what they put into their bodies, like it's the whistle blower's fault.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 17, 2010, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: CathMomof7



Gluttony: According to the Baltimore Catechism, gluttony involves more than just eating too much.  It also involves being overly concerned with our food--complaining because it's not what we want or what we think is "healthy".  Obesity falls under this category of course but so does anorexia.  Worrying about how many hormones are in our milk or how many pesticides are on our potatoes, in my opinion, is really treading closely here.

We should be more concerned with our souls getting to heaven than with our bodies living on this earth.  Of course, I don't mean we should neglect our bodies.  On the contrary, that too would be sinful.  We are only asked to do the best we can and be responsible.  God requires us to make reasonable choices.


I'd just like to know where you're getting this from. I tried to look it up myself, but I couldn't find it. Please provide your source so I can look at it myself. Thanks!

Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 17, 2010, 12:22:22 PM
For those of you that believe me to be obsessed....

What if you were eating a food that contained a contraceptive in it due to cross pollination? What if you were pregnant, and had a miscarriage because of it? If you were eating GMO food, you wouldn't even realize what caused it, would you?

I am not obsessed about it. We have a right to know. The farmers have a right to grow their own seeds. The people have a right not to be serfs for the corporations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ii9ARL4EGg

If you have 12-13 extra minutes, just listen to this guy. Percy Schmeiser. He has been fighting a legal battle with Monsanto for years, because they found on his conventional field, Monsanto's "patented gene" in his plants. Since they own the patent on that gene, Monsanto sued him. Never once did this man use any of Monsanto's seeds. They blew in the wind, and a judge ruled that Monsanto OWNED his entire crop no matter if they were contaminated or not. Further, they took all the canola seeds this man and his wife have been saving claiming they, too, might contain the gene.

This is a very serious issue. Towards the end of his talk, he talks about the plants that are being studied by the drug companies, and genetically modified to contain drugs like blood thinners (imagine if you just had surgery and ate a plant laced with this stuff!) contraceptives, and VACCINES!

I wish some that accuse me of being overly concerned about my health would just look at the evidence instead of throwing accusations at me. It's not like I just found out about this or something. I've done a lot of research on this, and I'm telling you all this because you're human beings that have the Faith! You know what's been done to the Church. You know about the absolute corruption of the government.

I'm telling you this in charity. I can give you tips on how to better be able to afford things, if you want, but don't dismiss me.

I was poor growing up, and I am poor now (thank you God, because how much attention would I pay to Our Divine Lord if I had a lot of money? Only God knows. I really think it was in His wonderful Wisdom that He kept me poor). I'm pretty good at figuring out how to make things work with the little amount of money we do have.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 20, 2010, 12:59:18 AM
Quote from: wallflower
Those who can need to vote with their dollars so that truly natural products can become cheaper with higher supply and demand, but there are many who cannot and who have to wait until that stuff is less expensive. Of course many don't change because they are lazy or stuck on bad habits or stubborn or ignorant, but I know there are some who simply can't afford it. We have to do the best we can and accept that this is the time God placed us in.

 


 :applause:
I know people who fit into each of these catagories and do agree that those who can afford to do so should vote with their dollars. It seems to be many are doing just that ... there are way more options today than there were even just 10 years ago as far as what you can find that's good for you on your average supermarket shelf.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: spouse of Jesus on September 20, 2010, 01:31:30 PM
  before the invention of refrigators, nobody could eat a great variety of food. Some nations could never see an orange. And in places where oranges grew they couldn't eat it always (only in it's own season they could use anything). before the discovery of america, nobody in asia or europe ever tasted a tomato and many other fruits that grew only in america. nobody could export fruits from one Country to another.
  In buddhism eating animal flesh is forbidden. In many cultures milk used to be looked upon as babies food, so no adult could use cow milk. It was for the claf not for a man.
  How is it that they did survive?
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 21, 2010, 01:33:06 AM
What discussions like this boil down to for me is not just "is it bad for you?", but rather, "how bad is it? -- especially compared to all of the other things which are also bad for you."

If there were 1 or 2 or even a dozen things which are out there and should be avoided, it wouldn't take long for even the poorest of people to not have to deal with them as all of the average (or more) income families would simply stop buying what has proven to be bad for them. But, it's not that simple because today almost EVERYTHING has some element that isn't good for you. It goes way beyond food.

We can easily prioritize SOME of the things which are known or suspiciously harmful. One method is if the potentially harmful item costs more and can be done without, just simply avoid it -- an example would be cell phones for most if not all people. Another target area is places where the opportunity to avoid something harmful is just as attainable as the harmful variety -- avoiding HFCS and MSG in any processed foods you use is approaching this point.

After that, I'd need to know what things are the MOST harmful in order to decide which I might put money towards when/if I have it available. How do you know which is worse -- pesticide-laden produce or hormone-filled milk or contaminated tap water or lab-produced household cleaners or ... ??? The list goes on and on and even those with a bit of income to spare toward such things haven't a clue as to where they'd get the most bang for their measly buck.

(As an aside, I received in the mail today the quarterly magazine from the college I attended. Their annual symposium this year is entitled "Food for Thought" including a lecture by Paul Roberts and showings of Super Size Me, Babette's Feast, and Food Inc.)
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: treadingwater on September 21, 2010, 12:05:01 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici

Meat is one I haven't figured out. We buy our meat at a local meat market rather than WalMart, but I really don't know to what extent it's any different. The prices at the meat market are the same if not cheaper and we're supporting a local business. I've seen one organic, grass-fed operation in the area, but you have to buy 1/2 a cow minimum and we don't normally eat the more expensive cuts of meat -- mostly just hamburger -- so it would be way more money for us.



You should try buying half a cow Usually ends up being cheaper per pound for the cow, than buying ground meat at the store.  When you buy half a cow you pay a specific price per pound no matter what the cut. The meat  tastes much better. We started buying our meat from a Amish butcher half a pig or half a cow, and our meat bill has gone down significantly and we are eating ny strip steaks and delmonicos .  Cost per pound for half a cow or pig is about $2.30 give or take a few pennies.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: treadingwater on September 21, 2010, 12:08:14 PM
Quote from: parentsfortruth


First, people complain about how their young daughers are going through puberty early--- that issue is MOSTLY LINKED TO MILK. So when you say you don't worry about the hormones in the milk, then don't complain when your daughter has her period at 8, 9 years old.
/endrant


And soy formula...
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 21, 2010, 12:15:09 PM
Quote from: treadingwater
Quote from: MaterDominici

Meat is one I haven't figured out. We buy our meat at a local meat market rather than WalMart, but I really don't know to what extent it's any different. The prices at the meat market are the same if not cheaper and we're supporting a local business. I've seen one organic, grass-fed operation in the area, but you have to buy 1/2 a cow minimum and we don't normally eat the more expensive cuts of meat -- mostly just hamburger -- so it would be way more money for us.



You should try buying half a cow Usually ends up being cheaper per pound for the cow, than buying ground meat at the store.  When you buy half a cow you pay a specific price per pound no matter what the cut. The meat  tastes much better. We started buying our meat from a Amish butcher half a pig or half a cow, and our meat bill has gone down significantly and we are eating ny strip steaks and delmonicos .  Cost per pound for half a cow or pig is about $2.30 give or take a few pennies.


The place here is $5.75/lb minimum. That price is for the whole carcass -- 400 lbs. Less than that and the price is higher per pound. (Maybe they get that price because they don't have any competition??)
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 21, 2010, 11:56:11 PM
Quote from: treadingwater
Quote from: parentsfortruth


First, people complain about how their young daughers are going through puberty early--- that issue is MOSTLY LINKED TO MILK. So when you say you don't worry about the hormones in the milk, then don't complain when your daughter has her period at 8, 9 years old.
/endrant


And soy formula...


Ugh yes, yuck.

That Silk brand of milk used to be one of the most profitable organic producers of Soy Milk, but DEANS bought them out and ruined that. They began using Chinese soybeans, and never changed the labeling, but thanks to the Cornucopia Institute, they're exposed and were ordered to change their labeling.

If people are in the very sad situation of not being able to breastfeed, the best milk besides yours is goat's milk.

Soy is absolutely disgusting. Read this story about a Vietnam War vet that wanted to eat healthier, and thought a liter of Soy Milk a day was the answer...

Boy was he wrong.

In fact, Matthew posted this story a while back. Here it is.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Eat-soy-watch-your-manhood-slip-away
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: CathMomof7 on September 22, 2010, 06:59:51 AM
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: CathMomof7



Gluttony: According to the Baltimore Catechism, gluttony involves more than just eating too much.  It also involves being overly concerned with our food--complaining because it's not what we want or what we think is "healthy".  Obesity falls under this category of course but so does anorexia.  Worrying about how many hormones are in our milk or how many pesticides are on our potatoes, in my opinion, is really treading closely here.

We should be more concerned with our souls getting to heaven than with our bodies living on this earth.  Of course, I don't mean we should neglect our bodies.  On the contrary, that too would be sinful.  We are only asked to do the best we can and be responsible.  God requires us to make reasonable choices.


I'd just like to know where you're getting this from. I tried to look it up myself, but I couldn't find it. Please provide your source so I can look at it myself. Thanks!



Baltimore Catechism No. 4.  Q. 59

Specific quote: ""Gluttony" is the sin of eating or drinking too much. With regard to eating, it is committed by eating too often; by being too particular about what we eat, by being too extravagant in always looking for the most costly things, that we think others cannot have. With regard to drinking, it is generally committed by taking too much of intoxicating liquors. The drunkard is a glutton and commits the sin of gluttony every time he becomes intoxicated. Gluttony, especially in drink, comes in a manner under the First Commandment, because by depriving ourselves of our reason we cannot give God the honor and respect which is His due."

As for the comment regarding anorexia being a form of gluttony:  I recently had this conversation with my priest.  My mother is obsessed with food.  She won't eat what I cook, even though it is good for her.  Instead, she is obsessed with how her body looks.  When she's starving after 3 days of not eating, she binges on Cheese Nips--will eat a whole box in about an hour.  This obsession is what the sin of gluttony is all about.

Many people look at sin very narrow-mindedly.  They say "gluttony" and automatically think "obese."  But many things fall under this category.  Drinking too much alcohol is also considered gluttony.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: sedetrad on September 22, 2010, 08:17:48 AM
I ususually find that those that rail against healthy food and eating are those that could stand to lose a good amount of weight. When I was in Europe, I saw very few fat people and zero obese people. I walk around my state of NC and half the people are either fat or obsese. Something needs to be done. The sad part is that the most obese people that I see walking around are women.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Belloc on September 22, 2010, 09:27:15 AM
Quote from: sedetrad
I ususually find that those that rail against healthy food and eating are those that could stand to lose a good amount of weight. When I was in Europe, I saw very few fat people and zero obese people. I walk around my state of NC and half the people are either fat or obsese. Something needs to be done. The sad part is that the most obese people that I see walking around are women.


that said, in 2 months, lost 25 lbs myself and hope to continue, down to at least 200 lbs, if not less!!!! I weighed ( :shocked:) 245 early June, weighed mylsef last night, at 220 1/2
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Telesphorus on September 22, 2010, 09:48:00 AM
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: sedetrad
I ususually find that those that rail against healthy food and eating are those that could stand to lose a good amount of weight. When I was in Europe, I saw very few fat people and zero obese people. I walk around my state of NC and half the people are either fat or obsese. Something needs to be done. The sad part is that the most obese people that I see walking around are women.


that said, in 2 months, lost 25 lbs myself and hope to continue, down to at least 200 lbs, if not less!!!! I weighed ( :shocked:) 245 early June, weighed mylsef last night, at 220 1/2


Wow, congratulations.  I did something similar a couple years ago, down at my lowest to 199.  But I've been gaining a lot recently.  (I'm up higher than you by several pounds now).  Keep it up, you're on a roll.

I think the key to dieting is first getting started, and second, not getting sidetracked.  I think if a person is ten to twenty pounds higher than his ideal weight he must simply resolve to fast with slackening until the weight he is within his margin of safety.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: sedetrad on September 22, 2010, 02:15:58 PM
Good job Belloc!
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: Belloc on September 22, 2010, 02:24:49 PM
Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: sedetrad
I ususually find that those that rail against healthy food and eating are those that could stand to lose a good amount of weight. When I was in Europe, I saw very few fat people and zero obese people. I walk around my state of NC and half the people are either fat or obsese. Something needs to be done. The sad part is that the most obese people that I see walking around are women.


that said, in 2 months, lost 25 lbs myself and hope to continue, down to at least 200 lbs, if not less!!!! I weighed ( :shocked:) 245 early June, weighed mylsef last night, at 220 1/2


Wow, congratulations.  I did something similar a couple years ago, down at my lowest to 199.  But I've been gaining a lot recently.  (I'm up higher than you by several pounds now).  Keep it up, you're on a roll.

I think the key to dieting is first getting started, and second, not getting sidetracked.  I think if a person is ten to twenty pounds higher than his ideal weight he must simply resolve to fast with slackening until the weight he is within his margin of safety.


did have a pasta dish last night and some dessert, fasted this AM, about 500 calories for lunch and nothing since...gotta watch out as next 2 days, going to wedding and rehersal dinner, a lot of food and some fattening there......
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: treadingwater on September 22, 2010, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: treadingwater
Quote from: MaterDominici

Meat is one I haven't figured out. We buy our meat at a local meat market rather than WalMart, but I really don't know to what extent it's any different. The prices at the meat market are the same if not cheaper and we're supporting a local business. I've seen one organic, grass-fed operation in the area, but you have to buy 1/2 a cow minimum and we don't normally eat the more expensive cuts of meat -- mostly just hamburger -- so it would be way more money for us.



You should try buying half a cow Usually ends up being cheaper per pound for the cow, than buying ground meat at the store.  When you buy half a cow you pay a specific price per pound no matter what the cut. The meat  tastes much better. We started buying our meat from a Amish butcher half a pig or half a cow, and our meat bill has gone down significantly and we are eating ny strip steaks and delmonicos .  Cost per pound for half a cow or pig is about $2.30 give or take a few pennies.


The place here is $5.75/lb minimum. That price is for the whole carcass -- 400 lbs. Less than that and the price is higher per pound. (Maybe they get that price because they don't have any competition??)


That stinks!  Look around the place I use dosen't advertise kind of a hidden treasure, the advertised "organic places" are super pricey.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: MaterDominici on September 22, 2010, 09:13:28 PM
Quote from: treadingwater
That stinks!  Look around the place I use dosen't advertise kind of a hidden treasure, the advertised "organic places" are super pricey.


Yea, this place doesn't really advertise either ... I happened to be at the post office at the same time he/she was and copied down the phone number off a sticker on their truck.  :laugh1: There's probably others out there that I just don't know about.
Title: Regarding food and expenses.
Post by: parentsfortruth on September 23, 2010, 05:26:10 PM
Quote from: CathMomof7
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: CathMomof7



Gluttony: According to the Baltimore Catechism, gluttony involves more than just eating too much.  It also involves being overly concerned with our food--complaining because it's not what we want or what we think is "healthy".  Obesity falls under this category of course but so does anorexia.  Worrying about how many hormones are in our milk or how many pesticides are on our potatoes, in my opinion, is really treading closely here.

We should be more concerned with our souls getting to heaven than with our bodies living on this earth.  Of course, I don't mean we should neglect our bodies.  On the contrary, that too would be sinful.  We are only asked to do the best we can and be responsible.  God requires us to make reasonable choices.


I'd just like to know where you're getting this from. I tried to look it up myself, but I couldn't find it. Please provide your source so I can look at it myself. Thanks!



Baltimore Catechism No. 4.  Q. 59

Specific quote: ""Gluttony" is the sin of eating or drinking too much. With regard to eating, it is committed by eating too often; by being too particular about what we eat, by being too extravagant in always looking for the most costly things, that we think others cannot have. With regard to drinking, it is generally committed by taking too much of intoxicating liquors. The drunkard is a glutton and commits the sin of gluttony every time he becomes intoxicated. Gluttony, especially in drink, comes in a manner under the First Commandment, because by depriving ourselves of our reason we cannot give God the honor and respect which is His due."

As for the comment regarding anorexia being a form of gluttony:  I recently had this conversation with my priest.  My mother is obsessed with food.  She won't eat what I cook, even though it is good for her.  Instead, she is obsessed with how her body looks.  When she's starving after 3 days of not eating, she binges on Cheese Nips--will eat a whole box in about an hour.  This obsession is what the sin of gluttony is all about.

Many people look at sin very narrow-mindedly.  They say "gluttony" and automatically think "obese."  But many things fall under this category.  Drinking too much alcohol is also considered gluttony.


Cool, I'll answer this.

1) I don't eat too much.
2) I don't eat too often. I eat just like a normal person would. Breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner. On Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays we don't eat meat. On Wednesdays, and Saturdays, it's to honor Our Lady by completely abstaining. We fast on Fridays.
3) I am not being "too particular" about what I eat. I will eat anything that is actually food. If I am visiting someone, I will not refuse to eat what they give me. I buy what I know to be food. What is not food, or has been tampered with genetically, I won't PURCHASE with the money we have. That's not being particular, that is being rational.
4) I don't buy too extravagantly. I buy, again, what is actually food. I don't buy caviar, or bon bons, or a lot of chocolate. That would be extravagant. On a very rare occasion, we'll buy ingredients for a special dessert, like the one I made for the bake sale this Sunday. Or the tiramisu that I plan on making later this week. But we don't buy extravagant things like king crab or lobster or tenderloin. We buy reasonably priced FOOD.
5) I don't drink alcohol. At all. None. I don't drink wine, I don't drink beer. I put a little wine in my cooking now and again, or I'll use a little chocolate liquor in my tiramisu, but I don't drink.

I agree that if you offer your mother nutritious food and she refuses it, then that is wrong. As I said, I don't refuse what someone makes if I'm visiting their house. When I visit my parents, I eat what is put in front of me, I don't complain. I just visited a friend today and she asked me if I minded what she was serving, which was unnecessary for her to ask, but kind, nonetheless. She bought pizzas for the children and they had no MSG in them so that was nice of her to think of that. :)

Thank you for posting this. It's a good thing I'm not doing any of these things.