The Vegetarian & Vegan Thread

[kateelle]

sure its marketed propaganda. Tell that to ill people who healed after changing their diet. Right, like unnatural food is superior to healthy natural food. Who are you kidding?

 

[Irene_A]

Guess you haven't studied anything related to science. If so, you wouldn't be saying that. Natural doesn't mean healthy, it means just natural.

 

[Irene_A]

Just to post a few real scientific articles made just with the intention of giving objective information. They are all from NCBI.




Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas A. Laboratory of Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University, 70 El. Venizelou Ave, Kallithea, Athens, 176 71, Greece.

Consumer concern over the quality and safety of conventional food has intensified in recent years, and primarily drives the increasing demand for organically grown food, which is perceived as healthier and safer. Relevant scientific evidence, however, is scarce, while anecdotal reports abound. Although there is an urgent need for information related to health benefits and/or hazards of food products of both origins, generalized conclusions remain tentative in the absence of adequate comparative data. Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet, the significance of this difference is questionable, inasmuch as actual levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate content compared with conventional ones, but whether or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand, no differences can be identified for environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food from both origins. With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized statements. Also, results for mycotoxin contamination in cereal crops are variable and inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but what should be made clear is that 'organic' does not automatically equal 'safe.' Additional studies in this area of research are warranted. At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.

PMID: 16403682 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece.
Apparently, one of the primary reasons for purchasing organic food is the perception that it is more nutritious than conventional food. Given the increasing interest towards organic food products, it is imperative to review the existing literature concerning the nutritional value of the produce, and to determine to what extent are consumer expectations met. There are only few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison and, therefore, compilation of the results is difficult and generalisation of the conclusions should be made with caution. In spite of these limitations, however, some differences can be identified. Although there is little evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in respect to the concentrations of the various micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and trace elements), there seems to be a slight trend towards higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown leafy vegetables and potatoes. There is also a trend towards lower protein concentration but of higher quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops. With respect to the rest of the nutrients and the other food groups, existing evidence is inadequate to allow for valid conclusions. Finally, animal feeding experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are slightly improved when they are organically fed. A similar finding has not yet been identified in humans. Several important directions can be highlighted for future research; it seems, however, that despite any differences, a well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or conventional origin.
PMID: 12907407 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Bourn D, Prescott J. Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. [email protected]

Given the significant increase in consumer interest in organic food products, there is a need to determine to what extent there is a scientific basis for claims made for organic produce. Studies comparing foods derived from organic and conventional growing systems were assessed for three key areas: nutritional value, sensory quality, and food safety. It is evident from this assessment that there are few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison. With the possible exception of nitrate content, there is no strong evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in concentrations of various nutrients. Considerations of the impact of organic growing systems on nutrient bioavailability and nonnutrient components have received little attention and are important directions for future research. While there are reports indicating that organic and conventional fruits and vegetables may differ on a variety of sensory qualities, the findings are inconsistent. In future studies, the possibility that typical organic distribution or harvesting systems may deliver products differing in freshness or maturity should be evaluated. There is no evidence that organic foods may be more susceptible to microbiological contamination than conventional foods. While it is likely that organically grown foods are lower in pesticide residues, there has been very little documentation of residue levels.
PMID: 11833635 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

I hear it all the time that "hormones & chemicals" are bad for us. Does anyone have any scientific proof that this is the case? Cows naturally have hormones in them so why would adding more be bad? Our bodies have evolved to handle the digestion of cow hormones so I'm left to wonder what the problem is?

And preservatives stop bacteria and other micro organisms from growing on the meat. Aren't you worried that meat without preservatives will harbor disease causing bacteria like e coli or salmonella?

Think about this. Prior to 1930, the life expectancy was 59.7 years in the US. This is about when food preservatives were introduced. Now, the life expectancy is 77.9 years and has been steadily rising. So has the use of chemicals, preservatives and other non-natural food additives.

Food additives = longer life

what am I missing?

preservatives do prevent bacteria to grow, that's their function basically. bacteria is hardly a problem today. yes, salmonella and ecoli used to be big problems. they can be easily avoided by simply cooking meat to its fullest.


life expectancy being extended is not because of preservatives. food preservatives were introduced because of the war... Also because of the war, there were lots of technological advances and healthcare (throughout history, war leads to better healthcare). this isn't science, it's history.
as for hormones... they cause have the potential to cause mutations and to trigger unwanted changes. for instance, the hormones that they put into cows, if given to a girl going through puberty, would speed up certain psyciologicall processes while not others. this obviously has the potential to cause many problems.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

Guess you haven't studied anything related to science. If so, you wouldn't be saying that. Natural doesn't mean healthy, it means just natural.

some unnatural foods are beneficial for whatever reasons. however, the problem with unnatural foods is that we have yet to know the consequences of the unnaturalness. the advantage of natural foods is that we know what they can do to us, and thus we have the knowledge to make wiser decisions.

 

[kisa]

since it is the christmas season and alot of people will be having christmas dinner around the table with all the family.

my question is do you just go without the meat part of the meal? or what do you have as alternative?

i usually just get a couple of quorn sausages thrown in for good measure so i dont have to eat all brussel sprouts

I'm going to have all the regular unhealthy christmas stuff. Stove top stuffing, (no meat in it, and not cooked inside a turkey) some green beans, some salad, some mashed potatoes! ...Chocolates!

 

[thebeautybrains]

Scientific proof? Look to the side with the common sense. There is all sorts of diseases associated with chemicals/hormones/pesticides etc. Rationally, how can you think it isnt unhealthy?

Common sense isn't any kind of proof. This is just the kind of thing people say when they have no proof and only have "faith". What are these diseases associated with hormones and pesticides? And by "chemicals" what do you mean? Water is a chemical. Is that bad? Protein, olive oil, peanut oil are all chemicals. What makes one thing a "bad" chemical and another chemical not bad?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that hormones/pesticides/chemicals should be avoided but I need some scientific proof. Not just the marketing garbage made up by some natural, organic corporation who is just trying to sucker me into buying their stuff.

Fearing chemicals without proof is irrational.

 

[thebeautybrains]

Just to post a few real scientific articles made just with the intention of giving objective information. They are all from NCBI.

This is great. You're my hero! You could be an honorary Beauty Brain.

The death of skepticism is the real tragedy in this world.

 

[thebeautybrains]

preservatives do prevent bacteria to grow, that's their function basically. bacteria is hardly a problem today. yes, salmonella and ecoli used to be big problems. they can be easily avoided by simply cooking meat to its fullest.

Not a problem today? Did you miss the recent (October 2006) story about the e coli contamination of spinach in America? Bacteria in the food supply is still a significant problem.

 

[thebeautybrains]

as for hormones... they cause have the potential to cause mutations and to trigger unwanted changes. for instance, the hormones that they put into cows, if given to a girl going through puberty, would speed up certain psyciologicall processes while not others. this obviously has the potential to cause many problems.

Ok, last post for at least a little while. Hormones sound bad, I was just wondering if anyone could provide some proof that they are bad. It's an interesting and logical case you point out. Now, where might I find some reference to hormones in cows speeding up phsyiological processes in young girls?

 

[lcm]

^ yes id like to see some facts on that as well

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

Not a problem today? Did you miss the recent (October 2006) story about the e coli contamination of spinach in America? Bacteria in the food supply is still a significant problem.

vegetables are different. we eat spinach raw, we don't eat beef raw (at least most people don't)

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

Ok, last post for at least a little while. Hormones sound bad, I was just wondering if anyone could provide some proof that they are bad. It's an interesting and logical case you point out. Now, where might I find some reference to hormones in cows speeding up phsyiological processes in young girls?

there was some documentary thing
i'm currently searching through youtube
i'll definately post it if i find it

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

from preventcancer.com

Increased levels of cell-stimulating growth factors, apparently identical to those in humans, have been reported in BGH milk. These could induce premature growth and breast stimulation in infants, and possibly promote breast cancer in adults.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

some more, same source

• Increased bacterial infections in BGH cows will require treatment with antibiotics that will pass into milk. This is likely to result in antibiotic-resistant infections in the general population. Also, the stress effects of bovine growth hormones in cows could suppress immunity and activate latent viruses, such as bovine leukemia (Leukosis) and bovine immunodeficiency viruses, which are related to the AIDS complex and may be infectious to humans.
• Steroids and adrenaline-type stressor chemicals induced in cows by these hormones are likely to contaminate milk and may be harmful, particularly to infants and young children.
• The fat and milk of cows are already contaminated with a wide range of carcinogenic contaminants, including dioxins and pesticides. Bovine growth hormones reduce body fat and are likely td mobilize these carcinogens into milk, with cancer risks to consumers.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

from cbs news

Link Eyed Between Beef And Cancer


LOS ANGELES, Calif., May 20, 2003
(CBS) In feed lots across the country, beef cattle are given growth hormones to make them fatter faster, to save money.

Now questions are being raised about one of the most widely-used hormones, Zeranol, a synthetic estrogen implanted in cattle. A series of tests done for the Pentagon show a possible link between breast cancer and Zeranol.

In the lab, researchers at Ohio State University mixed beef from Zeranol-treated cows with human breast cancer cells and saw "significant" cancer cell growth -- in some cases at levels 30 times lower than the government says is safe.

Concerned about possible long-term effects, they write: "consumption of food ... derived from ... animals treated with Zeranol poses a potential health risk to consumers."

"We know that Zeranol and some of the synthetic hormones used in cattle production are estrogens, and we know that breast cancer is dependent upon estrogen," says Lou Guillette, a biologist at the University of Florida.

In his own research, Guillette examined the effects of hormones coming off cattle feedlots and getting into the water. The study, funded by the European Union, which bans beef hormones, found serious damage to the reproductive systems of fish downstream from a Nebraska feedlot.

"It certainly raises a red flag for us," says Guillette. "What it suggests is that there are very potent hormones that are coming off of these feedlots that are going into the environment."

Andrea Martin, the founder of the Breast Cancer Fund, says there needs to be more research into what women are exposed to that might be causing breast cancer.

"We feel there are preventable causes of breast cancer," says Martin. "In the last 50 years, it's almost tripled, and there's no reason to think it won't keep increasing."

As a breast cancer survivor, Martin says women in particular need to be aware of the risks.

"It's really a matter of women waking up and demanding to know what is in their products in their food. And what effect it has on their bodies," she says.

But the cattle industry says the minute amount of Zeranol found in beef poses no threat.

"My wife and my four daughters eat beef on a regular basis," says Gary Weber, of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "I've reviewed all this science, and I'm confident that beef is safe and wholesome for consumers.

Weber initially said levels of Zeranol found in beef were "57,000 times less, literally, than what the FDA has determined is safe."

However, a day after this CBS report aired, his organization said the figure was wrong. The levels of the drug are 5,700 less than what the FDA has determined is safe -- in effect, 10 times higher than the first estimate.

The manufacturer of Zeranol says the drug is FDA approved as "safe and effective" and adds, "there has been no demonstration that Zeranol affects the development of breast cancer in humans or animals."

The FDA tells CBS News it's waiting for the results of a major follow-up study which will track Zeranol levels in women and in store-bought beef.

 

[TheKiwi]

Thanks for the articles.

 

[misssakura]

Common sense isn't any kind of proof. This is just the kind of thing people say when they have no proof and only have "faith". What are these diseases associated with hormones and pesticides? And by "chemicals" what do you mean? Water is a chemical. Is that bad? Protein, olive oil, peanut oil are all chemicals. What makes one thing a "bad" chemical and another chemical not bad?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that hormones/pesticides/chemicals should be avoided but I need some scientific proof. Not just the marketing garbage made up by some natural, organic corporation who is just trying to sucker me into buying their stuff.

Fearing chemicals without proof is irrational.

Do bear in mind that a lot of these chemicals aren't 'naturally' found in the planet. They're artifical lab chemicals, created by men.

 

[Bel]

Also, maybe nobody has proven that pesticides and other chemicals are bad for the individual who consumes them, but I think it's pretty much a fact that they are bad for the environment. And even if nobody has "proven" agricultural chemicals are bad, we still don't know that they aren't harmful. We do, however, know that organic farming is safe.

Anyway, I've been wanting to become a vegan... kind of just for the heck of it. Has anyone else ever felt like that?

 

[adorefaith]

Anyway, I've been wanting to become a vegan... kind of just for the heck of it. Has anyone else ever felt like that?

yes......but i havent done it.........yet