|
2005/04/27, 12:08 PM
How much of an influence are hormone-"enhanced" foods (like beef, poultry, etc) in our(bodybuilders)diets? Am I taking in detrimental amounts of estrogens by eating so much protein, enough to warrant buying only organic meats????
|
|
|
|
2005/04/27, 12:37 PM
Not enough to amount to any thing. Several years ago, there was a big panic that with all of the meat that BBs eat, they were going to get false positives in drug tests. After numerous tests, it was proven to be much a do about nothing; the levels just aren't there. And there are tons of other estrogen mimikers out there in the environment to worry about than in food.
--------------
Michael
Nothing personal.... Strictly business.
|
|
2005/04/27, 01:16 PM
Aw crap :(
I had just written a great response and my internet connection crashed!
:angry:
rev8ball's got it covered though!
I raise a few beef and a heard of dairy cows. There are very strict pre-consumption regulations in place to protect us from such things. All "additives" (hormone, steroid, antibiotic) given to animals must be past their effective life before the animal can be processed for consumption.
Some animals do go to auction before they have metabolized the product but they can't be processed until it's out of their systems.
I believe the primary responsibility lies with the processors. Not likely they'd risk processing an illegal animal as it could cost them their business. And I would say probably 99% of cattle farmers are above board with anything they give to their animals as they may also lose their livlihood if word gets out that they sent an unfit animal to slaughter.
What the "fear tactic committees" want you to believe is that if isn't organic it isn't safe. That's a falacy.
It costs organic farmers more to grow their beef to marketable size so it costs you more to buy it. That's the only real difference for beef. I don't have experience with chicken or pork farming but I can't imagine standards are much different.
Just my 2-bits! :big_smile::love:
|
|
2005/04/28, 12:19 PM
Swell - thanks for the response. I've seen a few T V programs lately that say there's all kinds of creepy effects from hormone transference, but then of course they're selling a product (like mexican wild yam, etc) that remedies everything again.
|
|
2005/05/05, 04:43 PM
hormomes in food?!?! what?!!?
|
|
2005/05/07, 08:58 AM
?
|
|
2005/05/08, 06:14 PM
Me again! - I recently learned that the same applies to pestacides. Grown produce can't be marketed if it isn't safe for consumption. Canada and the US have VERY strict standards. In fact there are now arguements that non-organic produce may be better overall.
"Food" for thought!
febreze & marshy22 - what's up? (and why don't you have profiles??)
Basically some animals are treated with hormones or steroids to grow bigger in less time. Some are also treated with anti-biotics if they get sick or hurt. Some people in our world would have you believe that these treatments will affect you too if you eat the animals. None of these will reach the consumer so it's a bluff tactic on the part of the people who want to tell you otherwise.
|
|
2005/05/09, 01:37 PM
I have to strongly disagree with you on this one artemis. I suffer from a very rare condition that was most likely brought about by my immune system being subjected to pesticides, preservatives, dyes, hormones and antibiotics that are used in todays agricultural/food industry. Over time my body has become hyper sensitive to these foreign bodies and when consumed it reacts with violent and sometimes life threatening allergic reactions.
Because of this I am limited to organically grown produce and free range meats that are pesticide, hormone and antibiotic free.
Granted people like me are a very small percentage of the overall big picture but to say it's a bluff tactic is far from reality, at least for me and the roughly 200,000 people who share my disease.
By the way no offense was taken I am just giving my side of the story LOL.
|
|
2005/05/11, 08:49 PM
That's very odd.
I feel for ya!
But you even say yourself "...most likely brought on by..." which means noone has been able to give you an absolute answer as to the cause of the problem.
Maybe the regulations are less strict in the states? I know for a fact that the produce and meats in Canada that go out to consumers have to be free of all the processing "stuff". We can't sell our animals or our crops until they are "drug free", so-to-speak. It's not legal.
MIND YOU - just because 99% of farmers are honest law abiding creatures there is always going to be that fringe element or fringe risk that someone is going to process illegal animals. With that in mind some with a condition like yours would definitely be wise to go organic.
See - Even despite my feelings towards the "organic" fad I'm not completely ignorant to possibilities! :laugh:)
I still say that for the "average" person the go-organic hype is nothing more than a scam.
ONLY personal opinion!
:love: No offence intended and none taken!! :love:
|
|
2005/05/11, 08:51 PM
oops! paragraph three was suposed to read "someone with a condition" not "some with a condition"!
:surprised:
|
|
2005/05/13, 11:42 PM
Sivysivy,
I have a disease called Systemic Mastocytosis.
In layman terms, too much histamine floating around in my body which in turn causes allergic/anaphylactic reactions to the above mentioned items as well as tons of other stuff.
Most physicians I have spoken with (and there were many) believe the causes of the mutation which results in the disease itself stem from the pollutants, additives and various other chemicals that we are being exposed to since the turn of the 20th century.
I encourage you to see a physician since your immune system is definately not something to be taken lightly.
What happened to the good ol' days when all we had to worry about was the Plague, Typhoid, Smallpox, etc. LOL!!!
|
|
2005/05/13, 06:51 PM
what about the farmers that feed their cattle plastic and/or cement dust to fatten them up faster for slaughter? or the fact that commercially raised cattle live and eat from their own feces and rarely move shortly after birth? or that there are studies out there that arent' funded by the cattle industry or food manufacturers that state exactly the opposite when it comes to rBGH or antibotics? or that the FDA and USDA allow cancer and pneumonia among many other diseases to be allowed to stay on an animal at slaughter/sale?
alot of these can be stated for crops as well. some other issues are irradiation, fugicides, genetically modified/engineered foods, processing practices, chemical additives, artificial flavoring, etc.etc.etc.
keep in mind i'm talking mainly about commercial farming and cattle raising, many of the local farmers still follow the practices of their fathers and grandfathers while using new methods that are not only safe but also humane. here's a tid bit: do you realize that an average mcdonalds burger is made from as many as 6,000 different cattle from as many as 6 different countries....mmmm mmmm good!
-referenced from fast food nation by Eric Schlosser
|
|
2005/05/13, 07:15 PM
i read that book.. pretty scary stuff
wash your strawberries before you eat them :(
|
|
2005/05/13, 08:51 PM
I don't honestly know what sort of commercial cattle farmers would be that corrupt. Or risk their entire livelyhood on such tactics. If you ever got caught doing that up here you'd be shut down faster than you could blink. None of the feed lots I am familiar with stoop to such cruelty. Plastic and cement dust will not fatten cattle. Come on. All that'd do is kill them. Cement mixtures are toxic! And the cattle at the feed lots that I've been to get to move around and definitely don't eat their own feces (at least not any more than your average eat-walk-poop-eat-walk-poop kind of cow!) I don't know where these studies you are referring to were executed but I've never seen or heard of anything that crazy.
(FYI - I have no doubt what-so-ever on the McDonalds info! And I'm STILL a recovering, occasionally faltering, McD's addict!)
Did you check out who those studies WERE funded by? you only stated who they WEREN'T funded by. Does PETA & Co. come to mind?
I will refrain from letting my feeling come shining through because this hits VERY close to home for me. I'll just ask that we all be very careful about supporting and believing what is presented in "studies" that use fear mongering as a tactic to influence the unsuspecting masses. It's like the folks in Canada who want you to believe that we are losing our grizzly bear populations because of the hunters (definitley not because of the ever expanding urban sprawl). Just different tactic to gain support for different causes.
We've actually had PETA reps show up at our farm. Amazingly ignorant group of people (I don't mean ALL PETA members, just the ones who showed up here). Don't get me wrong - PETA has it's collective heart in the right place - but their educational studies and reference material is scary. It's like reading science fiction!
:big_smile:
Anyhow - everyone has the fundamental right to believe whatever we choose so I'm get down off my soapbox!
Over-and-out
:big_smile:
Erika.
|
|
2005/05/13, 09:34 PM
Artemis,
You are indeed correct that the experts are not sure of the root cause of my affliction. I can tell you that when eating Supermarket bought meats, vegetables and fruits my body literally tries to kill itself by reacting with the residues of various chemical/medications found in the foods. On the flip side I can eat all of the same foods provided they were raised naturally and/or organically.
I guess I am a decent example of what "can" happen despite the fact that these enhanced foods are considered safe.
For all you Northern Exposure fans out there you can think of me as Free trainers own personal Mike Monroe (the bubble man)LOL!
|
|
2005/05/13, 10:19 PM
Luvthemtorts-
I was wondering what kind of problem you have. I have been having autoimmune problems and was wondering if this might have something to do with it. Thanks-> S
|
|
2005/05/14, 01:59 PM
I think a lot of the times these things matter to sensitive people. Even if someone doesn't have a full blown disease, they still may be very sensitive to additives. Thanks for the information.
|
|
2005/05/14, 06:01 PM
artemis you mentioned scare tactics, yet the big business industry uses these as well to scare people into believing their mis-information.
the food manufacturers tell us that organic raw milk will kill us because of the ecoli that could possibly be present. they also tell us that if we were to grow crops organically and not use pesticides, herbicides and fugicides that we would not only run out of food, but also that the crops wouldn't even survive in the first place. the drug manufacturers use scare tactics probably more than another big business group out there. the best example is hormone replacement therapy and the fact that they consider menopause a DISEASE! another good example is when you hear the crestor commercial that states "when diet and exercise don't work, ask your doctor about crestor"......WHAT! when have a good diet and adequate exercise NOT worked?
as sensational as much of what i've stated sounds, it's unfortuately true. the conditions of commercial cattle farms are so disgusting that it still shocks me whenever i find out something new. the cement dust and plastic are just the tip of the iceberg...and how do they keep these poor animals alive on such a terrible diet? tons and tons of antiobiotics..........hmmmm does this sound familiar in reguards to humans? feed US a terrible enough diet then medicate us until we finally get sick from it and then WE die.
|
|
2005/05/14, 09:08 PM
Aw crud - I got signed out - sorry about that!
E.
|
|
2005/05/14, 11:23 PM
the plastic and cement dust are added because of a study that showed by feeding cattle cement dust and other heavy objects that their slaughter weight was increased by 35%.
the antibiotics are mainly used to stave off the sickness and disease caused by cattle eating a diet that they cannot effectively digest, which is grain based. they are also fed feather meal, pig and fish protein as well as chicken manure...which all by the way are not grass....which is what cattle were designed to eat. the antibiotics are also used in a general sense much like ours are, by that i mean other infections and diseases caused by many other factors are treated by large doses of rumensin and tylosin (among many others that i couldn't dig up during research).
as for milk, i've discussed this subject many times on this site with little appeal...mainly because milk is so emotionally tied to us and our mothers. the reality is that paseurization, homogenization, packaging and all of the emulsifiers, extenders, phosphates and hydrogenated oils make this one of the most nutritionally devoid and potentially dangerous food products on the market....yet to this day, it is still advertised as a health giving food. calcium is derived from RAW milk because it has the necessary enzymes present to break it down (glactase), but when milk is pasteurized, all enzymes are destroyed leaving the calcium non-available. this can also be said about the vitamins, minerals and fats as well...and speaking of fats, the heat from the process causes them to become rancid. any type of rancid material in the body can be considered toxic and will most likely recieve an immune system response that can show up in countless ways.
this information is referenced from:
Dear God, Don't EAt That! Parts 1 and 2 by Noah Hittner via www.ptonthenet.com
Discover How Your Beef is Really Raised Parts 1 through 4 by Michael Pollan via www.mercola.com
You Are What You Eat Audio series by Paul Chek
Metabolic Typing Diet by William Wollcott and Trish Fahey
the study that states the 35% weight gain is on mercola.com as well, i'll just have to find it again to post the actual reference. the information that i present on milk can also be referenced to numerous studies, articles and other published works for those interested.
|
|
2005/05/14, 11:28 PM
oh as for the plastic and cement passing through the system...how hard do you think that would be on our system if we were to ingest it? more importantly, what would we have to do to keep ourselves alive afterwards?
|
|
2005/05/15, 01:41 PM
nellyboy - This has been fun but I'm done arguing. You can believe whatever you want. Want to know why?
It's a US thing and for the most part you're info is just as accurate as mine.
I found the answer I was looking for and it supports both of our statements.
What you are talking about could actually happen with less stringent regulation. And this is the case in the US.
There is a HUGE difference with raising, handling and processing cattle in Canada versus the US. This is the reason/cause for our disagreement.
In Canada an animal can not be sold without a regulation coded eartag. Actually it can't even be on your property without an eartag if it's over a month or so of age. That eartag contains access to information on the animal's genetic parentage, it's date of birth, where the animal was raised, how many times it has been sold (and to whom), etc. Canadian cattle producers get inspected regularly and there are huge fines if an animal is on site without a registered ear tag. And our regulations are getting more stringent as we speak. The new tags that we are now legally required to use (only came out within the last year or so) contain chips that can be scanned at an auction house or by a vet. Anyone interested in purchasing an animal can get the information associated to a specific tag and if they do purchse the animal they are legally required to change the ownership information of the tag. The seller must report the sale and the new owner must report the purchase. Further to this all animals sold at auction are scanned pre-sale. If the processor finds anything odd at slaughter you can be sure that the producer is in big trouble. This includes stomach content. If an animal's stomach or organs are bloated or over-sized they investigate. Again you can rest assured that the person who sold the animal is in a heep of trouble. Animals are tested for chemicals as well (hormones, steroids, antibiotics) and can not be processed or sold if contaminated. And of course this again will get the producer in trouble for sending an animal to auction that was not clear. Additionally, when animals go to slaughter here they are NOT individually weighed while alive. This means that weighty stomach contents is not relevant. The price of meat is dependant on slaughter weight, NOT live weight. So if a person somehow managed to get cattle to eat enough cement mix to increase it's weight by 35% without killing it or if it consumes any other heavy substance for that matter it would NOT affect the animal's value. The cement would affect only the discards, not the meat weight value.
AND the larger the animal is does not make it a better value. The 1000 pound animals are the ideal processing goal. If the animal is too big the cuts of meat are too big and are less marketable. And often if the animal is too big it is also too old and the meat is not prime. Value decreases once an animal is over a certain age and size so monsterous weigh-ins are not to the producers benefit. The estimates are made by experienced cattle handlers. Similar to judges of fitness contests they grade based on what they see and what they know. Also like anti-theft devices in convenience stores the animals are walked past a measured post to estimate their height.
Vet records are also associated with the eartags. You can't use antibiotics on a regular/ongoing basis here.
You mentioned: "meal, pig and fish protein as well as chicken manure" This was made illegal in the 1990. That's the whole issue that contributed to the mad cow scares. And that's a whole other debate! Have you seen the recent footage of the US cattle that are "mysteriously" sick but that they refuse to test for BSE? Anyhow - the livestock feed manufactures in Canada are also regulated and rigidly tested. Yes, fish and chicken meal was used in the past, but not anymore. And we now get paid to voluntarily have our animals tested for BSE in Canada while producers in the US are saying that violates their rights and are refusing to test animals. But I digress.
The info you're sharing about milk is also not accurate for Canadian processing standards but I don't know about hte US. Calcium is available in milk and is digestable to us providing there is adequte fat in the milk. And we can not market a product that may have been rancid - the liabilities are outrageous. Again, I have no idea on US processing and regulating so I can't speek to that. (FYI - unfortunately unless you're a member of that site you can't review the "don't eat that" article.) Every side of an arguement has it's propaganda. You've already agreed to that. In my opinion (not fact - opinion only) that's all this is as well. But I could easily be wrong if US milk standards are less stringent than ours. As for the "How your beef is raised" you win - it's american info.
Funny thing - the US has so far successfully fought similar eartag regulation. Why the US consumers wouldn't force the issue I don't know. It sure opens consumers up for a lot of unnecessary health risks. Scary.
So, interestingly enough, we were both arguing with basically factual information that is non-comparable across the border.
Thanks for the lively debate! It was fun. I'm really sorry to hear of the consumer concerns that seem to plague your cattle industry.
|
|
2005/05/15, 02:06 PM
Wait a minute...
Increase 35% of body weight?
Hold on a second.
Marketable cattle are typically 1000-1200 pounds live weight on average when they go to auction.
So if I took my weenling steer of 850 pounds and helped him gain 35% body weight (255 pounds) all I would have to do is feed him cement? I'd have to feed him over 5 bags of cement!!! How in the world would I be able to feed him that much? Cement isn't absorbed - it would remain in the gut. Eventually his gut would stop working. And that would be LONG before I convinced him to eat 5 bags of cement mix. 5 bags of cement takes up more volume than a cow's stomach can handle.
Even if I fed him lead - I still need 255 pounds of it!
Something is very wrong with that statistic...
:surprised:
AND if slaughter weight was 255 pounds of heavy stuff that makes the cattle even less valueable. It's live weight minus meat weight that matters. So for a cow with heavy guts you're losing even more value per animal.
Nope - that just doesn't add up.
|
|
2005/05/15, 02:34 PM
wish i lived in canada lol
|
|
2005/05/15, 02:45 PM
our country is more concerned with making a profit than they are with promoting human health. it's evidenced by many of the decisions that our so-called "leaders" make. another example is the continued use of aspertame in america...i believe canada has outlawed it. this is the #1 most complained about food product to the FDA every year, yet is still allowed into foods. there are literally 800 page books out there on this chemical proving time and time again that it's unsafe and the reasons for its introduction into our food supply are worrysome...at best. ahhh but it makes so much money for companies like monsanto who in turn spend tons of money lobbying our "law-makers" into allowing this product to not become a banned substance.
|
|
2005/05/15, 02:58 PM
Nellyboy - the profit over safety issues are always scary be it in relation to food, work environment or anything else. Aspertame is an issue here too. I know there is a battle going on to take aspertame off our markets but it's in the "fight-stage" right now and products containing aspertame are still on the shelves. I think you and I see eye to eye on that one. Funny pilots (in Canada at least) can't consume aspertame before flying but we, as non-pilots, can consume it all day long! Hmmm... That can't be good!
You're right. It's more about the vicious cycle of links between consumer markets and politics...
:(
Oh ya - and for anyone with a calculator or a good brain for numbers I apologize for my poor math skills! 30% of 850 pounds is 255 pounds and 35% is 297.5 pounds. I never was good at math! (I really wish this site had an edit funciton!) :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: But I think the point stands that it would be virtually impossible to feed cattle that much "heavy stuff".
|
