# General > General >  Dairy products are causing cancer.

## Rheghead

I've just been reading an article in the Telegraph that a leading scientist has warned that eating dairy products like milk, cream and cheese is linked to cancers.  It could explain why chinese women in China have much lower incidences of breast cancer 1:100,000 compared to 1:12 in the West because chinese diets are virtually dairy-free.

The article goes on to explain how cutting out dairy and other animal products like meat  and eggs can also have a greater beneficial health impact on our health and yet CancerUK has not supported this despite the evidence.

It makes me think that if dairy is causing cancer then will dairy products stand side by side with tobacco as dangeroous substances?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddr...at-cancer.html

----------


## Shaggy

W.H.O. figures claim otherwise but who am i to contest them. As for dangerous foods, i highly doubt there are any dangerous foods, it's more likely to be all the crap and antibiotics that the animals are pumped full of and the plants sprayed with that are dangerous and cause cancer. People don't realise that not everything that gets into the food chain is safe nor do they realise the harm caused by pollution but im not one to preach so i'll get back to my cigar, bacon sandwich and half bottle of whisky laced with vicodin......

----------


## tonkatojo

This subject comes up very often and gets ridiculed by other experts, very often these experts are only experts when their expertise is proven right but then often are proven wrong by other experts who insist they are right. Now the question is who are we to believe, I wait with abated breath (not holding it) for experts to explain.

----------


## Rheghead

What worries me is that dairy products do cause cancer.  Why are chinese women seemingly unaffected by breast cancer?  Are they super human in China but when they come to the west then they seem to suffer similiar rates to western women? It sounds preposterous. Why are the food labellers not telling us the risks involved with drinking milk and eating cheese?  Could eating a slice of brie on a cracker have the same risks to our health as smoking a cigarette?  We'd all be happy to give our child an ice cream but we would never give them a cigarette surely?

Shaggy, you may be right about the injections and hormones may be the reason why dairy is carcinogenic but as the product and the injections are inextricably linked(organic farming notwithstanding) then we need to say dairy is causing cancer.  Our dairy is produced on factory farms now where it is common practice to inject animals to promote growth unnaturally.  We should really avoid the cosy 'farmer Giles' image for farming, that doesn't really exist.

It reminds me of the tobacco industry back in 1950s to the 70s and society was in denial about the risks and health experts denied there was no link to lung cancer but epidemiology studies clearly showed a link.  

What if I could share some similiar epidemiological studies with eating dairy and see if there was a health risk, should people take things a bit more seriously?

----------


## Serenity

This was blatant quackery from the second I read the article. Found a couple good links by quickly googling the scientist's name.

https://davidjwbailey.com/2014/06/02...omment-page-1/
http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/blo...-has-it-wrong/

I think it would be better to believe specialist cancer scientists than a geochemist who basically has gone overboard with a correlation = causation fallacy.

But what are your studies?

----------


## Rheghead

> This was blatant quackery from the second I read the article. Found a couple good links by quickly googling the scientist's name.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddr...at-cancer.html
> http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/blo...-has-it-wrong/
> 
> I think it would be better to believe specialist cancer scientists than a geochemist who basically has gone overboard with a correlation = causation fallacy.
> 
> But what are your studies?


Well Serenity, you gave one link and the other is my original link.  It seems quackery goes both ways with Katherine Albrecht who advocates that implanted chips leads to the Mark of the Beast and has written a book on religious quackery. https://www.amazon.com/Wont-Take-Mar.../dp/0988280213

 Everyone has a grudge and bias I suppose.  

Regardless though, I want to get to the truth about dairy based upon real evidence, I haven't had time to do any research yet, it is teatime still.  I just saw the article in the Telegraph and thought it was disturbing.  I am prepared to come up with a lot of resistance to the thought that dairy products cause cancer given that Caithness is a farming and rural area.  But I just want to get to the truth and if it is all quackery then it is quackery, the science doesn't support it. period.  But if there is truth in any studies done then will you accept the studies and any conclusions?

----------


## Rheghead

The results of my research will probably end in three courses of action.

1.  The links between dairy and cancer are not supported by science so there is nothing to worry about.
2.  There is a link between dairy and cancer and the person chooses to consume dairy whilst knowing the risks. 
3.  There is a link between dairy and cancer and the person cuts down or eliminates the consumption of dairy products.

----------


## Serenity

> Well Serenity, you gave one link and the other is my original link.  It seems quackery goes both ways with Katherine Albrecht who advocates that implanted chips leads to the Mark of the Beast and has written a book on religious quackery. https://www.amazon.com/Wont-Take-Mar.../dp/0988280213
> 
>  Everyone has a grudge and bias I suppose.  
> 
> Regardless though, I want to get to the truth about dairy based upon real evidence, I haven't had time to do any research yet, it is teatime still.  I just saw the article in the Telegraph and thought it was disturbing.  I am prepared to come up with a lot of resistance to the thought that dairy products cause cancer given that Caithness is a farming and rural area.  But I just want to get to the truth and if it is all quackery then it is quackery, the science doesn't support it. period.  But if there is truth in any studies done then will you accept the studies and any conclusions?


I corrected the link. I don't get the point of the ad hominen attack though? I was not calling Professor Jane Plant a quack, but that particular theory she was selling was pure quackery. The link from the above has well sourced references, even if some of her other stuff is a bit out there.

I look forward to you seeing the epidemiological studies you can find.

----------


## Rheghead

> I corrected the link. I don't get the point of the ad hominen attack though? I was not calling Professor Jane Plant a quack, but that particular theory she was selling was pure quackery. The link from the above has well sourced references, even if some of her other stuff is a bit out there.
> 
> I look forward to you seeing the epidemiological studies you can find.


What ad hominem attack??

----------


## Serenity

> What ad hominem attack??


The one implying her article was of no use because of her other views. Now you are just blatantly avoiding addressing any of the points raised though.

----------


## Alrock

Living causes cancer... I've never heard of a dead person contracting cancer, have you?

----------


## Rheghead

> The one implying her article was of no use because of her other views. Now you are just blatantly avoiding addressing any of the points raised though.


Not avoiding anything, don't confuse lack of time to type with avoidance of addressing any issues.  I am of the opinion that if an astro-physicist needs to have his research in his day job  taken seriously then he shouldn't be seen to be giving talks on Ley lines in the evening.   That said, if someone has an opinion based on science then the science should speak for itself.

----------


## Rheghead

> Living causes cancer... I've never heard of a dead person contracting cancer, have you?


I've heard of and known many dead people who have contracted cancer before their time though.

----------


## Rheghead

Here is a study that seems to convey the conclusion that vegetarian and especially vegan diets give greater protection from various cancers.



> RESULTS:
> 
> A total of 2,939 incident cancer cases were identified. The multivariate HR of overall cancer risk among vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians was statistically significant [HR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.99] for both genders combined. Also, a statistically significant association was found between vegetarian diet and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90). When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in both genders combined and for female-specific cancers (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.92). Lacto-ovo-vegetarians appeared to be associated with decreased risk of cancers of the gastrointestinal system (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92).
> CONCLUSION:
> 
> Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer.
> IMPACT:
> 
> *Vegan diet seems to confer lower risk for overall and female-specific cancer than other dietary patterns.* The lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets seem to confer protection from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929

----------


## janeyj

I'll just throw a couple of things into the mix. 

Firstly, my mother had breast cancer which resulted in a double masechtomy. Throughout her life she used talcum powder liberally around her arm pit area.  In recent times it has become known that aluminium (known carcinogenic) is in talc, and many stick deodorants.  Now while I think we should all be open minded with these health scares because our farmers are putting a lot of real nasties into their animals, and crops for that matter, I would say that my mum is more likely to have contracted breast cancer through smothering aluminium on her upper body than drinking a pinta. So folks look for the aluminium free deodorants I say.  Why take the risk?  I wonder if Chinese women use talc? 

My second thought surrounds organic dairy produce.  For over 10 years I have only bought organic milk.  The reasons for this are that I think it's worth the extra few pence per pint to have milk that may have a few less nasties in it than bog-standard milk.  I'm also told that organic pasture has a lot of clover in it and that this helps the cows to produce a lot of extra heart strengthening omega somethings in the milk. I know we can't live in a bubble and avoid all that might affect our health but a few extra pence here and there on certain key things might just help a little.  Oh. and by the way I know an arable farmer who wont eat his own vegetables because he knows how nasty the chemicals are that he puts on his crops!  He keeps his own organic veg patch at his farmhouse. What does that tell us all?

----------


## Rheghead

Oestrogen content in dairy milk seems to be a factor that is worth noting.  It is well established that oestrogen can sensitize tumours.  According to nutritionalfacts.org it seems that increased dairy consumption over the last decades in western diets has had a correlation with advanced pre-onset of puberty and breast development in girls.  Early breast development is linked with increased incidences of breast cancer later in life.  However, girls who drink soya milk or other non-dairy milks seem to display a later onset of breast development with the implication that there were fewer incidences of breast cancer in that group.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-...cious-puberty/

----------


## richardj

Interesting article on http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...-breast-cancer

----------


## Rheghead

I suppose it is not good news for men who consume dairy and meat either.  Research shows that Vegan men who do not eat either meat or dairy have higher testosterone levels and significantly lower levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) which is a risk factor in prostate cancer.  This came as a shock because in popular culture it is considered to be more masculine to be a meat eater when the opposite may be true.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...3-6691152a.pdf

----------


## sids

> This came as a shock because in popular culture it is considered to be more masculine to be a meat eater when the opposite may be true.


Yes Garth.

----------


## sids

> I'll just throw a couple of things into the mix. 
> 
> Firstly, my mother had breast cancer which resulted in a double masechtomy. Throughout her life she used talcum powder liberally around her arm pit area.  In recent times it has become known that aluminium (known carcinogenic) is in talc, and many stick deodorants.  Now while I think we should all be open minded with these health scares because our farmers are putting a lot of real nasties into their animals, and crops for that matter, I would say that my mum is more likely to have contracted breast cancer through smothering aluminium on her upper body than drinking a pinta. So folks look for the aluminium free deodorants I say.  Why take the risk?  I wonder if Chinese women use talc?


Sorry to hear about your mother, but aluminium is the fifth most abundant element on Earth.

Nobody is avoiding aluminium, whatever they're putting up their oxters.

----------


## pig whisperer

Rheghead are you suggesting we become vegans, so apart from not eating meat eggs & dairy  what else does it involve presume you wear plastic shoes etc  tho  I new a vegan that wore leather trousers, that confused the hell out of me

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead are you suggesting we become vegans, so apart from not eating meat eggs & dairy  what else does it involve presume you wear plastic shoes etc  tho  I new a vegan that wore leather trousers, that confused the hell out of me


I just want to know the truth about the risks to health about eating meat and dairy and I want us to come to a consensus by sharing information that is accurate and not tainted by bias or financial concerns.  However, I want to add that I am not trying to sell anything and I have my own bias to this subject but try to control it.  Feel free to peer-review anything that I present as evidence but falls short, I will support any kind of indications or corrections of bias.

I will be also fully supportive of anyone who acknowledges that there is a risk to consuming animal products if the risks are substantiated but chooses to continue to eat them because of a lifestyle choice.  We live in a free society afterall, I'm not a preachy sort of person despite any first or past impressions to the contrary.  Though if someone chooses to act in such a way that flies in full face of good evidence says a lot about a persons moral and intellectual standing.

I use the word vegan loosely as vegans who call themselves vegans have a narrow narrative or definition as to what makes a vegan.  I think there is some leeway in what applies in the definition of what makes a vegan but I prefer to use the term plant-based diet rather than vegan but I used the vegan word for familiarity purposes because I've never been in a plant-based restaurant but I've been in one or two vegan restaurants.  Ultimately I do not get hung up on the useage of the terms to describe people who just eat plants.

For the purpose of this thread to prevent off-topic wander, I just want to focus on the health impacts of eating dairy or/and meat rather than ethical issues regarding animal cruelty in rearing animals for food and clothing.  Health was partly and probably the main reason, enironmental reasons secondly why I decided to cut out dairy and meat.  I feel better for it as well.

----------


## Bystander1

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...20160509108690

----------


## scorrie

I feel a good way to stay healthier is to stick to a good diet of self satisfaction.

Avoid, as Begbie said in Trainspotting, those "Flipping Chemicals"

Make sure to avoid Oxygen, it's a scientific fact that anyone who ever inhaled Oxygen eventually died.

Also best to avoid the Daily Mail, not only are there scaremongering stories on the front pages every other week regarding "lethal" foodsuffs, but there is also a chemical in the newspaper's ink that penetrates the skin, causing less tolerance of people on benefits, immigrants and anybody who is squandering "taxpayer's" money.

As comedian Denis Leary once said when told by a friend that there is a chemical in beef that stays in your body for 15 years after you consume it:-

"Good, I paid for that steak, I want my money's worth"

----------


## Rheghead

This study shows that replacing animal food products with soya based food products like soya milk and TVP will offer protection against breast cancer, especially if young girls are introduced to soya products early in their lives.  Typical reductions in the incidences of breast cancer were 30% and greater protection was observed in women who were high risk or had a family history of breast cancer.

http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/444735

----------


## Rheghead

David Dobbin CEO of United Dairy Farmers warns of a milk industry in crisis as youngsters are drinking more vegetable-based milks due to the health benefits that they offer over dairy milk like lower cancer risk and lower risk of obesity.  In face of that trend he suggested the dairy industry has to make dairy milk more appealing, he offered the following quote 




> “The problem we face is that we have some health professionals who see dairy as the enemy,”


Hang on a minute, why are we being asked to ignore scientific evidence and nutritional advice from experts and scientists?  Why are we being encouraged to drink a product that has a cancer risk and contributes to obesity?  Is the wealth and jobs of farmers more important than our health?  It definitely makes me think of the arguments that global tobacco companies had in the 1950s-70s with their products.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/dairy-...nking-milk.htm

----------


## pig whisperer

how do soya beans become milk, spread, mince etc  just asking

----------


## Rheghead

> how do soya beans become milk, spread, mince etc  just asking


I'm not sure about spread, mince or TVP etc but I've made soya milk at home.  Just soak the beans, mascerate and boil with water and strain out the insolubles.  After cooling it is suitable to use in place of dairy milk.  I think the strained bean byproduct goes on to make soya products like TVP so nothing is wasted.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study that further supports that drinking dairy milk is a risk factor in developing prostate cancer.  Drinking vegetable based milks is not harmful.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704029

----------


## Rheghead

An epidemiology study in post-war Japan shows a 25 times increase in the incidences of prostate cancer in parrallel with huge dietary changes and indicates the cancer causing characteristics of meat, dairy and eggs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12710911

----------


## Rheghead

In this study it was found that a totally plant-based diet, that means cutting out all dairy and meat offered the best chances of life longevity after having been diagnosed with cancer.  Cancer patients will say they'd do anything to have that extra bit of life to be with with family but would that mean they would change their diet to being a vegan?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study which suggests that if girls consume a diet that contains animal proteins then that will cause an early onset of menarche.  Early menarche is related to high susceptibility to developing breast cancer and osteoporosis later in life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20529402

----------


## DSTOTM

English "WESTMINSTER" propganda mate....... Sturgeon has all the answers......... she is the be all and end all.............

----------


## Goodfellers

I personally would rather eat what I enjoy and _maybe_ just _maybe_ shorten my life expectancy slightly. Who wants to live for ever on a diet of lettuce leaves? Not me for sure.

Ps I was a manager on a 140,000 intensive poultry unit and I had vegetarians buying my eggs over free range as my birds only ate a grain based diet. Free range birds have access to insects and worms (meat)

----------


## Rheghead

> I personally would rather eat what I enjoy and _maybe_ just _maybe_ shorten my life expectancy slightly. Who wants to live for ever on a diet of lettuce leaves? Not me for sure.
> 
> Ps I was a manager on a 140,000 intensive poultry unit and I had vegetarians buying my eggs over free range as my birds only ate a grain based diet. Free range birds have access to insects and worms (meat)


Sorry but do you really think a vegan diet is just eating _lettuce leaves_ or are you just trying to prevent people from refusing to buy your cancer causing products or trying to reinforce a false metaphore?  I fully respect anyone's decision to abuse their their own body or play Russian roulette with their health but ignorance is rife about the dangers of eating animal products so I am fully prepared to conduct a large series of posts to promote the fantastic tasty, safe, quality and variable aspects of a vegan diet if you think that it is boring or you think eating animal products is safe.

----------


## Rheghead

> I personally would rather eat what I enjoy and _maybe_ just _maybe_ shorten my life expectancy slightly.


The problem is that it doesn't seem to be a _slight increase_ of risk of cancer with eating eggs.

This study shows that:




> Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an *81% increased risk* of lethal prostate cancer compared with men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21930800

----------


## sids

> The problem is that it doesn't seem to be a _slight increase_ of risk of cancer with eating eggs.
> 
> This study shows that:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21930800


Your link says: "In conclusion, consumption of eggs *may* increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."

----------


## Rheghead

> Your link says: "In conclusion, consumption of eggs *may* increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."


Playing Russian roulette *may* result in death.

----------


## sids

> Playing Russian roulette *may* result in death.


You don't understand what you're posting on here.

Playing Russian roulette *increases* the risk of death.

Your link says "consumption of eggs *may increase* risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."

Do you not know what "may" means?

----------


## cesare

> Sorry but do you really think a vegan diet is just eating _lettuce leaves_ or are you just trying to prevent people from refusing to buy your cancer causing products or trying to reinforce a false metaphore?  I fully respect anyone's decision to abuse their their own body or play Russian roulette with their health but ignorance is rife about the dangers of eating animal products so I am fully prepared to conduct a large series of posts to promote the fantastic tasty, safe, quality and variable aspects of a vegan diet if you think that it is boring or you think eating animal products is safe.



srsly? this is what the org has turned into....hmm i will enlighten you about 99% of Joe public thoughts
who would want to live to 75-90 to do what? extend the agony of what is life basically a slow death? with a boring food regime 
nah highly doubtful...im glad you eat soya ...i certainly couldn't or wouldn't want too.
Life is a roll of a dice some win some loose regardless when we go the world wont stop for us. Lol in 100 year not one of us will be remembered from Caithness anyways

----------


## Rheghead

> You don't understand what you're posting on here.
> 
> Playing Russian roulette *increases* the risk of death.
> 
> Your link says "consumption of eggs *may increase* risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."
> 
> Do you not know what "may" means?


It seems you do not understand what risk and what hazard means.

They are two different things.

Russian roulette is a hazard and there is a risk of death attached to playing Russian Roulette.  A big risk of death.  But it may only cause death as it is possible play Russian roulette without dying.  Russian Roulette may cause death but then it may not but you are at increased risk if you play it.  If you play one game of Russian Roulette in your life then you have a 16% risk of dying from a bullet in your head.  The risk to developing a fatal cancer from eating animal products throughout your life is not much different.

The 'may' in this context is the uncertainty that refers to an activity which eggeaters are also doing which may cause cancer that the non-eggeaters aren't doing that was not identified or corrected for in the study.  You need to find a reason and it may be that the eggeaters are also eating dairy and meat but it may also be that eggeaters enjoy building stuff with egg boxes and painting eggshells with carcinogenic oil paints.

----------


## sids

> It seems you do not understand what risk and what hazard means.
> 
> They are two different things.
> 
> Russian roulette is a hazard and there is a risk of death attached to playing Russian Roulette.  A big risk of death.  But it may only cause death as it is possible play Russian roulette without dying.  Russian Roulette may cause death but then it may not but you *are*at increased risk if you play it.


That's what I said. Playing RR increases your risk of prompt gunshot death.






> The 'may' in this context is the uncertainty


Yes. You should stick to sensible stuff like that.

----------


## janeyj

I think Rheghead is sharing some very interesting information on what may be the benefits of a meat and dairy free diet. Thank you Rheghead.  I struggle to see any effort on his part to tell anyone what they should, or should not, eat and I, for one, am better informed.  At times it can be easy to dismiss other people's thoughts out of hand with nonsense arguments just because they ARE someone else's thoughts.  If life is all about scoring points and burying heads in the sand for some......then so be it.  For others it might be about sharing,listening and learning to mutual benefit.

Janey

----------


## Rheghead

> Yes. You should stick to sensible stuff like that.


I'm trying to educate myself and hopefully others about the risks involved with eating dairy and other animal products, knowledge is power and I'm disappointed if someone tries to attack the studies in an unintelligent way or even in an anti-intellectual way. 

There are only two courses of action, read the thread, then acknowledge the hazard and risk of eating animal products then make a judgement on whether you act upon that knowledge or not.  I'm afraid I have no time for denialists.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think Rheghead is sharing some very interesting information on what may be the benefits of a meat and dairy free diet. Thank you Rheghead.  I struggle to see any effort on his part to tell anyone what they should, or should not, eat and I, for one, am better informed.  At times it can be easy to dismiss other people's thoughts out of hand with nonsense arguments just because they ARE someone else's thoughts.  If life is all about scoring points and burying heads in the sand for some......then so be it.  For others it might be about sharing,listening and learning to mutual benefit.
> 
> Janey


Thank you, I'm glad you are finding the thread useful.  

What really puzzles me is that if there is so much scientific evidence at the academic level to suggest that consumption of animal products has an increased risk of developing cancer then why is it mainly up to vegetarian and vegan groups to promote the information? Given that these groups have a politically fringed reputation and image then surely the promotion of the risks should be taken up by the NHS or mainstream education? Why is it that health policymakers are virtually silent on this topic?  Why is it when a cancer patient goes to their doctor then they are not advised to adopt a plant-based diet to slow down the development of tumours if the evidence is there?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study which suggests that the introduction of a westernised diet in East Asian populations of more meat and dairy is associated with an increase in the incidence of various cancers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357483

----------


## Rheghead

Here is a study which suggests that vegetarians have significantly less incidence of heart disease and cancers than those of meateaters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895

----------


## janeyj

> Thank you, I'm glad you are finding the thread useful.  
> 
> What really puzzles me is that if there is so much scientific evidence at the academic level to suggest that consumption of animal products has an increased risk of developing cancer then why is it mainly up to vegetarian and vegan groups to promote the information? Given that these groups have a politically fringed reputation and image then surely the promotion of the risks should be taken up by the NHS or mainstream education? Why is it that health policymakers are virtually silent on this topic?  Why is it when a cancer patient goes to their doctor then they are not advised to adopt a plant-based diet to slow down the development of tumours if the evidence is there?


Yes, it's puzzling.  I'm not sure I have an answer.  The best I can come up with is that maybe for every study advocating a pro vegetarian or vegan diet there is a study advocating the consumption of animal products as part of a varied diet?  If that is correct then I guess the NHS might be expected to advocate what you might call a traditional varied diet.  That is until such time as the evidence becomes so overwhelming in favour of vege diets that the NHS can advocate them without fear of litigation. 

                                                                                                                                                                      Personally, I believe in a varied diet but one which does not have much meat in it (maybe 3 times a week in my case) nor too much dairy and oh, I really try to avoid non-organic root vegetables.  That's very important to me but I try not to get too wound up about it.   So what I'm saying is I don't think it's a good idea to have too much of anything really as even large quantities of what some people might think of as a very healthy food could be harmful.  That's where I'm at these days but I try to be open-minded. Research will go on forever and a day so I guess it's sensible to remain open-minded while respecting everyone else's choices.

Just a cautionary tale of how advocating a diet too religiously can go badly wrong.  My sister is a strict vegan and will not even eat chocolate because of the milk content.  When she gave birth to a girl we were all concerned when my sister proposed that my new niece would be brought up on a strict vegan diet.  The family saw this as a dangerous experiment for a child in development and so it proved to be.  As she grew up my niece was being told by her mum that she couldn't eat this and she couldn't eat that and, frankly, she became confused and too scared to eat almost anything at all.  A sort of paranoia set in.  I think there were only about 3 foods that she would eat.  She refused all food in school or when visiting friends houses and she became badly under-nourished.  The result was that various health problems developed and she became seriously ill.  At one point her Doctor only gave her months to live.  Thankfully she pulled through and she has reached her teenage years but it was a close call at one point.  I guess the moral of the story is that, whatever a parent's diet preferences may be, babies and children should be given a balanced diet until such time that they can reasonably make their own choices. 

Janey

----------


## Rheghead

I cannot comment on your niece's case but there is no reason why a child can't be brought up a healthy vegan, it shouldn't have been seen as a dangerous experiment.  I suspect that a child is more likely to be healthy if a vegan than for meateater because of such a poor diet in chips, and junk food etc etc.  Perhaps your niece was confused not because your niece was brought up vegan but because there is a huge amount of social and peer pressure for kids to eat meat and dairy from other kids if they are meateaters, confusion only occurs when someone receives two conflicting stories.  I'd imagine there must be virtually no control over kids once they are at school.  I'm sure once a vegan child is identified at school then they'd be the target of plenty of ridicule at school.  It shouldn't be like that, we should be supportive of people who have a healthy diet.

I believe that parents should bring up their children as they see fit and give them enough information for them to make their own decisions.  If it is done right then there will be no reason for kids to want to eat meat or dairy given the health risks.  It seems to me that there is no safe lower limit to the amount of animal products that a child can eat.  I can say that with confidence because one of the studies mentioned showed that men who ate an average 2.5 eggs per week had an increased risk of 81% of developing prostate cancer than those that ate hardly any at all. 2-3 eggs per week is not a huge amount, it would even be considered a low intake and certainly not the egg per day brreakfast that we were encouraged to eat in the 1980s.

----------


## Aaldtimer

1950's!   https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...33178914,d.d24  :Smile:

----------


## DSTOTM

It's all the processed food that causes cancer in certain individuals so best to avoid supermarkets because all they sell is highly processed crap. It's not rocket science.

----------


## DSTOTM

I'm an alcoholic, smoke 50 roll ups a day, only exercise when I change gear in the car, only eat once per day (at 5pm), prefer laying on bed than exercising...... I have seen many people get cancer who don't smoke / don't drink / don't eat junk food / take regular exercise etc etc. The thing is, it seems, the ones who DON'T imbibe in the verbotten nasties (tobacco / booze / bacon and eggs etc.) are the poor sods who get cancer!

The native American Indians smoked tobacco........ Henry the eighth enjoyed a pint or two.............

I'm not at all proud admitting that I smoke 50 a day and do a bottle of scotch per evening BUT I am 55 years old and have never been in a Hospital (tochwood).

I am no expert but ANYTHIING purchased from a supermarket (super processed) is the reason why cancer is killing us...... it's NOT passive "smoke" it's the  we are being offered on the aisles.

----------


## Fulmar

For me, the best source of information that I can totally trust is Cancer Research UK. If you go on their website, it is easy to find all the latest on causes of cancer and the newest scientific evidence is to be found on there. You can find plenty on it about diet, exercise, 'superfoods', fads......
This below is a quote from on their site on dairy foods:

._Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk._
*Hormones in milk*

_In some countries, a hormone called bovine somatotrophin (BST) is used to speed up or increase the production of milk or meat. In the UK and the rest of Europe, farmers are banned from using this hormone, and the import of meat from countries, including the US, where this hormone is used is also banned. This ban is on animal welfare grounds and not because there is any proven effect on human health. Independent health bodies including the European Union Scientific Committee have reviewed the evidence on BST and found it does not pose any harm to human health._
_The Food Standards Agency regulates the content of dairy products, including milk. This set of standards makes sure these products are safe to use.'_

----------


## Goodfellers

*Dairy products are causing cancer.*   This is  very misleading statement to use as a thread title, I would have thought the word ‘may’ should be in theresomewhere. 
As mentioned earlier, I was a poultry farmer for 40 yearsand have eaten a huge number of eggs and dairy produce. I devour blocks ofcheese, eat whole cartons of clotted cream with a spoon (delicious), munch myway through piles of bacon sandwiches and eat enough steak (thanks to theCastletown hotel steak nights!) to rebuild several cows each year. I am veryhealthy, normal cholesterol level, no signs of any cancer (thanks toNHSScotland for screening service).
As previous commentator said, some very healthy nonsmokers/drinkers  end up riddled withcancer. Cancer often runs in families, which is why doctors are interested infamily history. This is also why some people live to a ripe old age havingsmoked/drink/ eaten ‘unhealthily’ all their life. We are all going to die, Iplan on arriving at the pearly gates having enjoyed all my life and notregretting missing out on all the delicious food this world has to offer.
I have known several vegetarians in my life, they were allyoung. As they have reached late 30’s – 40’s something seems to happen andvegetarianism goes out the window, probably the realisation that life is shortand unpredictable.

----------


## sids

> a bottle of scotch per evening


Don't worry about that. 

 Just stay off the egg-nog.

----------


## Rheghead

> For me, the best source of information that I can totally trust is Cancer Research UK. If you go on their website, it is easy to find all the latest on causes of cancer and the newest scientific evidence is to be found on there. You can find plenty on it about diet, exercise, 'superfoods', fads......
> This below is a quote from on their site on dairy foods:
> 
> ._Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk._
> *Hormones in milk*
> 
> _In some countries, a hormone called bovine somatotrophin (BST) is used to speed up or increase the production of milk or meat. In the UK and the rest of Europe, farmers are banned from using this hormone, and the import of meat from countries, including the US, where this hormone is used is also banned. This ban is on animal welfare grounds and not because there is any proven effect on human health. Independent health bodies including the European Union Scientific Committee have reviewed the evidence on BST and found it does not pose any harm to human health._
> _The Food Standards Agency regulates the content of dairy products, including milk. This set of standards makes sure these products are safe to use.'_


That's the thing though isn't it Fulmar.  We have CancerUK saying that what you quoted on their website but I've put up several scientific studies that show that dairy products are a significant cancer risk factor.  What do you think is going on?  Why are they not telling us the full story?  Why do they not go by the scientific studies?  Why aren't they at the very least telling us to take a precautionary strategy by advising us not to consume animal products or cut them down?  How many studies need to be published until they change their advice?

----------


## sids

What does the World Health Organisation say?

----------


## Rheghead

> What does the World Health Organisation say?


They say this as their key statement for breast cancer




> Early detection in order to improve breast cancer outcome and survival remains the cornerstone of breast cancer control.


Detection yes but they are very mute on the causes of breast cancer.  I always thought that _prevention_ is better than _cure_.

I've put up several studies that strongly suggest that eating animal products are a significant risk factor in causing breast cancer.  That is a bit of a shortcoming from WHO I think.

----------


## Rheghead

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine state




> Recent scientific studies have suggested that dairy products may be linked to increased risk for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and possibly for ovarian and breast cancers.Prostate cancer has been linked to dairy products in several studies. In Harvard’s Physicians Health Study, including more than 20,000 male physicians, those *who consumed more than two dairy servings daily had a 34% higher risk of developing prostate cancer* than men who consumed little or no dairy products. Several other studies have shown much the same thing.





> A recent analysis of studies examining a relationship between dairy product consumption and ovarian cancer risk *found that for every 10 grams of lactose consumed (the amount in one glass of milk), ovarian cancer risk increased by 13 percent*.





> In Asia, where whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu, soymilk, and other soy products are commonly consumed and milk is not a normal part of the diet, *people are generally healthier and breast cancer is much rarer than in the United States and Europe*.


http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-re...dairy-products

----------


## sids

> In Asia, where whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu, soymilk, and other soy products are commonly consumed and milk is not a normal part of the diet, people are generally healthier and breast cancer is much rarer than in the United States and Europe.


There's a boat leaving today.

----------


## Goodfellers

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., *which promotes a vegan plant-based diet*
I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
Again, in all your links the word ‘*MAY*’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.

----------


## Goodfellers

Does anyone know why typed words end up linked when posted. Tried typing in Word then copy and pasting but still does it. Really annoying

----------


## Rheghead

> The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., *which promotes a vegan plant-based diet*
> I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
> Again, in all your links the word ‘*MAY*’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.


I'm sure the the egg industry council or the replacement for the milk marketing board would sing a different tune but I'd be interested in their scientific studies (if any) to back up their statements. I'm trying to focus on the science, it is up to you to do what you want with the information, if you have devcided to continue to eat eggs and dairy then that is your decision, I will support your decision, it is your life afterall.  As physicians though, the PCRM are oath-bound to give advice in the best interests of patients and public health and as a plant-based diet looks to be the best diet in terms of health then I cannot criticise them for their position.  It worries me why the advice is watered-down in our own mainstream health organisations.  They are supposed to adhere to the science as well and give people the best advice based upon that research.

I'd also give a caveat in the interpretation of the wording there.  Science works by testing models and that means running experiments or studies based on sets of data and under certain criteria and testing them to see what results come out of the experiment.  The criteria in most of these experiments or epidemiological studies is people's eating habits in relation to dairy, meat and eggs and testing against people who don't eat these products and the results show that people who eat animal products have a significant incidence of cancer rates than in the control group the vegans etc.  

What the reports do not claim credit for is sets of factors or influences that may be outside the scope of the experiment, for example it may be that people who eat animal products might also smoke more , inhale glue, play Monopoly or whatever.  But you have to take a reasonable judgement why that doesn't apply to the control group. You have to think if it is not the dairy, meat and eggs then what could account for the differences in cancer rates given that the scientists are testing a mechanism to those cancers as well and not just some random correllation.  The deduction to any alternative mechanism has to be reasonable and logical.  
So the language that can only be used in the conclusions is '*may cause* because of other factors that be outside the scope of the experiment or study, the uncertainty may be real or it may be totally illusory depending on how much emphasis you may wish to place on what has not been deemed worthy of testing.  So we must be careful not to confuse the emphasis of a scientific 'may' with a 'may' that we would use in everyday language.  I've seen too many anti-intellectual arguments (from people who really should know better) who question the science in relation to other fields of study like Evolution and Climate Science, like "Yeah but Evolution is only a theory, right?" and "Climate Science is bunkum because they can't be 100% certain the IPCCC Report, they only claim fossil fuels is _only likely_ to warm to the atmosphere above 2 degrees, so I will continue to drive my SUV." and the big one "Science can't disprove God because the Big Bang may have been the start of the Universe".  It is the job of individuals and policy-makers to interpret the science and spread the word but in relation to eating dairy, meat and eggs it seems the message is not getting through. 

What the reports also do not claim is the impeccable quality of the data so caution needs to be administered here if you think it is not too bad to be eating animal products.  Because the criteria is dependent on who only 'claim' to be vegan but I've had often heard people who talk about their cousin or friend who went vegan once but who sneaked a sausage when nobody was looking.  I also know that it is almost impossible to totally avoid eating animal products altogether because of poor food labelling and genuine mistakes or intentional acts to deceive in food preparation.  As there seems to be no safe lower limit to the amount of animal products that we can eat then we can be reasonable to assume that a lot of cancers in the vegan populations are due to eating animal products as well.

----------


## Fulmar

As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates. 
I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.

----------


## Rheghead

> As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
> As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates. 
> I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
> At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.


You are quite correct that age increases the number of mutations at the cellular level so therefore it is important that we adopt a suitable diet to reflect that vulnerability to cancer as we age.  That means if you want the best preventative measure from cancer then a plant-based diet is the best answer.  Studies show that aging populations could benefit the most from adopting a plant-based diet especially because of thel ower saturated, trans fat content but also the oestrogen in meat and dairy may be having an effect or keeping the level higher than the body needs it as we age, post-menopausal women have lower oestrogen levels etc etc.  The question that every older person must ask themselves is 'why should I continue to eat meat and dairy if it will put me at greater risk of getting cancer?', life is precious especially if we want to see our grandkids grow up.

You mentioned cancer charities and how much you trust them and so you should.  Lets take BreastCancerUK for an example, it is a charity dependent on subscription donations.  It lists on its science and research page a list of risk factors that thought to cause breast cancer (with even less certainty than the risks with meat and dairy I might add) and yet no mention of the breast cancer risks associated with eating animal products?  What is going on? There is enough scientific evidence for the link as I've just established.  *Well the answer is that well-established charities like it are also compared to businesses in the way they do their business.*   What would be the effect on their donorship if they now told everyone that they should stop eating meat and dairy?  The response will be exactly the same resistance that every vegan gets who promotes a plant-based diet as a prudent action to prevent cancer.  The response will be exactly what you have said, we need to 'weigh up the risks and decide what to do or not to do and for me'.  That's a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks for telling me but I'm going to do what I want to do because I like what I'm doing".  The end result for the charity is a reduced level of donor subscriptions a reduced global spread for its message...just for trying to address the number 1 cause of breast cancer to its members. You couldn't make it up, actually.  People don't like being told what to do...even less they don't like people being 'oh holier than thou' and being on the moral pedestal.  Changing people's behavior is hard, most health organisations won't tackle the main issues with eating meat and dairy because of the entrenched social, political, environmental and economic issues and people's lack of willing to change their habits.  But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.

----------


## Goodfellers

_But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life._

Maybe longer/healthier but you cannot claim *happier* for everyone.  Many intelligent people will weigh up the pros/cons and still choose to continue eating food they enjoy. I do remember reading recently that wholesale prices of meat are rising due to the economic power of the Chinese, who for thousands of years have eaten a plant based diet. Now they (the average Chinese worker) have more disposable income, they want to eat meat. Why? Because they like the taste. Apparently this is also adding to global warming as more forests are being cleared to raise cattle and adding to world food shortage as (I think) it takes 10kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. As Frasier on Dad’s Army said ‘We’re all doomed, doomed  I say ’.

I personally think that scientific claims need to be treated as opinions in most cases, rather than fact. Travel back in time several centuries  and the greatest scientific minds would swear on their mother’s life that the world was flat and that Earth was the centre of the Universe. We laugh at their poor understanding of the world around them. Who’s to say in centuries to come, residents of Earth will not look back and laugh at our understanding of science?

----------


## Neil Howie

> In this study it was found that a totally plant-based diet, that means cutting out all dairy and meat offered the best chances of life longevity after having been diagnosed with cancer.  Cancer patients will say they'd do anything to have that extra bit of life to be with with family but would that mean they would change their diet to being a vegan?
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600


Hi,

just picking on one of the posts.  I can't read the article in full, and it is difficult to know how accurate the reporting was or if there was a particular reason for the high egg consumption for a particular sample, e.g. they were in hospital.

Plus the link between eggs and prostrate cancer may be specific, due to the antigen.  There is no idea of the positive effects, e.g. if it also has a 25% less risk of Alzheimers, and 15% less risk of stomach cancer.

Also what is meant by 81% increase in risk?  Is it relative risk or absolute risk - does my risk of developing lethal prostrate cancer go from 0.007% to 0.012%?

My "go to" place for news articles like these is the NHS site, and as it happens there is a post here on the very thing! link

to quote

The study and data analysis also has several limitations. First, the  number of deaths and cases of lethal prostate cancer were small (only  199 out of 27,607 men in the whole cohort, and 123 out of 3,127 in the  case-only cohort [those who initially developed localised disease]).  This small number increases the likelihood that the results are due to  chance. Second, the researchers say that the group of men included in  the study generally ate low amounts of the foods of interest, which  limits the "power" (or ability to detect a difference) of the analysis.


 Furthermore, while the researchers controlled statistically for a  number of possible confounders, it is difficult to say whether other  factors could account for this relationship. The researchers say that  men in the study who consumed more red meat or eggs tended to have a  higher BMI, exercise less and were more likely to smoke and have a  family history of prostate cancer. Additionally, it is probably  difficult to control completely for other dietary effects and focus the  analysis on a single component of a persons diet.


 This study points to possible associations between diet and risk of  prostate cancer. The aforementioned limitations, however, weaken the  strength of these conclusions, along with the fact that previous  research has looked at this question and found no association. While an  81% increased risk sounds like a high and definitive figure, it is  probably best to wait for more conclusive research before cutting eggs  out of your diet. There are existing dietary and lifestyle guidelines  for reducing cancer risk, such as limiting your consumption of  energy-dense foods such as meat and increasing your consumption of  fruits, vegetables and wholegrains.

----------


## Rheghead

> _But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life._
> 
> Maybe longer/healthier but you cannot claim *happier* for everyone.  Many intelligent people will weigh up the pros/cons and still choose to continue eating food they enjoy. I do remember reading recently that wholesale prices of meat are rising due to the economic power of the Chinese, who for thousands of years have eaten a plant based diet. Now they (the average Chinese worker) have more disposable income, they want to eat meat. Why? Because they like the taste. Apparently this is also adding to global warming as more forests are being cleared to raise cattle and adding to world food shortage as (I think) it takes 10kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. As Frasier on Dad’s Army said ‘We’re all doomed, doomed  I say ’.
> 
> I personally think that scientific claims need to be treated as opinions in most cases, rather than fact. Travel back in time several centuries  and the greatest scientific minds would swear on their mother’s life that the world was flat and that Earth was the centre of the Universe. We laugh at their poor understanding of the world around them. Who’s to say in centuries to come, residents of Earth will not look back and laugh at our understanding of science?


I'm glad that you are doing your own form of research on the other impacts of meat and dairy production but don't fall into the trap of because you don't like a fact then it is better to ignore it.  I accept that is a natural human reaction to something that we would like to bury from our conciousness but be warned that those environmental studies have been put together by respected authors and peer-reviewed as valid.  That said I'm focussing more on the health issues of eating dairy and meat, I'll probably move on to the other issues in the full goodness of time.  Whether you want to eat meat or not, I'm not bothered, but I just want to have that discussion, sharing information never hurt anyone.  But if you are armed with information that a meat-eating diet is damaging your health, your planet and your pocket then you have to ask why you continue to do it.  Personally I'd be happier if the countryside is more natural and sustainable.

----------


## Rheghead

> Also what is meant by 81% increase in risk?  Is it relative risk or absolute risk - *does my risk of developing lethal prostrate cancer go from 0.007% to 0.012%?*


Well the risks of dying from prostate cancer are very much higher than that.  From your own quote from the study there is a 0.72% risk of dying from it some 100 times higher than you suggested.

The Bazian critique also points to other factors as being contributory to prostate cancer like obesity in general.  Well to state the obvious, if you are cutting out meat, dairy and eggs from your diet then you are going a long way to shedding a lot of pounds.  That's one of the positive aspects of a plant-based diet, it is low on the bad fat and high in the good fat so BMIs will improve.  It is a shame that Bazian failed to reinforce that point.

----------


## Rheghead

Another study to reinforce the notion that a diet rich in green leafy vegetables can reduce the risks of breast cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724470

----------


## Rheghead

A risk factor with oesophageal cancer is acid reflux or heartburn, a very common digestive complaint.  To reduce your exposure to acid reflux then the advice is to cut out processed meat and eat more vegetables as processed meat like bacon and pies can/will bring on heartburn.

http://www.healthline.com/health/ger...r#RiskFactors4

----------


## Rheghead

Here is a peer-reviewed physician's guide to plant-based diets.




> Plant-based diets have been associated with lowering overall and ischemic heart disease mortality; supporting sustainable weight management; reducing medication needs; lowering the risk for most chronic diseases; decreasing the incidence and severity of high-risk conditions, including obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia; and even possibly reversing advanced coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes.





> Cancer activity reduction via several mechanisms, including inhibiting tumor growth, detoxifying carcinogens, retarding cell growth, and preventing cancer formation





> Protection against certain diseases, such as osteoporosis, some cancers, CVD, macular degeneration, and cataracts


That is quite a big list health benefits of adopting a plant-based diet..  One thing that stood out for me is the prevention of osteoporosis, we've been conditioned since kids that milk is essential for bone growth when it appears that the opposite is true.

http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/...6192-diet.html

----------


## Bill Fernie

Over 12 years ago I put some links in the links section of the web site under the heading Milk or Not Milk  - http://www.caithness.org/links/milkornotmilk.htm

Oddly although not many links they are all still are working  Some fairly biased stuff on both sides and one of them links to many other American web sites.

Over the years the arguments have come and gone on both sides but I always err on the side of caution when vested interests are concerned and even health related places who may have other things to say but may also have vested interests in the medical or pharmaceutical industries.

Perhaps balance and not over indulging in anything is common sense - even with what we have brought up to believe is good for us.  I do think milk is good if you lack other sources of nutrition in your diet from fresh foods and particularly for children. Probably so after wartime when many foods were in short supply.  However as we get older perhaps fresh fruit and vegetables are more important and less milk and fats generally would be good thing.

Being brought up with milk and all its many variations in foods does kind of colour your outlook after all we have had many decades of brain-washing about what to buy and what is good for us from TV etc

Moderation seems likely to be the best course.  And of course I do wonder about that Hot chocolate I had last night before retiring to sleep.

The debate will rage on for along time to come as it does on Red Wine, Beer, Fruit Juices etc - when water beats them all for most of us if we are really thinking healthy.

Mostly if we were to just buy fresh fruit and vegetables and a few nuts we would survive and be thinner and healthier. And probably wealthier if we did not buy any so called value added products that only add profits to companies rather than benefits for us.

Would life be longer but duller - we can all decide for ourselves.

In the long run too much of anything is bad for us.  Pity as we mostly like everything that's on offer from time to time.

Just be sensible and cut down on it all what ever it is and you will probably do yourself good and enjoy it more...........................

----------


## Rheghead

I also like to think of the history or rather the pre-history of drinking milk to put the whole dairy industry into context.  Human Beings are the only animal that consume another species' lactations.  But Humans have been evolved for about 150,000 years and archaeological evidence only supports that we have been drinking milk in just the last ~8000 years, possibly a little longer in the middle east. My opinion is that this is a fairly recent event or change in our dietary history as a species in relative terms and especially only a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms as some human populations are still incapable of digesting milk. Our bodies are still trying to cope with drinking milk.  It is like our species as a whole is trying to tell us that drinking milk is unnatural and should be obsolete because the health risks are catching up with us as we get older.  In the ancient past, we humans needed to just get old enough to create the next generation and live long enough until they were old enough to look after themselves and then we could die.  Health issues in old age were never an important issue but it is catching up with us in the modern world.

----------


## sids

Right I've read the thread, apart from the long obsessive posts (obviously) and on balance, I'm persuaded that I need the nutritional and health value of these bacon and eggs.  I'll get the milk benefits in the coffee afterwards.

----------


## Rheghead

> Right I've read the thread, apart from the long obsessive posts (obviously) and on balance, I'm persuaded that I need the nutritional and health value of these bacon and eggs.  I'll get the milk benefits in the coffee afterwards.


We can get all our nutritional and health values from plants You don't need the nutritional value in meat, dairy and eggs if there are safer alternatives from plants.  What is no longer a _need_ then becomes a _choice_ by definition.  Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a _necessity_ because you are only deceiving yourself.

If that is your choice then fine, I support you but making choices require you to go through a decision-making process of weighing up the pros and cons.  In this thread I've pointed out just the cancer risks of dairy and eggs.  But that is not the full story, I will go on to stack up the environmental, health and economic reasons against animal products.  If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them? It must become apparent that people are only capable of seing things from their own perspective and not further than their plate.

----------


## tonkatojo

> We can get all our nutritional and health values from plants You don't need the nutritional value in meat, dairy and eggs if there are safer alternatives from plants. What is no longer a _need_ then becomes a _choice_ by definition. Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a _necessity_ because you are only deceiving yourself.


Your statement above works both ways, why should you bother convincing me or others when for centuries our ancestors ate what was available and proof of that working is we the human race still habit this planet, probably in more numbers than necessary.

----------


## Rheghead

> Your statement above works both ways, why should you bother convincing me or others when for centuries our ancestors ate what was available and proof of that working is we the human race still habit this planet, probably in more numbers than necessary.


It is because of that increasing population that makes the case for a plant-based diet more imperative for sustainability.  Overpopulation arguments are just over-used reasons for unsustainability as a meateating diet requires 18 times more land for agriculture than for a plant-based diet.  30% of the Earth's land surface has already been given over to the purpose of raising animals for food, more meateaters and dairy eaters will require the destruction of wild places for food production.  This means a huge land area has been robbed of the natural biodiversity that the Earth developed by itself and which we would value to be in had it been kept natural in the first place.

----------


## Goodfellers

Rhehead

You ask;

_If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them?_

I have said it before and I will say it again.........Because we like the taste. What plant smells or tasted like fried bacon?

----------


## sids

> Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a _necessity_



Don't tell me what to do, or not to do. 

And don't mendaciously invent statements by me, that fried breakfast is a necessity, thankyou very much.  

But I wouldn't try to convince an internet vegan zealot of anything. You're not here to be convinced. You came to preach and stayed to repeat huge quotes.

----------


## Rheghead

> Don't tell me what to do, or not to do.


I am not, if you think I am then the problem is yours alone.  I am having a discussion about the health risks of eating dairy, eggs and meat.  I am presenting the scientific evidence that supports the risks.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rhehead
> 
> You ask;
> 
> _If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them?_
> 
> I have said it before and I will say it again.........Because we like the taste. What plant smells or tasted like fried bacon?


I've never known anyone to give up eating animals because of the taste but plant-based food is also delicious.  I also know from personal experience that when I gave up smoking then my food tasted better, the same thing happened when I gave up animal products, my food tasted much better, i think it had something to do with the fats in meat blocking the taste receptor signals.  After a short period on a plant-based diet, a lot of other people do report that the smell of animal product taste stale and that fruit and vegetables taste much better.  Foodies often talk about tasting higher notes in their food and drink, I think that happens when people eat a plant-based diet.  I can only agree with that to the point that animal products do not look and feel like food anymore.  Bacon is a taste-deadener to the cost of appreciating other foods.  and may explain why meateating kids struggle with eating vegetables.

----------


## sids

> I am having a discussion about the health risks of eating dairy, eggs and meat.  I am presenting the scientific evidence that supports the risks.


You are preaching, campaigning and exaggerating.

----------


## Rheghead

> You are preaching, campaigning and exaggerating.


This issue is not about preaching, campaigning or exagerating.  It is about education though, the science speaks for itself.  Are you just opposed to yourself having a plant-based diet or are you opposed to anyone doing it for themselves?

----------


## Goodfellers

Rheghead, can you explain why the population of emerging economies chose to switch to a meat based diet if all they are used to is a plant based diet and their taste buds have not yet been corrupted ?

Tonga is another example where the population were recently given access to cheap 'meat' and the plant based diet went out the window. I am sure you will have read the article, but for everyone else, here is a link  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493

----------


## sids

> the science speaks for itself


Then let it.  You're not a scientist.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead, can you explain why the population of emerging economies chose to switch to a meat based diet if all they are used to is a plant based diet and their taste buds have not yet been corrupted ?
> 
> Tonga is another example where the population were recently given access to cheap 'meat' and the plant based diet went out the window. I am sure you will have read the article, but for everyone else, here is a link  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493


Well if there wasn't a better indictment about what i having been saying then I do not know what is.  It proves to me that people cannot think logically when it comes to their food.

----------


## Rheghead

Another study to show the health benefits of a plant-based diet.  Strangely enough, it says the benefits of a vegetarian diet are stronger in men.




> In summary, vegetarians have consistently shown to have lower risks for cardiometabolic outcomes and some cancers across all three prospective cohorts of Adventists. Beyond meatless diets, further avoidance of eggs and dairy products may offer a mild additional benefit. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to provide some added protection against obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes; and cardiovascular mortality. In general, the protective effects of vegetarian diets are stronger in men than in women. At present, there are limited prospective data on vegetarian dietary patterns and body weight change, obesity and neurological disorders. Large dietary intervention trials on the effects of vegetarian diets on obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular outcomes are warranted to make meaningful recommendations for nutritional planning, assessment, and counseling.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...9/#!po=43.1034

----------


## scorrie

The World Health Organisation and Oxfam are working on a scheme to improve the diet of a Cannibal tribe in South America.

The conclusion they have reached is that the only way for their diet to be healthier is if they stick to eating Vegans only.

Vegan Volunteers are being sought to put themselves forward in the name of helping Cannibals to live a longer, healthier and happier life.

An early stumbling block has been Cannibals who prefer the taste of meat eating people. "There's just no flavour off these Veg Munchers" has been a typical comment.

----------


## Neil Howie

Program on BBC 1 tonight made for this thread? 
9.00pm, the truth about meat

----------


## Rheghead

> Program on BBC 1 tonight made for this thread? 
> 9.00pm, the truth about meat


Well I only saw the second half of the programme so I'll catch up with the first half on iplayer.

Two points though...

It was clear that the overwhelming conclusion of the programme was that consumption of red meat should be be reduced to two days of the week if you are to avoid the worst chances of heart disease and cancer, that was not in dispute.  If you regularly consume meat most days then you will be doing your body a service by following the guidelines.

Secondly, the programme makers were obviously in cahoots with the meat industry during the making of the programme in presenting a sanitised process of killing and butchery.  We didn't even see the dispatch. Why?  What are they afraid of?  Well the truth is that people who see the killing process are put off eating meat because they don't want animals to feel pain and suffering.  They suddenly make the connection between the meat on their plate and sentient animals who feel pain and suffering like we do.  If the process was actually humane then you should be able to let your 5 year old see it, but it isn't.  They talked about making the pre-killing process like waiting in a stress-free departure lounge, fresh hay and straw was seen to be on the ground, maybe they receive a duty-free buttercup on the way through the abbatoir?  What a wonderful image to clear our conciences but it wasn't out of any love for the animal, the sanitised presentation was out of getting the best quality for the meat as stress makes the meat tough unpalatable and profits are affected.

----------


## sids

Is fried goolies as good as they say?

----------


## Fulmar

I think that you are getting off topic though, Rheghead and yes, I agree that there are reasons to do with taking the life of an animal at an abbatoir which might make one give up meat eating but that is not the same as the health one.
The evidence of a link between high red meat consumption (especially processed meat) and bowel cancer is established in my view but not that cutting meat out altogether is preventative. I return to what I said earlier. I certainly know of one life long vegan who developed bowel cancer and I would imagine that came as an added  huge shock.
We, human beings, evolved as hunter gatherers who ate shellfish, fish and hunted and ate wild animals. There is no getting away from that. I have heard the argument advanced that eating meat enabled the cultural, artistic and intuitive and imaginative aspects of human culture to flourish as time was 'freed up' from the constant search for food just to survive. As it happens, despite what you have said in earlier posts, longevity is increasing overall in the UK and we are all living longer. With advanced age comes the increased risk of cancer (due to complex factors related to aging) as probably, we should not be be living as long as we now do and certainly we did not survive as long in pre-history.
One thing that does now seem to be established is the very real connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk. But you are not banging on at people for drinking are you! Why not compare the risk of eating your breakfast egg with drinking a large glass of red wine every night. I am willing to bet that it is not the cackleberries that present the greater risk!

----------


## Rheghead

> We, human beings, evolved as hunter gatherers who ate shellfish, fish and hunted and ate wild animals. There is no getting away from that. I have heard the argument advanced that eating meat enabled the cultural, artistic and intuitive and imaginative aspects of human culture to flourish as time was 'freed up' from the constant search for food just to survive.


It wasn't eating meat that freed up people to multi-task from constantly searching for food, it was agriculture and specifically it was growing crops to create food and granaries to store food throughout the year.




> As it happens, despite what you have said in earlier posts, longevity is increasing overall in the UK and we are all living longer. With advanced age comes the increased risk of cancer (due to complex factors related to aging) as probably, we should not be be living as long as we now do and certainly we did not survive as long in pre-history.


But longevity in recent years has nothing to do with eating meat, in fact eating meat is a threat to longevity.




> One thing that does now seem to be established is the very real connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk. But you are not banging on at people for drinking are you! Why not compare the risk of eating your breakfast egg with drinking a large glass of red wine every night. I am willing to bet that it is not the cackleberries that present the greater risk!


I'm a teetotaller, you will most likely not take any drinking advice from a teetotaller because I'd come across as holier than thou.  But i am sure I could start preaching if you really want me to?

----------


## Rheghead

Another study that suggests that milk products; aggravate acne, increases BMI and increases insulin resistance. Probably not good to consume milk if you want to avoid type 2 diabetes and have a good body.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23975508

Abstract

Acne appears to represent a visible indicator disease of over-activated mTORC1 signalling, an unfavour-able metabolic deviation on the road to serious common Western diseases of civilisation associated with increased body mass index and insulin resistance. Exaggerated mTORC1 signalling by Western diet explains the association of acne with increased body mass index, insulin resistance, and early onset of menarche. Both, a high glycaemic load and increased consumption of milk and milk products, staples of Western diet, aggravate mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 signalling. This review of the literature summarises present evidence for an association between acne, increased body mass index, insulin resistance and Western diet. By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.

----------


## Alrock

Acne is a good thing to have if you're obsessed with longevity of life....

*Acne sufferers live longer,  research suggests*

----------


## sids

> Acne is a good thing to have if you're obsessed with longevity of life....
> 
> *Acne sufferers live longer,  research suggests*


They drank their milk.

----------


## Rheghead

> Acne is a good thing to have if you're obsessed with longevity of life....
> 
> *Acne sufferers live longer,  research suggests*


No that isn't the conclusion of that study.  The study suggested that people who suffer from acne may live longer lives.  The mechanism cause for long life isn't the acne.  However, people who suffer from acne may get benefit or relief from acne if they refrain from consuming dairy products and they will almost certainly live healthier and longer lives.

----------


## sids

> No that isn't the conclusion of that study.  The study suggested that people who suffer from acne may live longer lives.


Suddenly, he knows what "may" means!





> The mechanism cause for long life isn't the acne.  However, people who suffer from acne may get benefit or relief from acne if they refrain from consuming dairy products and they will almost certainly live healthier and longer lives.


Aw damn he's back to making stuff up.

----------


## Fulmar

_'By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.'

_Hate to say it but a palaeolithic diet definitely would have included eating meat!
The only argument I have with your postings is that they are simplistic on a topic that is incredibly complex. There actually is evidence that people who eat a lot of red meat are at increased risk of various cancers but not that moderate consumption is an issue. There is a definite connection too between obesity and cancer. It is the second greatest risk factor after smoking. But it does not follow that eating dairy products or red meat in moderation is going to 'cause cancer' or necessarily make you fat. There are many more factors involved in whether a person is obese or not as most of us already know as there is in whether someone develops cancer.
All vertebrate animals get cancers. Is it simply a matter of them eating the wrong diet then, in your view. If we could only persuade all the carnivores to become vegans, would they be risk free- no, of course not .Equally, are the herbivores eating the wrong diet because some of them develop cancer. No, anymore than it is true of people. Sadly, vegetarians and vegans get cancer too and in any individual, no scientist or medic is going to appoint a definitive cause unless there is overwhelming evidence such as high exposure to radiation or workplace asbestos or something like that. Also, if a person develops cancer, believe me the last thing that they need in dealing with the disease and its treatment is to be led to believe that its somehow their fault and that is the logical conclusion of your posts with regard to eating meat and dairy products.
Cancer generation is incredibly complex and you simply cannot say, as this thread is headed, that 'dairy products cause cancer'.
I would urge anyone who is concerned about all of this to look at the Cancer Research UK website where you can find all the up to date information backed up peer reviewed research.

----------


## Rheghead

> By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.'
> 
> 
> The only argument I have with your postings is that they are simplistic on a topic that is incredibly complex.


There is nothng complex about how giving up eating meat and dairy products will improve your health and the environment. It doesn't take a change in government, it doesn't take a revolution, it doesn't take any medication, it doesn't take any effort and it certaily doesn't take any more money.  If you think it does take then then you are ideologically bonded to eating those products by social conditioning thoughout your life.

----------


## Rheghead

> _'By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.'
> 
> _Hate to say it but a palaeolithic diet definitely would have included eating meat!
> The only argument I have with your postings is that they are simplistic on a topic that is incredibly complex. There actually is evidence that people who eat a lot of red meat are at increased risk of various cancers but not that moderate consumption is an issue. There is a definite connection too between obesity and cancer. It is the second greatest risk factor after smoking. But it does not follow that eating dairy products or red meat in moderation is going to 'cause cancer' or necessarily make you fat. There are many more factors involved in whether a person is obese or not as most of us already know as there is in whether someone develops cancer.
> All vertebrate animals get cancers. Is it simply a matter of them eating the wrong diet then, in your view. If we could only persuade all the carnivores to become vegans, would they be risk free- no, of course not .Equally, are the herbivores eating the wrong diet because some of them develop cancer. No, anymore than it is true of people. Sadly, vegetarians and vegans get cancer too and in any individual, no scientist or medic is going to appoint a definitive cause unless there is overwhelming evidence such as high exposure to radiation or workplace asbestos or something like that. Also, if a person develops cancer, believe me the last thing that they need in dealing with the disease and its treatment is to be led to believe that its somehow their fault and that is the logical conclusion of your posts with regard to eating meat and dairy products.
> Cancer generation is incredibly complex and you simply cannot say, as this thread is headed, that 'dairy products cause cancer'.
> I would urge anyone who is concerned about all of this to look at the Cancer Research UK website where you can find all the up to date information backed up peer reviewed research.


Are you just opposed to cutting out meat and dairy from your diet or are you opposed to everyone doing it?

----------


## Fulmar

I've nothing more to say, Rheg. You just carry on!

----------


## Rheghead

> I've nothing more to say, Rheg. You just carry on!


OK no problems.  The thing that disturbs me with your 'palaeo' diet angle was that I thought you were selling me an _ideology_ of this is how our ancestors survived so we must do the same.  Well the paleo diet is actually a fad diet.  some of it is good some of it is bad.  It also calls for no dairy, wheat and a whole host of other products.   But the whole premise is that we should eat like our ancestors before the advent of farming.  Since the vast majority, i think 90%+ of our animal products come from factory farms then the ideology is stretching it just a tad.  We are not exactly up to the task of gathering into groups and taking down the next mammoth that comes our way.

----------


## pig whisperer

Think this topic has been done to death, everything in moderation would  be a sensible idea,   Rheg  you speak with the zeal of the newly converted, we   all make decisions in life. either right or wrong & hammering us on the head  with your reports sometimes has a negative effect

----------


## Rheghead

> Think this topic has been done to death, everything in moderation would  be a sensible idea,   Rheg  you speak with the zeal of the newly converted, we   all make decisions in life. either right or wrong & hammering us on the head  with your reports sometimes has a negative effect


I think you only want to close down this debate because you find it conflicts with your own personal choices.  On the other hand, I think knowledge is fantastic, it doesn't cost anything and you can do anything with it except destroy it.

----------


## Goodfellers

I know this thread has been done to death, but just been reading BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37549578 

An interesting line says 

Humans probably evolved hunger genes to cope in times of famine, say experts. 

When food is scarce it makes sense to eat and store more fat to fend off starvation.

Lead researcher Prof Sadaf Farooqi, from the Wellcome Trust Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science at the University of Cambridge, said the findings suggest that at least part of our food preferences are down to biology rather than free will.
"Even if you tightly control the appearance and taste of food, our brains can detect the nutrient content

Apart from palm oil, I don't know of any plants that can give the body the fats we want/need. I just have to accept I am genetically programmed to eat fat and cannot use free will to escape my love of dairy & meat.

----------


## Rheghead

> I know this thread has been done to death, but just been reading BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37549578 
> 
> An interesting line says 
> 
> Humans probably evolved hunger genes to cope in times of famine, say experts. 
> 
> When food is scarce it makes sense to eat and store more fat to fend off starvation.
> 
> Lead researcher Prof Sadaf Farooqi, from the Wellcome Trust Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science at the University of Cambridge, said the findings suggest that at least part of our food preferences are down to biology rather than free will.
> ...


This is the crucial issue though.  Biologically, we are living in constant Summer with central heating, shelter, and food all year round.  We don't go through famine through the winter, we do not need to build up body fat to keep us going.  We have invented and adapted beyond the biological need to adapt to famine and feast.

----------


## Rheghead

I have seen it written on a few websites that consuming animal protein has the comparable health risks to smoking a cigarette.  Well I think it is pretty conclusive from the studies that I have linked to that there is a cancer risk.  However cigarettes are addictive and people who are addicted to cigarettes will not see that they are addicted and they will actually play down the risks that are associated with smoking.  But that can't be the case with eating dairy products as they are not addictive.......or so we thought but can we be sure about that?  Could there be something in dairy that make us addicted to them?  Well if you look at people's responses to a vegan's lifestyle you get the same impression that there is an addictive element because dairy-eaters are largely hostile, which is very similar to a smoker who claims they are lectured to by a non-smoker.   It would not then be unreasonable to think there is an addictive element to animal products.  In fact it is overly obvious to me that this may be the case because they will not listen, they know best and they will not be lectured by people who know better, despite all the evidence of health benefits.  So i decided to investigate...

Well there does seem to be an addictive element.  When casein, the main protein in dairy products is broken down by the digestive tract, a by-product is released into the body. It is an opiate called casomorphin.  Just like a smoker is a slave to nicotine, a dairy eater is equally slave to their 'fix'.  This chemical is in charge of their free-will, they are not in charge.  It seems to me that dairy-eaters are unable to make a rational decision to cut down their intake of dairy to avoid the health risks because they need their 'high'.  Only going _cold turnip_ will get them weaned off their addiction but that takes support and knowledge.

To an addict of dairy products it would be absurd to have a plant-based diet like a vegan.

http://yumuniverse.com/addiction-to-...-casomorphins/

----------


## Fulmar

Why was the cheesemaker lopsided?
Because he only had one stilton.

----------


## Rheghead

A study by the British Medical Journal challenges the conventional wisdom that drinking plenty of milk helps to strengthen bones.  In fact the study suggests that the opposite is true and drinking plenty of milk actually increases the risk of fracture, especially in women.  The authors of the study recommend caution when interpreting the results and recommend further study.  
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6015

However in total contrast, another study showed that women who drank soya milk instead showed the opposite trend, their risk of fracture and osteoporosis actually decreased.

The suggestion seems to be very clear, if you want strong bones then avoid animal based sources of calcium and eat and drink plant based sources of calcium like soya milk and green leafy vegetables.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218100/

----------


## Neil Howie

just catching up with this thread,
per post #88 and the link there, as I have previously mentioned you have emphasized the possible benefits of a vegetarian diet without looking at the risks.  From the same study:

Vegans may have a greater challenge in meeting the nutritional adequacy for vitamin B12, protein, and calcium compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarians and meat-eaters...
Vitamin B12 deficiency may increase CVD risk factors [70], and is associated for a wide range of neurological disorders [71].

----------


## Kevin Milkins

Staying alive seems to have become so scientific that I feel like ending it all. :Wink:

----------


## Alrock

> Staying alive seems to have become so scientific that I feel like ending it all.


That sounds like a healthy option seeing as most damage done to the body comes from the byproducts of burning oxygen.

----------


## Rheghead

> just catching up with this thread,
> per post #88 and the link there, as I have previously mentioned you have emphasized the possible benefits of a vegetarian diet without looking at the risks.  From the same study:
> 
> Vegans may have a greater challenge in meeting the nutritional adequacy for vitamin B12, protein, and calcium compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarians and meat-eaters...
> Vitamin B12 deficiency may increase CVD risk factors [70], and is associated for a wide range of neurological disorders [71].


There are no vitamin or nutrient deficiencies with a vegan diet.

Vitamin B12 is not produced by any plant or animal and is only produced by bacteria.  So the thrust of the message is , yes, vegans need to source vitamin B12, but that just means that everyone, even meateaters need to source vitamin B12 from their diet.  It is not really that difficult to think about.

But what is really going to bake your noodle is that the meat industry regularly injects vitamin B12 into their animals as a supplement because it is recognised that livestock is not getting enough vitamin B12 in their diet.  In other words and as a consequence, meateaters  take supplements in their food chain to get enough vitamin B12.

----------


## Neil Howie

> There are no vitamin or nutrient deficiencies with a vegan diet.
> 
> Vitamin B12 is not produced by any plant or animal and is only produced by bacteria.  So the thrust of the message is , yes, vegans need to source vitamin B12, but that just means that everyone, even meateaters need to source vitamin B12 from their diet.  It is not really that difficult to think about.
> 
> But what is really going to bake your noodle is that the meat industry regularly injects vitamin B12 into their animals as a supplement because it is recognised that livestock is not getting enough vitamin B12 in their diet.  In other words and as a consequence, meateaters  take supplements in their food chain to get enough vitamin B12.


I don't bake my noodles thanks!

Well it may be sold to farmers that their livestock are deficient in B12 but are they really?  In some cases the supplementation will be giving them excess B12.

I'm not worried about sourcing my B12, I'm just worried about yours!

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't bake my noodles thanks!
> 
> Well it may be sold to farmers that their livestock are deficient in B12 but are they really?  In some cases the supplementation will be giving them excess B12.
> 
> I'm not worried about sourcing my B12, I'm just worried about yours!


Don't worry about mine.  I'm getting plenty of B12.  B12 deficiency is prevalent in meateater diets.  It is non discriminatory.

----------


## sids

> There is nothng complex.


There's a complex in your heat-oppress'd brain, mate.

----------


## Rheghead

Another study which suggests that there may be a link between the consumption of cows milk with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948848

Sleep apnoea in children is associated with higher levels of bovine casomorphin from milk which may explain the SIDS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478761

----------


## sids

> Sleep apnoea in childrenhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478761


At last an end to the snoring children scourge.

----------


## Rheghead

> At last an end to the snoring children scourge.


The link between snoring and consuming dairy products is very real.   Snoring kids may sound trivial or even humorous but apnoea is the cessation of breathing during sleep and is an extreme form of snoring.

http://www.snore.net/cows-and-snoring/

----------


## Rheghead

Also, as dairy products are linked to snoring, snoring is also linked to a higher risk of getting cancer.  We only need to put the pieces together and dairy products are linked to cancer.  As always, dairy isn't the only reason for snoring or getting cancer, but if you want to reduce the risk of snoring or getting cancer then cutting out the dairy would be a prudent thing to do.  You'd be doing your bodies a good service in many other areas as well, like diabetes and heart trouble.

Here is NHS-sourced confirmation that snoring is linked to a higher risk of cancer.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pa...ncer-risk.aspx

----------


## sids

For God's sake, mate, is this your life?

There must be some job you could hold down.

----------


## Rheghead

> For God's sake, mate, is this your life?
> 
> There must be some job you could hold down.


Just remember, I only offer the Truth.

You have two choices.

You can ignore my posts and stay in Wonderland.  You can wake up tomorrow morning and continue to think that every cow, sheep and pig is happy because they live on Auld Macdonald's Farm. You can pour milk on your cornflakes and eat your hamburgers and think that the food is nourishing and good for your body.  You can also think that farmers are protecting the environment because the fields look green and neat.  You can believe that we are stewards of all Creation.

Or, you can read my posts and come with me on a journey to learn about what is really going on in our food production.  You will learn about the real treatment and suffering of animals on our farms.  You will learn about the real health risks from eating dairy and meat products.  And you can also learn about how animal agriculture is destroying the planet; by stealing land from animals who should have a right to live here amongst us; about how animal production is a major contributor to climate change and possibly is the number one cause; and how animal agriculture is poisoning our seas and rivers.

But before you decide, remember this.....I only offer you the Truth...

----------


## onespace

Can't decide whether you're a Hippy or a Baptist. Maybe both, which is scary. 

If I were you I would stop using that Internet as well. All those servers are adding to global warming and it's nothing but a vehicle for peddling pornography. 

Might as well ban the wheel as well while we're at it - I'm sure there must be something offensive to you about it too.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can't decide whether you're a Hippy or a Baptist. Maybe both, which is scary. 
> 
> If I were you I would stop using that Internet as well. All those servers are adding to global warming and it's nothing but a vehicle for peddling pornography. 
> 
> Might as well ban the wheel as well while we're at it - I'm sure there must be something offensive to you about it too.


I'm neither a Baptist or a hippy.  But I am interested which you should choose, Wonderland or the Truth?

----------


## onespace

Then you must be the usual white settler come to tell the country yokels the wise ways of the world.

----------


## Bystander1

> Then you must be the usual white settler come to tell the country yokels the wise ways of the world.


Sounds more like Moses - come to lead us all the promised Land .

----------


## Rheghead

In a study of chronically constipated children who had not responded to treatment with laxatives, the kids were fed cows milk for a period of time with no difference in symptoms but when they were alternately fed with soymilk then 68% showed improvement no longer constipated symptoms.  

http://www.drgreene.com/qa-articles/milk-constipation/

----------


## onespace

In contrast, *you* seem to have responded very well to the laxative treatment.

----------


## Rheghead

Dairy milk sales are falling sharply as young people are recognising the health benefits of almond and soya milks as healthy substitutes.  Dairy experts are openly calling the trend as a demographic time bomb and a threat to a way of life that they have become comfortable with.  Little do they know is that the fall in sales of dairy milk could usher in a generation of healthy teenagers who will look young well into their later years.   The other benefits would be environmental, more biodiversity and cleaner rivers.  It is a win-win situation.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/sales-...et-its-8786992

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study which suggests that high intakes of lactose and dairy products, particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk (twice as likely) of serous ovarian cancer. 


http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80...e2=tf_ipsecsha

----------


## mi16

You are forgetting the humiliating sexual assault those poor dairy cattle go through on a daily basis.
getting lined up aside each other and having their breasts pulled like that.

----------


## Rheghead

Doctors are inviting the Chicago Cubs to cut dairy produce from their diets because according to a study men who drink the most milk increase their risk of getting prostate cancer by 50%.

http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/docto...bs-to-help-men

----------


## Bystander1

So what about the Chigaco Scouts, Guides & Brownies. ?. Seems a bit selective to pick on the poor wee Cubs  ?

----------


## Fulmar

From Cancer Research UK

_Milk and dairy are good sources of calcium and protein which are needed as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Calcium is important for teeth and bone health._
_Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk._
_
Read more at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...fcxoumzlVxO.99_

----------


## mi16

I'll bet rheg is a real scream at a party.
did you hear the one about the constipated child..............

----------


## Kevin Milkins

I have met Rheghead and he is a steady sensible person, however that doesn't mean I would agree with all he says, but I also think that is no excuse to be rude because your opinion is different.

----------


## onespace

Can't be long now until he's copied and pasted the entire Internet on here.

----------


## onespace

> You obviously haven't read him calling Councillor Willie Mackay a rapist then!


Maybe he misread his business card - it said "WILLIE MACKAY - THERAPIST"

(wrong type of Counsellor / Councillor)

----------


## Kevin Milkins

> You obviously haven't read him calling Councillor Willie Mackay a rapist then!


No, I didn't read that, but I tend not to read too much about things I have no interest in.

As I said, I have met Rheghead and I doubt if he would set out to deliberately offend or upset anyone.

----------


## Rheghead

> From Cancer Research UK
> 
> _Milk and dairy are good sources of calcium and protein which are needed as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Calcium is important for teeth and bone health._
> _Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk._
> _
> Read more at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...fcxoumzlVxO.99_


It is very interesting why CancerResearchUK play down the cancer risks that are associated with dairy products despite all the scientific studies on this thread that suggest something different is true.  I like to compare this phenomenon of denial to Greenpeace's refusal to assign 15-20% of anthropological greenhouse gases to animal agriculture like beef and dairy.  Why would a major international environmental organisation like Greenpeace ignore animal agriculture which is scientifically accepted as a major contributor to Climate Change? Why would  Greenpeace be more keen to advise you to recycle your egg cartons instead of the blatantly obvious?  

Why won't they say, 'cut out the dairy and meat and you can cut your carbon footprint by up to 20%'?

The answer to that question is hidden by how they operate.  They are charities which rely on subscriptions and donations.  It is safer for them to blame something that everyone agrees is to blame like deforestation, more runways, fossil fuels and poor insulation.  They also need a bogieman like the Koch brothers to firm up their message.  Heck, they don't even tell you that 70% of the Amazonian Rainforest is being felled to make space for grazing for the meat industry, they'd prefer to tell you it is down to mining or palm oil production!  So they are not going to tell you to make lifestyle choices which are deemed to be unpopular because they fear their donations will suffer.  You only have to read the negative comments on this thread to realise that there would be a serious backlash if household-name charities started to tell everyone to cut out dairy and meat from their diet.

----------


## onespace

Bing bong. Medication time.

----------


## Neil Howie

> The link between snoring and consuming dairy products is very real.   Snoring kids may sound trivial or even humorous but apnoea is the cessation of breathing during sleep and is an extreme form of snoring.
> 
> http://www.snore.net/cows-and-snoring/



OK this is probably your least scientific post/link.

And there's a whiff of the fanatic in the air....

The link between mucus and milk, I think comes from Ayurvedic medicine, but clinical trials have found no link:

We conclude that no statistically significant overall association can be  detected between milk and dairy product intake and symptoms of mucus  production in healthy adults, either asymptomatic or symptomatic, with  rhinovirus infection.
link

----------


## Rheghead

> OK this is probably your least scientific post/link.
> 
> And there's a whiff of the fanatic in the air....
> 
> The link between mucus and milk, I think comes from Ayurvedic medicine, but clinical trials have found no link:
> 
> We conclude that no statistically significant overall association can be  detected between milk and dairy product intake and symptoms of mucus  production in healthy adults, either asymptomatic or symptomatic, with  rhinovirus infection.
> link


I'm afraid that does not disprove the link between milk and mucus or snoring/apnoea.  The people in the study were already suffering from a cold and the mucus levels were detected to be up to 30g.  Now even I would concede that mucus secretions due to the consumption of milk would be difficult to detect in amongst the secretions detected when someone had a cold.

----------


## sids

> I have met Rheghead and he is a steady sensible person, however that doesn't mean I would agree with all he says, but I also think that is no excuse to be rude because your opinion is different.


He's a crank.

----------


## Kevin Milkins

I disagree, I take him to be an intelligent bloke that enjoys robust debate.
He believes passionately in what he is saying and supports his ideas with passion and research, but many try to discredit him with snide one liners.
I don't agree with much of his argument, particularly as I spent many years in the dairy industry milking cows, but he has his right to put what point he believes in and does it eloquently.



> He's a crank.

----------


## onespace

No, he's definitely a crank. 

White Settler Hippy. Exposed to too much radiation I think.

----------


## sids

> Exposed to too much radiation I think.


Or not enough.

----------


## sids

> I disagree, I take him to be an intelligent bloke that enjoys robust debate.
> He believes passionately in what he is saying and supports his ideas with passion and research, but many try to discredit him with snide one liners.
> I don't agree with much of his argument, particularly as I spent many years in the dairy industry milking cows, but he has his right to put what point he believes in and does it eloquently.


We can both be right.



> Crank (informal): an eccentric or odd person, esp someone who stubbornly maintains unusual views.

----------


## 2little2late

I know. Why don't we stop eating and drinking altogether? That way we won't put ourselves at risk of cancer, although unfortunately for the majority of us we will all die of starvation.

----------


## 2little2late

> Rheghead are you suggesting we become vegans, so apart from not eating meat eggs & dairy  what else does it involve presume you wear plastic shoes etc  tho  I new a vegan that wore leather trousers, that confused the hell out of me


There is no such thing as a vegan.

----------


## Rheghead

> I know. Why don't we stop eating and drinking altogether? That way we won't put ourselves at risk of cancer, although unfortunately for the majority of us we will all die of starvation.


I disagree with this.  We can still eat well.  70% of crops are fed to animals who are butchered for meat.  I have heard that it takes about 10lbs of plant protein to produce 1lb of animal protein.  If we gave up eating meat and dairy then there would be a surplus capacity to produce food which is both nourishing and doesn't pose a significant cancer risk.

----------


## Goodfellers

This is a post on Richard Gere's FB page    https://www.facebook.com/RGereOnline...WSFEED&fref=nf

"My friend's mom has eaten healthy all her life. Never ever consumed alcohol or any "bad" food, exercised every day, very limber, very active, took all supplements suggested by her doctor, never went in the sun without sunscreen and when she did it was for as short a period as possible- so pretty much she protected her health with the utmost that anyone could. She is now 76 and has skin cancer, bone marrow cancer and extreme osteoporosis.
 My friend's father eats bacon on top ...of bacon, butter on top of butter, fat on top of fat, never and I mean never exercised, was out in the sun burnt to a crisp every summer, he basically took the approach to live life to his fullest and not as others suggest. He is 81 and the doctors says his health is that of a young person.
 People you cannot hide from your poison. It's out there and it will find you so in the words of my friend's still living mother: " if I would have known my life would end this way I would have lived it more to the fullest enjoying everything I was told not to!"
 None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Eat the delicious food. Walk in the sunshine. Jump in the ocean. Say the truth that youre carrying in your heart like hidden treasure. Be silly. Be kind. Be weird. Theres no time for anything else."

----------


## onespace

Bad choice of role model here. We all know what Richard Gete gets up to with furry quadrupeds.

----------


## sids

> Bad choice of role model here. We all know what Richard Gete gets up to with furry quadrupeds.


But who raped who?

----------


## Rheghead

The dairy industry and some UK cancer charities have been guilty of overly promoting the 'protective properties' to just one kind of cancer. colorectal cancer, that dairy products may provide.    However, eating processed meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, to give some context, just one sausage per day could increase your risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.  So whilst I support that dairy products may reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer, I have to say that the risk of developing this cancer is one that is of the dairy and meat industry's own making in the first place.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/wo...-causes-cancer

----------


## sids

What about vapour trails?

----------


## Fulmar

There is evidence to link eating a lot of red meat and processed meat with a slightly higher risk of developing colorectal cancer amongst any particular group of people. But this will (and always does, with cancer) depend upon individual genetic/mutation factors which determine whether a person will develop cancer. My frustration with your postings on this thread are that you make something that is incredibly complicated- ie the generation of cancer in any particular individual, sound simplistic. It is simply wrong to say that eating one sausage each day necessarily increases individual risk- it may do but equally, it may not. In any event, the last time I looked, milk and dairy did not fall under the heading of red and processed meat.
I challenge you to phone or email Cancer Research UK (they are always approachable) and discuss it with them and put the answers you receive on here. Unlike yourself, (I presume), they are the ones actually studying cancer and evaluating research which includes putting absolutely everything and every study to properly conducted and peer reviewed scrutiny.

----------


## Rheghead

> My frustration with your postings on this thread are that you make something that is incredibly complicated- ie the generation of cancer in any particular individual, sound simplistic. *It is simply wrong to say that eating one sausage each day necessarily increases individual risk- it may do but equally, it may not.* In any event, the last time I looked, milk and dairy did not fall under the heading of red and processed meat.


There is nothing complicated in eating meat and dairy will raise your risk in developing cancer.  It is not my words.  Take your frustration out on the World Health Organisation whose own research agency has categorised red meat as a probable carcinogen.  I have repeated study after study that suggests eating red meat and dairy is associated with higher rates of cancer. Your post reminds me about what tobacco companies would say about cigarettes.

I will repeat the words in the article;




> *Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies* to reach their conclusions. They f*ound that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%*. That’s the equivalent of about 4 strips of bacon or 1 hot dog. *For red meat, there was evidence of increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.*




I'm sorry but you can ignore that evidence if you wish, you can even get frustrated by it, I do not care, all I am concerned about is that you should have the best evidence before you so that you can make your own choices about your own lifestyle. 

Are you connected with the meat and dairy industry?

----------


## Rheghead

> I challenge you to phone or email Cancer Research UK (they are always approachable) and discuss it with them and put the answers you receive on here. Unlike yourself, (I presume), they are the ones actually studying cancer and evaluating research which includes putting absolutely everything and every study to properly conducted and peer reviewed scrutiny.


I'm afraid i won't be doing that.  Cancer Research UK is not an impartial organisation towards the meat and dairy industry.  Tesco has the largest corporate donation agreement with Cancer Research UK with some £12,000,000 going towards Cancer Research UK(CRUK) per year.  Whilst I do not begrudge the money or question the validity of the _cause,_ I realise that amount of genorosity does not come without any _strings attached_ as the body of evidence weighs in against the dairy and meat industry.  

Tesco is the biggest UK retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK.  They are happy to plough those £millions into CRUK so long as CRUK does not mention cutting out meat or dairy products from Tesco's customer diets.  They're keen on messages like _increase consumption of fruit and vegetables_ though.   The generosity of Tesco is based upon protecting its own profits and CRUK is happy to take the money.  It is a stitch-up.

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/...search-uk.html

----------


## Fulmar

I am not connected with the meat and dairy industry in any way. What I am concerned about is scientific truth. There is a link with red meat consumption to colorectal cancer within populations but cancer involves individuals. Milk and dairy are not red or processed meat and the link between that and cancer is unproven. More research is needed. That does not mean that every person eating red and processed meat will develop cancer, some will, others will not. We all know plenty of folk who live to a ripe old age having eaten these foods all their life and they have not developed cancer. However, aging is one of the greatest risk factors and cancer incidence is also increasing simply because we are all tending to live longer, whatever we eat. Most colorectal cancer starts as a benign polyp that can be sitting there for years and then, for some reason, undergoes a mutational change and becomes cancerous. Many people develop polyps and there is absolutely nothing an individual can do regarding diet or lifestyle to prevent them from happening. The mutational changes occur at a cellular level and are incredibly complex in and no one has proved that eating a sausage causes that change to happen. If one wishes to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, sure, cut out red and processed meat or eat them sparingly but do not think that you are then safe from that particular cancer because you are not. I know one vegan and others who are vegetarians who have sadly developed colorectal cancer. The 'protection' on an individual level is very small. Also, Rheghead, in the pursuit of truth, point me to the scientific study that proves that eating red or processed meat sparingly increases the risk of colorectal cancer? How many sausages are safe? Is it ok to eat them once a year with the Christmas turkey, for example?
I find your view of Cancer Research UK utterly sad, to be honest. As they point out, their own people get cancer too and all they are in business to do is to devise ways of preventing and treating it effectively and the answers do lie in scientific research and many lives are being saved because of that.

----------


## Rheghead

> *I find your view of Cancer Research UK utterly sad, to be honest.* As they point out, their own people get cancer too and all they are in business to do is to devise ways of preventing and treating it effectively and the answers do lie in scientific research and many lives are being saved because of that.


How would you feel if CRUK was sponsored by British and American Tobacco with £millions and they instructed CRUK not to mention 'stop smoking' or 'cigarettes cause cancer' and instead they recommended more 'fresh air' or 'fewer puffs'?  Because that is what is happening with CRUK in relation to the carcinogenic red meat and dairy products because of their sponsorship with Tesco..

----------


## Rheghead

> I am not connected with the meat and dairy industry in any way. What I am concerned about is scientific truth. There is a link with red meat consumption to colorectal cancer within populations but cancer involves individuals. Milk and dairy are not red or processed meat and the link between that and cancer is unproven. More research is needed.


I have posted countless scientific papers that have been peer-viewed that suggest eating meat and dairy is related to developing cancer.  It is obvious to me that I need to post more papers to convince you.

----------


## onespace

> I need to post more papers to convince you.


No, it's alright - we're already fully aware you're a crank.

----------


## Alrock

Let's all post some links...

*The Vegetarian Gene: A Plant-Based Diet Causes Lasting Genetic Mutations That Could Increase Cancer Risk*

----------


## mi16

please no more posters, no more!!!!

----------


## Rheghead

> No, it's alright - we're already fully aware you're a crank.


I'm only a crank if you deny the science.

----------


## onespace

I deny !  I deny !

----------


## DSTOTM

You live and you die..... please stop whining like a cry baby.

----------


## DSTOTM

Grow a pair!!!!!!!

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another global study which shows a correlation between dairy and meat consumption with breast cancer, uteri cancer and ovarian cancer.  The study suggests that the oestrogen in dairy and meat products are very much responsible for developing cancer.  It seems women are very much at risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125328

----------


## Rheghead

Yet another study which shows a significant correlation between dairy products and endometrial cancer in post-menopausal women.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21717454

----------


## Goodfellers

*Aaaaggggghhhhhh!!!!!*



*We cant take anymore.where do I sign to pledge never to eat dairy again..*

----------


## sids

> *Aaaaggggghhhhhh!!!!!*
> 
> *We can’t take anymore….where do Isign to pledge never to eat dairy again…………………..*


You're gonna sign it and still eat cheese, aren't you!

----------


## Goodfellers

Oh yeah......just please make him stop..... :-)

----------


## pig whisperer

Can anyone help, I think I am addicted to this thread,  I keep hoping that it will be closed & disappear, but no, there it is & I have to read it, I have to confess that I will still eat cheese , drink milk & spread butter on my toast  oh well it may be closed tomorrow,

----------


## Rheghead

> Can anyone help, I think I am addicted to this thread,  I keep hoping that it will be closed & disappear, but no, there it is & I have to read it, I have to confess that I will still eat cheese , drink milk & spread butter on my toast  oh well it may be closed tomorrow,


What's the big deal?  Why is posting scientific papers on the carcinogenic properties of meat and dairy products so offensive for you?

----------


## Rheghead

Another study that shows that oral administration of low fat dairy milk to rats promoted mammary tumours in lab rats.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15122580

----------


## pig whisperer

I said I was addicted not offended  I am going to be strong & read no more as you are just repeating  the same thing ad nauseam, might be a good time to stop

----------


## golach

I am recovering from stomach cancer, had 2/3rds of my stomach removed, I dont  drink milk, I love cheese , like butter, and I love meat , there is no way will I believe dairy products cause cancer, sorry Rheg , you have gone on too long about this, your becoming boring, I understand you have a personal issue with cancer and for that I am sorry. But rheg give this thread a rest

----------


## sids

> I said I was addicted not offended  I am going to be strong & read no more as you are just repeating  the same thing ad nauseam, might be a good time to stop


Yeah he's milking it now.

----------


## Goodfellers

> Yeah he's milking it now.


He will say that's 'udder' rubbish and keep 'pinting' us in the direction of his research. Time to 'teater' off and enjoy my bacon sarnie dripping with butter

----------


## Rheghead

I know this thread isn't boring because it receives a lot of attention and trolling comments.

BTW.  Here is a epidemiological study that clearly shows that the consumption of dairy and meat products are major risk factors to developing type 2 diabetes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442749

----------


## Shaggy

with all these life shortening foodstuffs going around and the amount of them that i have consumed over the last half-century, i reckon i should have died about 30 years ago.....but now seeing as i haven't died, Rheg is trying to kill us all through boredom

----------


## Rheghead

> with all these life shortening foodstuffs going around and the amount of them that i have consumed over the last half-century, i reckon i should have died about 30 years ago.....but now seeing as i haven't died, Rheg is trying to kill us all through boredom


I have seen a lot of boring threads come and go on caithness.org.  They are fairly typical of each other, they feature mundane subjects, have no replies and virtually no informative content.  This is the exact opposite, it gets lots of attention and it is full of scientific information on a range of public health issues.

You may want to label it boring to shut it down for your own agenda but 'boring' it certainly isn't.

----------


## Shaggy

i have no agenda nor do i want anyones threads closed. last time i checked, freedom of speech wasn't stifled on the org although there are a few users who would prefer it so. You carry on posting your threads Rheg, just don't expect an answer from me if i do indeed die from boredom.....or cancer....or any other life threatening illness caused by eating or breathing :-)

----------


## onespace

You seem to be under the illusion that people click on those links. Has the tumour spread to your brain ?

----------


## Rheghead

Another scientific epidemiological study in China that shows consumption of meat increases the risk of colon cancer and foods such as fruit and vegetables reduce the risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12646508

----------


## sids

> and diet may have contributed to the rising incidence


And we're back to where Rhegheadproblem doesn't know what "may" means.

----------


## Rheghead

> And we're back to where Rhegheadproblem doesn't know what "may" means.


Scientifically speaking, cigarettes _may_ cause lung cancer but government warnings on cigarette packets include the phrase 'Smoking causes fatal lung cancer'.  It isn't just me.  Eating processed meat like a burger is as bad as smoking cigarettes in terms of risk.  Let me not be the ultimate authority on how to use the word 'may', you can go on and think the risk is acceptable, if you want to.  

By comparison, scientifically speaking, fossil fuels may be responsible for climate change, but fossil fuels are causing the climate to change.  Scientifically speaking, exposure to asbestos may cause asbestosis, but asbestos does cause asbestosis.  Vibratiing machinery may cause vibration white finger, but what else would cause vibration white finger?

In essence, there are two distinct uses of 'may', one for science and one for the everyday language, you are confusing the two.

----------


## Kevin Milkins

[QUOTE) but what else would cause vibration white finger?
[/QUOTE]

I find lying in the bath for too long causes that with me.

----------


## Rheghead

Another study showing that eating meat and fats is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056595

----------


## Rheghead

Another study which shows that eating meat and fats is associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17490979

----------


## richardj

Rheghead ... interesting links. I suspect that  "greater consumption of fibre" may be one of the main factors in reducing cancer (mentioned in one of the links regarding the Chinese study). China has greatly increased their meat eating since the 1970/80's as well as their intensive (some (I) would call barbaric) intensive farming methods and the very heavy reliance on antibiotic use within this industrial production method. This could be affecting the bacteria relationship within the farmed animals and have a consequent ongoing affect on the humans who consume the meat. 

There was an interesting article on the BBC website regarding a possible causal relationship between certain gut bacteria and Parkinson's disease http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38173287 so it may be the same with certain cancers being stimulated by poor / unbalanced diets that are mostly meat based (especially processed meats such as bacon, or from animals that have been heavily treated with antibiotics and growth hormones) that "may" affect the bacteria environment within the stomach and gut.

The combination of heavy antibiotic use (and in the USA growth hormones) within industrial farming methods along with lack of fibre in a persons diet could create the correct environment for certain "bad" bacteria in the stomach/gut that triggers a chemical release that stimulate cancer cells.

Just a guess

R

----------


## sids

> Rheghead ... interesting links. I suspect that  "greater consumption of fibre" may be one of the main factors in reducing cancer (mentioned in one of the links regarding the Chinese study).


I eat a lot of fibrous meat, so that's quite reassuring.

----------


## scorrie

> [QUOTE)* but what else would cause vibration white finger?
> *


*

I find lying in the bath for too long causes that with me.*[/QUOTE]

I read a compensation firm's advert in the Daily Record, which asked whether I had "Worked with a Vibrating Tool in the last 20 years"

I rang them up and asked whether the guy Neil, why was a bit of an alkie, counted?

Turned out I had the wrong end of the stick

----------


## Rheghead

I also found this study as part of my ongoing investigations, which was also quite interesting.  We associate smoking with lung cancer but this study shows that eating dairy and beef products are also associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25416035

----------


## Goodfellers

Come on................its FIVE whole days since I last read a study informing me that everything I eat is going to shorten my life............any chance of some reading material to brighten my life just before Christmas??

----------


## mi16

> I also found this study as part of my ongoing investigations, which was also quite interesting.  We associate smoking with lung cancer but this study shows that eating dairy and beef products are also associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25416035


If you smoke a cheeseburger you are totally Donald ducked

----------


## Rheghead

Human beings are not natural meateaters.  And humans have only consumed dairy since the birth of agriculture a mere 10,000 years ago.  Whereas humanity is much older, human beings have been around for about 150,000+ years during which we ate a mainly or exclusively a vegetarian diet.  

We are the only creature to consume the lactic secretions of another species, and certainly, we are the only creature to consume milk into adulthood.  If you think about that for a minute then you may be able to realise how unnatural consuming dairy products really is.  What is unnatural is usually bad for us and i am convinced that is why our bodies are trying to tell us that via incidence of cancer, heart disease and diabetes.  Our meat eating and dairy consumption is a choice or learned behavior, it certainly isn't instinctive.

Our physiology is definitely that of a herbivore.  Our closest relatives the great apes are almost exclusively vegetarian, some 2-3% of the chimpanzee diet is from animals and about 60% of that comes from insects.   We have herbivore dentition. The length of our gut is long like a herbivore some 10 times longer than our body unlike a carnivore which is  3 times longer.  Our jaw opening is limited compared to carnivores who can really open there jaws wider than their heads.  We have hands not claws.  We sweat, we do not pant like carnivores.  Carnivores lap their water, herbivores generally sip their water like we do.  Carnivores can generate vitamin C from their bodies, herbivores like us need to have it in our diet.  We mix our food with saliva which has lots of enzymes in it, carnivores do not chew their food and there are no digestive enzymes in their saliva.  Our stomachs consists of 25% of the volume of our digestive tract like most herbivores, carnivores have larger stomach in relation to their digestive tracts, some 60% of the total volume.  The pH of carnivore stomachs is about pH1 compared to ours which is comparable to other herbivores, some pH4.   Our livers are not optimised to deal with the retinol vitamin A that comes from animal products. This vitamin A can be harmful to humans in large quantities.  However, carotinid vitamin A that is found in plants is completely beneficial to the human body.  In fact palaeontologists have discovered that early humans suffered from hypervitaminosis A toxicity because of the meat eating.  Also, athersclerosis is the hardening of the arteries with cholesterol.  Only hervivores who are fed animal products seem to be affected from this disaese.  Carnivores are unaffected by athersclerosis.  So it seems we are behavoral omnivores which _betrays_ our herbivore physiology.   

As you can see the list of confirmatory evidence that we are herbivore by physiology is extensive, so the next time you hear a meateater defending their carnist diet by pointing to their canines then you will find their ignorance particulary amusing...  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-..._b_214390.html

----------


## Goodfellers

Very interesting read this time Rheghead.......................But can you explain why humans have been growing in size since our diet included large amounts of fat and dairy? .......Life expectancy has also risen......explanation as to why would be appreciated. I saw in the newsagent that the Express (it would have to be them) now have a headline 'EAT UP, FAT IS GOOD FOR YOU'. I didn't buy the paper, so cant comment on the article.

----------


## sids



----------


## Fulmar

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/fo...ution-of-diet/

Key phrase:
'Meat played a starring role'

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/fo...ution-of-diet/
> 
> Key phrase:
> 'Meat played a starring role'


The Palaeo diet is actually a relaunch of the Atkins diet which has been thoroughly debunked.

----------


## Rheghead

> Very interesting read this time Rheghead.......................But can you explain why humans have been growing in size since our diet included large amounts of fat and dairy? .......Life expectancy has also risen......explanation as to why would be appreciated. I saw in the newsagent that the Express (it would have to be them) now have a headline 'EAT UP, FAT IS GOOD FOR YOU'. I didn't buy the paper, so cant comment on the article.


First you need to establish if being 'bigger' is a good thing.  Are we healthier for being 'bigger'?  Also is being 'bigger' due to eating meat and dairy or because of better access to a more varied diet, say more vegetables and fruit?  Without references to the article, I can't comment either.

----------


## Fulmar

I respectfully suggest that you actually read the national Geographic article as from your reply, you clearly have not done so. I believe you would find it interesting if you do.

----------


## saywaver

This is really alarming. I'm actually one who likes milk and other dairy products and I'm not aware that these can worsen cancer. By the way, I read about a connection between dairy intake and the risk of developing prostate and ovarian cancers.  Perhaps, when it is taken too much.

----------


## sids

> This is really alarming. I'm actually one who likes milk and other dairy products and I'm not aware that these can worsen cancer. By the way, I read about a connection between dairy intake and the risk of developing prostate and ovarian cancers.  Perhaps, when it is taken too much.


I think you should panic, immediately.   We all have.

----------


## mi16

> I read about a connection between dairy intake and the risk of developing prostate and ovarian cancers.


have your cheese sarnie and glass of milk safe in the knowledge that you can't catch both.

----------


## klarke_79

in todays age cancer is no longer a monthly item of talk its daily, have lots people I care about been taken, but to be honest I don't care to the point of you got it have to deal with it, if you look back to all the diseases that's been killing mankind for centuries this is just another one. would never wish  any harm to a soul. but another point people do care about the disease but are sick of been bombarded with it. TV, Leaflets etc. like Africa, we have been sending money for years through comic relief, still no change, and every year we send more, if this money was used in the UK ie to fight cures fro cancer there would be more scientists and more experiments (NOT ON ANIMALS). Does not seem matter what we eat.

----------


## The Horseman

About 40 years ago in the U.K., I was told that by a Doctor that milk and cheese contributed to Kidney Stones.
30 years later this was changed, and now they blame Red Meat......not milk!

----------


## Rheghead

> in todays age cancer is no longer a monthly item of talk its daily, have lots people I care about been taken, but to be honest I don't care to the point of you got it have to deal with it, if you look back to all the diseases that's been killing mankind for centuries this is just another one. would never wish  any harm to a soul. but another point people do care about the disease but are sick of been bombarded with it. TV, Leaflets etc. like Africa, we have been sending money for years through comic relief, still no change, and every year we send more, if this money was used in the UK ie to fight cures fro cancer there would be more scientists and more experiments (NOT ON ANIMALS). Does not seem matter what we eat.


Exactly, lets take that argument a little further though, what is the point of having medicine or an NHS? We have to go sometime...

----------


## Rheghead

Another study that suggests that dairy products are associated with prostate cancer.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/101/1/87.abstract




> High intakes of dairy products, milk, low-fat milk, cheese, and total, dietary, and dairy calcium, but not supplemental or nondairy calcium, may increase total prostate cancer risk.

----------


## mi16

There are many articles on here that suggest rhegheads post contribute significantly to terminal boredom

----------


## sids

Boring?  He's only said the same thing exactly 92 times in this thread.

Actually, even post #1 was slightly boring.

----------


## Rheghead

Another study that shows there is a risk of prostate cancer with consumption of dairy products.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704029

----------


## Rheghead

Since i have been researching this topic, there is a huge body of scientific evidence that suggests consuming dairy products substantially  increases the risk of getting a whole range of cancers.

Cancer Research UK say the evidence is unclear but then we found out that Tesco, the UK's largest retailer of dairy produce has this charity in its pocketsies by entering the biggest corporate donor arrangement in UK history with CRUK.  You couldn't make it up, it is like if British and American Tobacco sponsored a lung cancer charity.  ::

----------


## The Horseman

Recent stats show that Scotland has one of the worst diets in the World, ranking 40 out of 50.  And with some of the worst tooth decay......FYI...

----------


## Goodfellers

This is going to make someone on here's day :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38370057

I'm off to dig a 6ft hole as we are all doomed

----------


## sids

> Recent stats show that Scotland has one of the worst diets in the World, ranking 40 out of 50.  And with some of the worst tooth decay......FYI...


They need less sweets, more meats.

----------


## golach

Have just come back from my GP, who was giving me the results of a Bone Scan I had to detect Osteoporosis and measuring my bone density, the result is I have not got Osteoporosis, but a little thinning of my bones, and at my age that is not a big deal. Her recommendations take more Calcium and the best source of that is Dairy Products, so Rheghead, I will no longer be listening to you witter on about them causing Cancer. I have recovered from Stomach Cancer, and as a result I will be taking more Dairy products in my daily diet, my GP does not cherry pick from the internet as you do.

----------


## The Horseman

Hello Mr Golach.
How u b?
Glad u have recovered.......

----------


## Rheghead

> Have just come back from my GP, who was giving me the results of a Bone Scan I had to detect Osteoporis and measuring my bone density, the result is I have not got Osteoporosis, but a little thinning of my bones, and at my age that is not a big deal. Her recommendations take more Calcium and the best source of that is Dairy Products, so Rheghead, I will no longer be listening to you witter on about them causing Cancer. I have recovered from Stomach Cancer, and as a result I will be taking more Dairy products in my daily diet, my GP does not cherry pick from the internet as you do.


The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.

Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.

----------


## sids

> The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.
> 
> Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.


They're the countries where people live long enough to get osteoporosis.

----------


## Rheghead

> They're the countries where people live long enough to get osteoporosis.


Have come osteoporosis is not linked with those countries that enjoy long life but do not consume lots of of dairy like China?

----------


## golach

> The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.
> 
> Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.


but I have been diagnosed with not having osteoporosis , what and why should I care, I am still going to use dairy products as I have all my long life

----------


## sids

> Have come osteoporosis is not linked with those countries that enjoy long life but do not consume lots of of dairy like China?


They eat more dog.

----------


## bekisman

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...-controversies  "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..

----------


## kinloch

> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...-controversies  "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..


Happy new year moderation in everything  ::  ::  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...-controversies  "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..


There has been several studies which show that eating meat significantly increases the risk of getting colon cancer, eating dairy does seem to alleviate the risk of colon cancer but it doesn't seem to rid the chance of colon altogether, if you are vegan in the first place then your chances are much better.

----------


## Rheghead

> but I have been diagnosed with not having osteoporosis , what and why should I care, I am still going to use dairy products as I have all my long life


I thought you were out of this discussion?

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abou...-controversies  "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..


Cancer Research UK have entered the biggest corporate charity arrangement in British history with the largest retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK (Tesco).  That is like British and american tobacco co  sponsoring a major lung cancer charity.

----------


## Fulmar

_ancer Research UK have entered the biggest corporate charity arrangement in British history with the largest retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK (Tesco). That is like British and american tobacco co sponsoring a major lung cancer charity._

And of course, as we all know, this is the ultimate conspiracy and the money raised will not be going into research into the causes and treatment of cancer (on no, silly, naive me for thinking that!) but into making sure that all folk in the UK consume vastly more quantities of dairy produce with the sinister boffins in the laboratories behind it all, willing us all on to develop cancer at ever earlier ages. Hey ho, Happy New Year everyone and hope that you stay healthy and happy, whatever you happen to be eating.
Keep up to date with things at Reay Hall.

----------


## Goodfellers

I imagine Tesco are also one of the largest sellers of fruit and veg too. I wonder if some of the profits from these sales go to CRUK

----------


## Rheghead

> _ancer Research UK have entered the biggest corporate charity arrangement in British history with the largest retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK (Tesco). That is like British and american tobacco co sponsoring a major lung cancer charity._
> 
> And of course, as we all know, this is the ultimate conspiracy and the money raised will not be going into research into the causes and treatment of cancer (on no, silly, naive me for thinking that!) but into making sure that all folk in the UK consume vastly more quantities of dairy produce with the sinister boffins in the laboratories behind it all, willing us all on to develop cancer at ever earlier ages. Hey ho, Happy New Year everyone and hope that you stay healthy and happy, whatever you happen to be eating.
> Keep up to date with things at Reay Hall.


Conspiracy theories are just that, they're not based in fact..  But it is a _fact_ that Tesco have entered the biggest corporate donation arrangement with Cancer research UK in UK history.

----------


## Rheghead

It seems to me to be common sense to prevent cancer in the first place than it is to cure it.

----------


## Rheghead

Choosing to eat a plant-based diet basically comes down to a loaded choice.  Are you prepared to choose a diet which nourishes you in a less harmful way to yourself, your family and your planet, or do you wish to keep on eating animal products which are destroying your health, your family and your planet because you just like the taste of them and are not willing to listen to the facts or are unwilling to change your ways for a greater good.  It is that simple of a choice.  We have words that accurately describe people who take the latter option, they are not exactly flattering but they have to take it on the chin.

----------


## wavy davy

> Choosing to eat a plant-based diet basically comes down to a loaded choice.  Are you prepared to choose a diet which nourishes you in a less harmful way to yourself, your family and your planet, or do you wish to keep on eating animal products which are destroying your health, your family and your planet because you just like the taste of them and are not willing to listen to the facts or are unwilling to change your ways for a greater good.  It is that simple of a choice.  We have words that accurately describe people who take the latter option, they are not exactly flattering but they have to take it on the chin.


There are also words, most very short,  which describe someone who tries to push their opinions/life choices down other people's throats (no pun intended).

----------


## Fulmar

> There are also words, most very short,  which describe someone who tries to push their opinions/life choices down other people's throats (no pun intended).


And who, in fact, does not have the scientific back up for his claims in a highly complex field of study and who even refuses to acknowledge that human beings, as a species, evolved as omnivores.

----------


## Rheghead

Back on the urban myth that we have evolved as omnivores, here is another study which shows why our herbivore physiology is incompatible with a meateating diet.  Unlike true omnivores like dogs bears and raccoons, the human body treats meat consumption and ingestion not with digestion but with a triggering of a toxic immune response which raises the risk of getting cancer, diabetes and other inflamatory problems.

Abstract

A well known, epidemiologically reproducible risk factor for human carcinomas is the long-term consumption of "red meat" of mammalian origin. Although multiple theories have attempted to explain this human-specific association, none have been conclusively proven. We used an improved method to survey common foods for free and glycosidically bound forms of the nonhuman sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), showing that it is highly and selectively enriched in red meat. The bound form of Neu5Gc is bioavailable, undergoing metabolic incorporation into human tissues, despite being a foreign antigen. Interactions of this antigen with circulating anti-Neu5Gc antibodies could potentially incite inflammation. Indeed, when human-like Neu5Gc-deficient mice were fed bioavailable Neu5Gc and challenged with anti-Neu5Gc antibodies, they developed evidence of systemic inflammation. Such mice are already prone to develop occasional tumors of the liver, an organ that can incorporate dietary Neu5Gc. Neu5Gc-deficient mice immunized against Neu5Gc and fed bioavailable Neu5Gc developed a much higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas, with evidence of Neu5Gc accumulation. Taken together, our data provide an unusual mechanistic explanation for the epidemiological association between red meat consumption and carcinoma risk. This mechanism might also contribute to other chronic inflammatory processes epidemiologically associated with red meat consumption

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25548184

http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...76#post1158876

----------


## Rheghead

Here is a Telegraph article of the study for those who struggle with the esoteric language of science reports.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...ists-find.html

----------


## Neil Howie

> The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.
> 
> Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.



my bold :

Osteoporosis is a major health problem, especially in elderly  populations, and is associated with fragility fractures at the hip,  spine, and wrist. Hip fracture contributes to both morbidity and  mortality in the elderly. The demographics of world populations are set  to change, with more elderly living in developing countries, and it has  been estimated that by 2050 half of hip fractures will occur in Asia.  This review conducted using the PubMed database describes the incidence  of hip fracture in different regions of the world and discusses the  possible causes of this wide geographic variation. The analysis of data  from different studies show a wide geographic variation across the  world, with higher hip fracture incidence reported from industrialized  countries as compared to developing countries. The highest hip fracture  rates are seen in North Europe and the US and lowest in Latin America  and Africa. Asian countries such as Kuwait, Iran, China, and Hong Kong  show intermediate hip fracture rates. There is also a northsouth  gradient seen in European studies, and more fractures are seen in the  north of the US than in the south. 

The factors responsible of this  variation are population demographics *(with more elderly living in  countries with higher incidence rates)* and the influence of ethnicity,  latitude, and environmental factors. The understanding of this changing  geographic variation will help policy makers to develop strategies to  reduce the burden of hip fractures in developing countries such as  India, which will face the brunt of this problem over the coming  decades.

abstract

----------


## Fulmar

We did evolve as ominivores. The archaeological evidence for that is irrefutable. We also possess a pair of canine teeth in our jaw! If we were herbivores, our dentition would reflect that and it does not. Those are the FACTS.
As for your study, I have yet to meet a 'human-like' mouse- in other words, a strain of laboratory animals already highly modified that would not have evolved naturally. Also, I have yet to see one that eats meat. No wonder the poor things got liver cancer.
I wonder if you listened to radio 4 this morning and the study that links living near a busy road to the development of Alzheimers dementia. On there the  difference between 'association' with a disease and 'causal effect' was made clear and that the study is useful at population level. That equally applies to the things that you bang on about on here. An illustration of this concept was made as follows. People with depression may tend to wear dark clothing but wearing dark clothing does not cause them to have the depression. We evolved to eat meat sparingly. You have never been able to show me the evidence that proves that doing that 'causes' cancer and that is because there isn't any. Also, you totally fail to take into account, among many other things that there are racial differences at play in susceptibility to particular forms of cancer. Cancer is generated at gene level involving loci on genes, the immune system and many other fators. It is incredibly complex and yet you offer black and white simplistic so-called 'causes' and 'preventative measures'. It is not like that- ask any vegan who has sadly developed cancer.

----------


## pig whisperer

I know a vegan who has osteoporosis & he developed this in his 40s,

----------


## Rheghead

> my bold :
> 
> Osteoporosis is a major health problem, especially in elderly  populations, and is associated with fragility fractures at the hip,  spine, and wrist. Hip fracture contributes to both morbidity and  mortality in the elderly. The demographics of world populations are set  to change, with more elderly living in developing countries, and it has  been estimated that by 2050 half of hip fractures will occur in Asia.  This review conducted using the PubMed database describes the incidence  of hip fracture in different regions of the world and discusses the  possible causes of this wide geographic variation. The analysis of data  from different studies show a wide geographic variation across the  world, with higher hip fracture incidence reported from industrialized  countries as compared to developing countries. The highest hip fracture  rates are seen in North Europe and the US and lowest in Latin America  and Africa. Asian countries such as Kuwait, Iran, China, and Hong Kong  show intermediate hip fracture rates. There is also a northsouth  gradient seen in European studies, and more fractures are seen in the  north of the US than in the south. 
> 
> The factors responsible of this  variation are population demographics *(with more elderly living in  countries with higher incidence rates)* and the influence of ethnicity,  latitude, and environmental factors. The understanding of this changing  geographic variation will help policy makers to develop strategies to  reduce the burden of hip fractures in developing countries such as  India, which will face the brunt of this problem over the coming  decades.
> 
> abstract


Eating dairy is predicted to increase in the east because the desire to eat those products.  How many cases could be reduced if they kept to a vegan diet because animal derived calcium seems to increase the risk of ostoeporosis.

----------


## Rheghead

> We did evolve as ominivores. The archaeological evidence for that is irrefutable. We also possess a pair of canine teeth in our jaw! If we were herbivores, our dentition would reflect that and it does not. Those are the FACTS.
> As for your study, I have yet to meet a 'human-like' mouse- in other words, a strain of laboratory animals already highly modified that would not have evolved naturally. Also, I have yet to see one that eats meat. No wonder the poor things got liver cancer.
> I wonder if you listened to radio 4 this morning and the study that links living near a busy road to the development of Alzheimers dementia. On there the  difference between 'association' with a disease and 'causal effect' was made clear and that the study is useful at population level. That equally applies to the things that you bang on about on here. An illustration of this concept was made as follows. People with depression may tend to wear dark clothing but wearing dark clothing does not cause them to have the depression. We evolved to eat meat sparingly. You have never been able to show me the evidence that proves that doing that 'causes' cancer and that is because there isn't any. Also, you totally fail to take into account, among many other things that there are racial differences at play in susceptibility to particular forms of cancer. Cancer is generated at gene level involving loci on genes, the immune system and many other fators. It is incredibly complex and yet you offer black and white simplistic so-called 'causes' and 'preventative measures'. It is not like that- ask any vegan who has sadly developed cancer.


How many studies does it take to convince you that eating meat and dairy products increases the risk of developing cancer?

It is not fiction, it is fact.  

Have you considered that you are not willing to listen because you like meat and dairy so much or your livelihood depends on selling those products?

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study which shows that casein the main protein in milk promotes the growth of cancerous tumours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25237656

----------


## Rheghead

Milk in the UK is allowed a somatic cell count of up to 400,000 per millilitre.

Somatic cells are white blood cells (think of pus) which are released by the cow in response to a bacterial infection like mastitis which is a particularly painful infection caused my milking.

----------


## mi16

> Milk in the UK is allowed a somatic cell count of up to 400,000 per millilitre.
> 
> Somatic cells are white blood cells (think of pus) which are released by the cow in response to a bacterial infection like mastitis which is a particularly painful infection caused my milking.


why are you milking then?

----------


## Goodfellers

I need to confess….I went out last night and had a succulentjuicy, melt in the mouth fillet steak at the Castletown. 
I know it ‘may’ shorten my lifespan, but it was worth it.
Can any of the veggies reading this, point me in thedirection of something plant based that tastes as good and makes you feel good?

----------


## Saveman

Have you tasted sprouts??   :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> Have you tasted sprouts??


Yes and they are absolutely wonderful when roasted with salt, olive oil and garlic until the outer leaves go black.  They are so sweet and delicious that I often have them as a snack on their own.

----------


## Fulmar

Somatic cells in milk are mainly white blood cells, (leucocytes). We all have them circulating in our blood and while they are produced as an immune response to infection, they are the corner stone of the immune system. If there is a localised infection causing pus to form, it comprises dead leucocytes and debris resulting from the immune response. FACT. To imply that milk contains pus is a twisting of the truth.

----------


## Goodfellers

Umm..........I was going to try a big bowl of sprouts boiled in cow pus (meat eaters call it 'milk' ) but I have lost my appetite.


Ps.....can we keep this thread going till next New Year

----------


## Rheghead

> Somatic cells in milk are mainly white blood cells, (leucocytes). We all have them circulating in our blood and while they are produced as an immune response to infection, they are the corner stone of the immune system. If there is a localised infection causing pus to form, it comprises dead leucocytes and debris resulting from the immune response. FACT. To imply that milk contains pus is a twisting of the truth.


Milk contains dead leucocytes which is pus.  That is the truth.  If you mixed cow pus into milk it would be indistinguishable from the dead leucocytes in the milk.  You are drinking pus.

----------


## Fulmar

Ok. So is it just cows' milk, in your slanted view, that contains 'pus' or is it all milk? Or is it just cows' milk because you don't like the fact that people drink it? What about goats' milk- people drink that too and ewes' and yaks' and camels' milk too, in some countries What about human milk? Are all babes nurtured at the breast drinking pus? That would come as news to many, I am sure, but in your strange logic, it seems it must be likely. No, I don't think so and yes, breast feeding women get mastitis too sometimes and generally, one does not have to stop feeding the baby but put protective measures in place until the condition resolves.

----------


## Fulmar

Oh- and the protective measures are for the mother and not for the baby.
I think it is a wonder that mammals (including your beloved herbivores) have survived at all given what, according to you, their poor benighted mothers are feeding them on. A wonder too that new born baby mammals suckle with such obvious relish when they are receiving something that, in your take on things, is so utterly putrid. 
Goodness, it's enough to make anyone reach for a latte!

----------


## Fulmar

_es and they are absolutely wonderful when roasted with salt, olive oil and garlic until the outer leaves go black. They are so sweet and delicious that I often have them as a snack on their own.
_Red Flag alert! Eating charred sprouts that are black on the outside? Hmm, dodgy! I would not risk it. Don't you know that eating charred food has allegedly been said to be carcinogenic, (or have they changed their minds on that one now, I cannae mind)? No more going outside to scrape the black off the toast either- (well, it makes such a mess if you do it in the kitchen, doesn't it)?
Better just boil the sprouts from now on- everso much safer. You don't want to be raising your cancer risk by a point zero, zero zero zero zer........percent, now do you.

----------


## Rheghead

> Ok. So is it just cows' milk, in your slanted view, that contains 'pus' or is it all milk? Or is it just cows' milk because you don't like the fact that people drink it? What about goats' milk- people drink that too and ewes' and yaks' and camels' milk too, in some countries What about human milk? Are all babes nurtured at the breast drinking pus? That would come as news to many, I am sure, but in your strange logic, it seems it must be likely. No, I don't think so and yes, breast feeding women get mastitis too sometimes and generally, one does not have to stop feeding the baby but put protective measures in place until the condition resolves.


Women can get mastitis too but women usually get treatment for it and quite rightly so.  Veterinary fees are expensive and often injuries are ignored.  Cows are forced to get pregnant then they have their calves taken away from them so we can drink their milk.  The calves are then killed early on or sold as veal, not much of a life really.  They are then milked by machine where their udders often get really sore via mastitis.  The cows get so spent up being pregnant that they become unproductive and they are killed for dogmeat or burgers after just 5 years of life.  Not much of a life I'm afraid.  A cow's lifespan is about 20 years if loved.

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh- and the protective measures are for the mother and not for the baby.
> I think it is a wonder that mammals (including your beloved herbivores) have survived at all given what, according to you, their poor benighted mothers are feeding them on. A wonder too that new born baby mammals suckle with such obvious relish when they are receiving something that, in your take on things, is so utterly putrid. 
> Goodness, it's enough to make anyone reach for a latte!


An animal who suckles its mother is a natural process.  We are the only animal that drinks the milk of another animal.  That is not natural.  Dairy milk is baby bovine growth food.  It isn't supposed to be for humans.  It is designed to get a 90kg calf to 500kg in 18 months.  That is probably why we have so many health problems with dairy.

----------


## sids

> An animal who suckles its mother is a natural process.  We are the only animal that drinks the milk of another animal.


How do you know?




> That is not natural.


Says who (and so what)?





> That is probably why we have so many health problems with dairy.


In your non-expert opinion.

----------


## sids

> _es and they are absolutely wonderful when roasted with salt, olive oil and garlic until the outer leaves go black. They are so sweet and delicious that I often have them as a snack on their own.
> _Red Flag alert! Eating charred sprouts that are black on the outside? Hmm, dodgy! I would not risk it. Don't you know that eating charred food has allegedly been said to be carcinogenic, (or have they changed their minds on that one now, I cannae mind)? No more going outside to scrape the black off the toast either- (well, it makes such a mess if you do it in the kitchen, doesn't it)?
> Better just boil the sprouts from now on- everso much safer. You don't want to be raising your cancer risk by a point zero, zero zero zero zer........percent, now do you.


Eating any sprouts is robbing a cabbage of its young.

----------


## Rheghead

> In your non-expert opinion.


I've posted countless scientific studies that suggest dairy consumption increases the risk of getting cancer.  I have not really started on the studies that suggest dairy consumption increases risk of developing diabetes, obesity and a heart attack.  I guess you are not interested in the science, if so then why do you keep posting hostile comments on this thread?

Are you against a healthy diet for yourself or you don't want others to have a healthy diet?

----------


## sids

> I guess you are not interested in the science, if so then why do you keep posting hostile comments on this thread?


I don't get my science from forum cranks.  I am hostile to your thread because it is a very repetitive partisan protest.  It is having a deleterous effect on the forum.

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't get my science from forum cranks.  I am hostile to your thread because it is a very repetitive partisan protest.  It is having a deleterous effect on the forum.


If you do not like the content then move on.  You are only encouraging me to publish more studies.

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't get my science from forum cranks.  I am hostile to your thread because it is a very repetitive partisan protest.  It is having a deleterous effect on the forum.


You didn't answer my question,  Are you against a healthy diet for yourself or you don't want others to have a healthy diet?

----------


## Rheghead

> tisan protest.  It is having a deleterous effect on the forum.


I'd say that when you post silly little comments on a science thread which is about a healthy diet and lifestyle then it makes you look as if the quality of your character is a little wanting but who am I to say, I am no expert.

----------


## mi16

> We are the only animal that drinks the milk of another animal.


try telling that to my pussy tiddles, she loves a saucer of the old milkies

----------


## Rheghead

> try telling that to my pussy tiddles, she loves a saucer of the old milkies


Tha ti s not the same thing is it? You gave tiddles the milk.   Tad straying from a valid point don't you think?

And still the health problems can be seen there as well.  Milk shouldn't be given to cats, I understand it causes premature kidney problems for them.  Water is more suitable.

----------


## Neil Howie

> Eating dairy is predicted to increase in the east because the desire to eat those products.  How many cases could be reduced if they kept to a vegan diet because animal derived calcium seems to increase the risk of ostoeporosis.


hi,

actually from the same article:




> When these incidence rates were compared with that from 30 years ago,  the authors concluded that the incidence of hip fracture in the Japanese  population is increasing. This increasing incidence is due to the  increase in the population of the elderly in Japan over the last three  decades.





> Rates are higher in Scandinavia than in Western Europe and Oceania. A  north-south gradient in age-standardized risk is found in Europe and US,  with higher rates in north. The age-adjusted increase in incidence that  has been observed in several countries over the last 50 years appears  to have levelled off in some of these countries, especially in Europe  and the US.

----------


## mi16

> Tha ti s not the same thing is it? You gave tiddles the milk.   Tad straying from a valid point don't you think?
> 
> And still the health problems can be seen there as well.  Milk shouldn't be given to cats, I understand it causes premature kidney problems for them.  Water is more suitable.


you said we are the only animals that drink the milk of another animal, that is factually incorrect isn't it.
if given cows milk many other animals will drink it, it's just their wee paws cannae open a carton that's holding them back

----------


## Goodfellers

> An animal who suckles its mother is a natural process.  We are the only animal that drinks the milk of another animal.  That is not natural.  Dairy milk is baby bovine growth food.  It isn't supposed to be for humans.  It is designed to get a 90kg calf to 500kg in 18 months.  That is probably why we have so many health problems with dairy.


Are we? Have you heard about bovine TB.  Our esteemed Westminster govt put the spread down to badgers taking milk (sorry.....cow puss) directly from the udder, or are these scientific studies to be ignored?

----------


## Fulmar

_That is probably why we have so many health problems with dairy.
_Who are the 'we'? Speak for yourself. If only you would! I don't have any problems at all with dairy and am slim, very fit, active and healthy.

----------


## sids

> You didn't answer my question,


That's right.  I care not a fig for your question.

----------


## sids

> If you do not like the content then move on.  You are only encouraging me to publish more studies.


By the 276 posts stage, you have either made your point, or failed to do so.  Talk about something else.


There is a fine line between a hobby and a mental illness.

----------


## Kevin Milkins

> An animal who suckles its mother is a natural process.  We are the only animal that drinks the milk of another animal.


I beg to differ.
https://www.facebook.com/whatweseee/...c_ref=NEWSFEED

----------


## Rheghead

> I beg to differ.
> https://www.facebook.com/whatweseee/...c_ref=NEWSFEED


Ha Ha nice one!  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> hi,
> 
> actually from the same article:


Avoids the point.  how many incidences could be avoided if they kept dairy out of their diet?

----------


## Rheghead

> _That is probably why we have so many health problems with dairy.
> _Who are the 'we'? Speak for yourself. If only you would! I don't have any problems at all with dairy and am slim, very fit, active and healthy.


Yes, for now...

----------


## Rheghead

> Are we? Have you heard about bovine TB.  Our esteemed Westminster govt put the spread down to badgers taking milk (sorry.....cow puss) directly from the udder, or are these scientific studies to be ignored?


That is a bit of a strawman if I have to cast doubt on whether badgers suckle cows to defend the science that shows that dairy is a public health problem. I have looked to substantiate the claim that badgers take milk from cows and I have come up with no evidence.  I hope you can provide a link just out of interest.

In any event, even if a badger did take milk from a cow, my assertion that humans are the only animal to drink the milk from another animal still holds true.  The reason being is that the cow is not a species, it is a domestic breed purely bred to produce milk for humans.  So to enable a badger to suckle milk from a cow requires the century long efforts of humans to make that happen and the opportunism of a wily badger.  Not really a natural encounter.

----------


## Rheghead

Another study which shows dairy products like milk and cheese are associated with a increased risk of developing prostate cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11566656

----------


## mi16

> the cow is not a species, it is a domestic breed purely bred to produce milk for humans.


What utter guff

----------


## sids

> the cow is not a species, it is a domestic breed purely bred to produce milk for humans.


And sausages.

----------


## Rheghead

> What utter guff


Incredible that facts are perceived like that.

----------


## mi16

> Incredible that facts are perceived like that.


Are you seriously trying to pass as fact that cattle are bred solely for milk?

----------


## Rheghead

And I thought that unprocessed red meat was of a lesser threat to human health than processed meat like bacon and burgers etc.  But here is a study that shows that eating unprocessed red meat leads to an increased risk of developing diverticulitis, particularly in men

http://gut.bmj.com/content/early/201...e-abcf9a8d5e5f

----------


## mi16

What is incredible is that you make all these statements that are utter nonsense about Councillors raping cattle and cows bred solely for milk to name but 2, you get called out and then refuse to retract or explain yourself.
If it was posted in jest then fair enough, but I actually think you believe this rubbish you spout.
You were called out as a crank on here last year (not by me) and many defended you.
But for a non crank you sure do display all the hallmarks of a fully paid up moon howling crank extraordinaire.

----------


## Rheghead

> What is incredible is that you make all these statements that are utter nonsense about Councillors raping cattle and cows bred solely for milk to name but 2, you get called out and then refuse to retract or explain yourself.
> If it was posted in jest then fair enough, but I actually think you believe this rubbish you spout.
> You were called out as a crank on here last year (not by me) and many defended you.
> But for a non crank you sure do display all the hallmarks of a fully paid up moon howling crank extraordinaire.


Which of the scientific studies that i have posted are fake or bogus?  The science is sound that consumption of meat and milk products increase the the risk of getting cancer.  I do not know why you choose to deny that fact.

If you like meat and milk and you choose to run the risk then that is an acceptable position to take.  We live in a free country.  But to deny the science and call the person who is only trying to raise awareness of the science a 'crank' makes more of a statement about the name-callers than it does about me.

I'm just posting science about a public health issue...

And btw, I never called any councillor a rapist.

----------


## mi16

> Which of the scientific studies that i have posted are fake or bogus?  The science is sound that consumption of meat and milk products increase the the risk of getting cancer.  I do not know why you choose to deny that fact.
> 
> If you like meat and milk and you choose to run the risk then that is an acceptable position to take.  We live in a free country.  But to deny the science and call the person who is only trying to raise awareness of the science a 'crank' makes more of a statement about the name-callers than it does about me.
> 
> I'm just posting science about a public health issue...
> 
> And btw, I never called any councillor a rapist.


no one is discrediting the studies you posted, However many of your own words are bemusing at best





> You obviously do not know the process of where your food comes from.
> 
> Anyone who tries to artificially inseminate a cow which is unrestrained in a field will get short shrift from the cow. And anyone who stands beside a cow that is restrained in a rape rack during that artificial insemination knows full well the displeasure that the animal goes through. That isn't consent to sex, it is rape.


 councillor Willie Mackay makes his living from AI of cattle, therefore you did call him a rapist.

----------


## Rheghead

> no one is discrediting the studies you posted, However many of your own words are bemusing at best


now that is rubbish, there has been nothing but opposition and denial for the studies that I have posted.  





> councillor Willie Mackay makes his living from AI of cattle, therefore you did call him a rapist.


Councillor MacKay may well make a living from AI of cattle but i never accused him of being a rapist, I never even mentioned him, somebody else did. And it doesn't matter what I think to myself about Councillor Mackay, my thoughts are my own.

And one thing is for sure, anyone who has studied the craft of AI will know what a 'Rape Rack' is.  It is a standard term that is commonly used _within the AI industry_ to describe the restraining stall that is used to inseminate cows.  And yes they do need to be restrained because they try to fight back.  It is not my words, it is the meat industry's words for the device.

I'd also like to add to this conversation that if I induced ejaculation on an animal, any animal, then i would be accused of animal abuse, but this process happens all the time on farms up and down the country on bulls.  Why do we deplore such activities to other animals but when it comes to the meat and dairy industry then it is absolutely acceptable?  That is a double standard.

----------


## mi16

Read you own words, you may not have said his name but by definition of his career and your thoughts on it, you have called him a rapist.

i have witnessed the AI process on many occasions, performed by Mr Mackay, and not once has the animal been secured in a cattle crate, each time they were tied by the neck as normal in the byre.
i wouldn't say the cows were comfortable with the process but they certainly didn't show any signs of distress.

----------


## Rheghead

> Read you own words, you may not have said his name but by definition of his career and your thoughts on it, you have called him a rapist.
> 
> i have witnessed the AI process on many occasions, performed by Mr Mackay, and not once has the animal been secured in a cattle crate, each time they were tied by the neck as normal in the byre.
> i wouldn't say the cows were comfortable with the process but they certainly didn't show any signs of distress.


I read my words, I didn't call him a rapist and you cannot substantiate that.  I didn't mention him.  You are putting words into my mouth.  And it is so shallow of you, i thought you were better than this?

The AI process is uncomfortable for the animal, they feel pain as we do.  You are only defending what he does because you seem to be attached to the industry in some way, I would expect that though.

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another cohort study that suggests that dairy product consumption may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18398033

----------


## mi16

Ok I obviously misunderstood your post and I apologise for that.
so just to ensure we are 100% crystal clear on this, you do not consider AI of cattle to be rape then?

----------


## sids

> so just to ensure we are 100% crystal clear on this, you do not consider AI of cattle to be rape then?


Give him a chance.  A man who never changes his mind is a man who never thinks.

----------


## Rheghead

> Ok I obviously misunderstood your post and I apologise for that.
> so just to ensure we are 100% crystal clear on this, you do not consider AI of cattle to be rape then?


Think of it this way...

Once upon a time, the UK was involved in the human slave trade.  It was perfectly legal to whip, rape and even murder your property if you so wished.  It was perfectly legal.  The majority of people in the British Isles even condoned those actions as being the rights of Man, Freedom of choice, Liberty!!

But they kept on murdering, raping, their property.  Much in the same way modern farming practices are carried out today, we have industrialised the abuse of animals. (I understand that after they keep a cow constantly pregnant for ~5 years then they can become 'downers'. The strain of constant pregnancy on their bodies causes them to collapse, and the thanks they get for making the farmer some money is a trip to the slaughter house for dogmeat or cheap burgers. )

Now, the anti slavery movement didn't accuse the slave owners of rape and murder because it was perfectly legal, they just thought what the slave owners were doing was unethical.  It was just rape and murder to their own conciences.  It was still rape and murder though, I bet they got accused of ramming their opinions on to others as well.  The holocaust of slaves is thankfully all but over, the holocaust for the animals is still going on.

However, thousands of new plant-based people are turning to a more healthier and ethical lifestyle.  I believe that we are going through a period of enlightenment towards the plight of animals within our care...or lack of care, depending on your point of view.

Thoughout this thread, i have established that the meat (aka dairy) industry is selling us food which is not conducive to our health.  I have established from science studies that the human body has a 100% herbivore physiology and the consumption of meat triggers an auto immune response.  Our bodies are telling us that eating animals and their secretions are not good for us, especially not from an evolutionary aspect.

How did we get into this situation?  Well my opinion (backed up by lots of evidence) is that as the spread of mankind went northwards then animal husbandry was essential because fruits and natural food vegetation was much scarcer in northern latitudes.  so although I do not deny that meat and dairy has played a role in getting us to where we are now in our history, it will surely be the end of us if we carry on as we are.  In the days of fresh fruit and veg in the supermarket and better market garden techniques, arable farming practices then we really do not need to eat animals. 

What i also wish to explore, is what the meat industry is doing to our planet. I believe that eating animals is an irresponsible lifestyle choice that is detrimental to human health and the environment for other species who have a right to live on this planet as well.


I will do further investigation to give you (again) the best scientific evidence to suggest the meat industry is causing climate change, ocean dead zones, biodiversity depletion and deforestation on a massive scale.

I have seen compelling anectdotals that it takes 18 times more land to support an omnivore diet than a plant-based diet.  To my mind, eating plants sounds like the most responsible thing to do in terms of our health and our planet.  I expect denials on that, but when facts are in the face, it makes us look silly to deny it.

When does it stop?  

When do we ask ourselves, as a species, that what we are doing to the planet through eating animals is also denying ourselves of wild land to visit, habitats for wild animals?  Normally we love the thought of wild land to explore and enjoy.  We love clean water and a rich biodiversity to admire.  

But do we just wake up one morning and lament the loss of the jaguar? the fox? the elephants?  The tree frogs? The natural oak woodland? Are we happy that the vast majority of land in the UK is a farm?  Have we ever put the connection between the loss of meadow butterflies with the loss of meadows due to farming livestock?

And all because we say 'well i like my meat too much to do anything else'.  'I love my cheese and i can't do without it. '  Vegans are idealistic hippies who are not living in the real world. Is that the real us saying those things, or is it the casomorphin which makes us addicted to dairy products and meat? 

While some people are saying those things, others are saying 'I cannot condone a lifestyle that doesn't involve the killing of animals because I make so much money out of it'.

It is illogical to destroy the planet because we cannot take responsibility for our own lifestyle choices.  That is either lazy, irresponsible or morally bankrupt or all three.

----------


## mi16

> Ok I obviously misunderstood your post and I apologise for that.
> so just to ensure we are 100% crystal clear on this, you do not consider AI of cattle to be rape then?


sorry Reg my question is a very easy one to answer, a yes or no is all that is required.
Will you answer the question, or continue to avoid it?

----------


## Fulmar

_Yes, for now'
_Do you not realise how ridiculous and frankly, puerile this comment is, on a parr with many others that you have written on here?
I feel sorry for you. By your own admission, the reaction to your postings is hostile and mocking and you are not winning any converts. This is because the folk on here are perfectly capable of evaluating evidence and coming up with a different conclusion to your own and sensibly deciding what they wish to eat and you simply cannot stand that, can you? So to use your own tactic, why do you keep on doing it? Answer, you are doing it for yourself, not because you somehow want to save people in your own distorted view. Why do you feel the necessity to always come back and have the last word? Clearly, even such negative reaction is affording you some kind of satisfaction and answering an obsessive need in you. Maybe you should look at the rest of your life and what is lacking in it. I have vegan and vegetarian friends who do not behave as you do. They are friends who come round for dinner sometimes- it's not a problem to me to cook for them and what we all eat or do not eat is not the topic of conversation.
I challenge you to give this up. I don't think that you will or that you are able to but for the sake of your mental health, you would be advised to consider it.
As for me well, in the immortal words of Rhett Butler: 'Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn' and I'm out of here.

----------


## Rheghead

> sorry Reg my question is a very easy one to answer, a yes or no is all that is required.
> Will you answer the question, or continue to avoid it?


I've answered, I have my thoughts to my own.  What the dairy industry does is unethical.  Cows are more of a _someone_ than a _something._  We saw on telly recently  how abandoned cows on Orkney can regain some kind of normality to life and build relationships with their own herd members.  They protect their young and once again live noble lives as wild animals again.  That is a life.  Cattle in the meat industry are denied this luxury.  They are property to be abused as commodities for our own greed.

----------


## Rheghead

> _Yes, for now'
> _Do you not realise how ridiculous and frankly, puerile this comment is, on a parr with many others that you have written on here?
> I feel sorry for you. By your own admission, the reaction to your postings is hostile and mocking and you are not winning any converts. This is because the folk on here are perfectly capable of evaluating evidence and coming up with a different conclusion to your own and sensibly deciding what they wish to eat and you simply cannot stand that, can you? So to use your own tactic, why do you keep on doing it? Answer, you are doing it for yourself, not because you somehow want to save people in your own distorted view. Why do you feel the necessity to always come back and have the last word? Clearly, even such negative reaction is affording you some kind of satisfaction and answering an obsessive need in you. Maybe you should look at the rest of your life and what is lacking in it. I have vegan and vegetarian friends who do not behave as you do. They are friends who come round for dinner sometimes- it's not a problem to me to cook for them and what we all eat or do not eat is not the topic of conversation.
> I challenge you to give this up. I don't think that you will or that you are able to but for the sake of your mental health, you would be advised to consider it.
> As for me well, in the immortal words of Rhett Butler: 'Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn' and I'm out of here.


I am doing it because I care deeply for your wellbeing.  I care deeply for our planet and i care for animals.  It has nothing to do with me.  I like the taste of meat and dairy, if it was all about me then I wouldn't be posting these posts on a thread of my own creation.

----------


## Rheghead

A report by the UN's own environmental and agricultural agency report that 18% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases stem from the livestock industry.  animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases.  More than the fossil fuels used to power transport.

Atmosphere and climate
With  rising  temperatures,  rising  sea  levels,  melting  icecaps  and  glaciers,  shifting  ocean  
currents  and  weather  patterns,  climate  change  is  the  most  serious  challenge  facing  the  human race. 
The  livestock  sector  is  a  major  player,  responsible  for  18 percent  of  greenhouse  gas  
emissions measured in CO2equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

If you care about your own carbon footprint then you can reduce it at a stroke by just eating plant-based foods.  This not only reduces your carbon footprint but it will also reduce the amount of land that is used to support your lifestyle.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf

----------


## mi16

> I've answered, I have my thoughts to my own.  What the dairy industry does is unethical.  Cows are more of a _someone_ than a _something._  We saw on telly recently  how abandoned cows on Orkney can regain some kind of normality to life and build relationships with their own herd members.  They protect their young and once again live noble lives as wild animals again.  That is a life.  Cattle in the meat industry are denied this luxury.  They are property to be abused as commodities for our own greed.


no, you said your thoughts were your own regarding Mr Mackay, but you did not answer the question I posed?

----------


## Rheghead

> no, you said your thoughts were your own regarding Mr Mackay, but you did not answer the question I posed?


I answered it in the original quote then.

----------


## Rheghead

Plant-based milks are getting so popular in the USA now that they are challenging the supremacy of dairy milk.  The result of this popularity is that a senator is pushing through a Pride in dairy Act that will make it illegal to call a plant-based milk ...milk.  Now that is a sign of desperation despite milk referring to an emulsion in general terms rather than a specific secretion from a cow.

Sales are so popular in the US that the market share has increased to nearly $900 million whilst sales of dairy milk has reduced by over $1billion.  People are slowly realising that there is a better product than dairy milk to put on your cornflakes and in your tea and coffee.

https://doorcountypulse.com/sen-bald...sed-beverages/

----------


## mi16

> I answered it in the original quote then.


No, I'm sorry you haven't answered the question at all.

So just to ensure we are 100% crystal clear on this, you do not consider AI of cattle to be rape then?

----------


## Neil Howie

> Avoids the point.  how many incidences could be avoided if they kept dairy out of their diet?


Not exactly a scientific rebuttal there?
How may could be avoided it they had dairy in their diet?  

Here's some food for thought:
*Genetic predisposition for adult lactose intolerance and relation to diet, bone density, and bone fractures. link*and

In addition, China faces two major challenges now and in the future.  First, China has the largest population in the world, which means an  increased population with osteoporosis even if the incidence of  osteoporosis is kept at the current level. Second, accelerated ageing in  China necessitates the establishment of an all-functional social  security system for the ageing population. As is well known, people aged  50 and years and above are at an increased risk of osteoporosis. As  reported in 2010, there were 111 million (8.2 % of Chinas population)  elderly Chinese individuals (aged 65+ years), of which 19.3 million were  in the oldest age group (aged 80+). The elderly population aged 65+  years is estimated to increase immensely, reaching 400 million by 2050 link 

and

In developed countries, for example, the prevalence rate of OP in older  adults was about 13%18% and 21.2% in the United States and Sweden,  respectively.3,4  In the Peoples Republic of China, however, the mean prevalence of OP  in older adults is estimated at 15.7%, and it is considered to be  increasing gradually with the increasing age of the total population,  which is associated with the improvement of the average life expectancy link

----------


## Rheghead

> No, I'm sorry you haven't answered the question at all.
> 
> So just to ensure we are 100% crystal clear on this, you do not consider AI of cattle to be rape then?


Yes i consider the act of putting an instrument into the vagina of a cow that doesn't consent and feels pain from that act to be rape. It is rape.  I thought that was clear, you are obviously not reading my posts.  

I also believe that people who standby and encourage that act to be aparty to rape.

I cannot accuse anyone of rape or call anyone a rapist because I have not been a witness to an act of rape and nor do I wish to be If you assure me that certain persons are conducting themselves in such a manner then it can only open the possibility of myself thinking they are rapists but i could never accuse them.

----------


## mi16

Thanks for the confirmation.
so by that logic most vets and farmers are rapists also I'd have thought nearly all vets would have calved a cow or lambed an ewe.
My god the vet stuck a thermometer (and a digit I think)  up my dogs bum a few months ago, is that rape also and am I an accessory to rape as I held the mutt down?

surely milking a cow is a horrid degrading sexual assault also?

honestly rheg away and have a word with yourself, take a long lie down in a darkened room and regain your marbles before you lose them forever.

----------


## Goodfellers

> A report by the UN's own environmental and agricultural agency report that 18% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases stem from the livestock industry.  animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases.  More than the fossil fuels used to power transport.
> 
> Atmosphere and climate
> With  rising  temperatures,  rising  sea  levels,  melting  icecaps  and  glaciers,  shifting  ocean  
> currents  and  weather  patterns,  climate  change  is  the  most  serious  challenge  facing  the  human race. 
> The  livestock  sector  is  a  major  player,  responsible  for  18 percent  of  greenhouse  gas  
> emissions measured in CO2equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.
> 
> If you care about your own carbon footprint then you can reduce it at a stroke by just eating plant-based foods.  This not only reduces your carbon footprint but it will also reduce the amount of land that is used to support your lifestyle.
> ...


If you care about your carbon footprint..................................how much plant based milk is UK grown/produced? How much plant based diet could the farmers of Caithness grow to feed the local population (reducing food miles to a minimum)? Should we as a people move south to where the human race lived before we became farmers? 

Do you eat only locally grown food, or do you buy food that has travelled thousands of miles?

----------


## Rheghead

> Thanks for the confirmation.
> so by that logic most vets and farmers are rapists also I'd have thought nearly all vets would have calved a cow or lambed an ewe.
> My god the vet stuck a thermometer (and a digit I think)  up my dogs bum a few months ago, is that rape also and am I an accessory to rape as I held the mutt down?
> 
> surely milking a cow is a horrid degrading sexual assault also?
> 
> honestly rheg away and have a word with yourself, take a long lie down in a darkened room and regain your marbles before you lose them forever.


For pity's sake, there is vast difference between the ethical reasons for taking the temperature of your dog with a thin instrument into the anus and artificially inseminating a cow for personal profit.

Firstly, taking the temperature of a dog is part of the medical process to keep your dog in good condition so it will have a comfortable life.  If the dog could consent to having its temperature knowing the reasons then it would gladly do so.  Put yourself in its paws.

However, artificially inseminating a cow involves placing an instrument right up a cows vagina to up near the cervix causing pain and discomfort (you admit this yourself).  The repeated pregnancies (which it was forced to have) causes a physical strain on the cow ensuring premature collapse and death. It becomes a _downer_ after just ~5 years. The natural lifespan of a cow could be 20 years if loved and respected.  The cow would not agree to that.  Put yourself in its hooves. It certainly would not agree to having its baby removed on the day of the birth to be slaughtered and then be subjected to having been milked mechanically for the next 10 months thus denying it of a natural mother's instinct.  And it certainly would not agree to being slaughtered for being taken advantage of after becoming unproductive.

What is wrong with just drinking non dairy milk which is just as nutritious and doesn't have a cruel footprint attached and is much more environmentally friendly?

----------


## Rheghead

> If you care about your carbon footprint..................................how much plant based milk is UK grown/produced? How much plant based diet could the farmers of Caithness grow to feed the local population (reducing food miles to a minimum)? Should we as a people move south to where the human race lived before we became farmers? 
> 
> Do you eat only locally grown food, or do you buy food that has travelled thousands of miles?


Oat milk is an excellent substitute for dairy milk and has been claimed to have the most dairy-like taste.  Try not to convince me that we cannot grow oats in Caithness.

----------


## mi16

> Yes i consider the act of putting an instrument into the vagina of a cow that doesn't consent and feels pain from that act to be rape. It is rape.


What is the difference between inserting an instrument into a cows vagina or a dogs anus?




> For pity's sake, there is vast difference between the ethical reasons for taking the temperature of your dog with a thin instrument into the anus and artificially inseminating a cow for personal profit.


Neither consented to it, my dog certainly seemed uncomfortable and disturbed by it.

Why did the vet insert the thermometer into the dogs anus? Profit, if i did not pay him to do it he would not have done it.




> If the dog could consent to having its temperature knowing the reasons then it would gladly do so. Put yourself in its paws.


There are many humans who refuse medical procedures that could be argued as being in their best interests, you dont know what the dog would say if it could converse, and dogs are not the most logical of beasts especially senile ones.





> What is wrong with just drinking non dairy milk which is just as nutritious and doesn't have a cruel footprint attached and is much more environmentally friendly?


So now we have cruel footprints to think of as well as carbon ones


What about all the insects and other creatures that are killed in the harvesting of your vegan food, do they not matter to you?
Do you think the plants harvested for your diet would opt to be eaten if able to communicate?

----------


## Rheghead

> What is the difference between inserting an instrument into a cows vagina or a dogs anus?
> Neither consented to it, my dog certainly seemed uncomfortable and disturbed by it.
> 
> Why did the vet insert the thermometer into the dogs anus? Profit, if i did not pay him to do it he would not have done it.


Ha ha , you didn't take your dog to your vet for your profit, you sent it to your for its well being.

You got the vet to put that instrument for your own profit and it caused the cow suffering.  There is a huge ethical difference.

----------


## mi16

> Oat milk is an excellent substitute for dairy milk and has been claimed to have the most dairy-like taste.  Try not to convince me that we cannot grow oats in Caithness.


That doesn't really answer the question though does it?

----------


## mi16

> Ha ha , you didn't take your dog to your vet for your profit, you sent it to your for its well being.
> 
> You got the vet to put that instrument for your own profit and it caused the cow suffering.  There is a huge ethical difference.


No cow was hurt in the taking of my dogs temperature, I want that on the record!!!

i didnt take the dog to the vet for profit, but the vet stuck his thermometer up its anus for profit, if my wallet was empty so would have been the dogs rectum.

----------


## Rheghead

> What about all the insects and other creatures that are killed in the harvesting of your vegan food, do they not matter to you?
> Do you think the plants harvested for your diet would opt to be eaten if able to communicate?


Since 75% of all crops are grown as feedstock for animals in a very innefficient process of converting 10kg of plant protein into 1kg of animal protein then I am actually saving lives by having a plant-based diet.

----------


## mi16

> Since 75% of all crops are grown as feedstock for animals in a very innefficient process of converting 10kg of plant protein into 1kg of animal protein then I am actually saving lives by having a plant-based diet.


But lives will be lost in the process, yes?

----------


## Rheghead

> But lives will be lost in the process, yes?


Veganism isn't about being perfect.  No vegan can live a perfect life in a world that is full of cruelty.  Being vegan is about living your life in the least cruelest way possible and with causing as least harm to the environment as possible, it is about making a positive difference. Call it Ahimsa if you like.  Being vegan is about making a positive difference to ourselves and the planet...and the animals.
If you are going to convince me that I should eat animals to save lives and stop suffering then you will have a hard job on your hands.

Animal products are ubiquitous in virtually every manufactured product. These products are usually supplied with waste products from the butchering process like bones, skin, fat, tendons and sinue.  Manufacturers only use these products because they are cheap, they are waste.  Little profit is gained to the meat industry from these waste products.  However, the more and more people who go vegan will make these waste meat products unattractive to the manufacturers of finished goods, this will force them to seek out alternative and ethically sound products.  But I reckon that by refusing to consume meat, dairy or other meat products we can hit this cruel industry at its heart and usher in a healthier and environmentally better future for ourselves.   We will liberate farmers from their cruelty, they will thank us in the end as they too will seek to nourish us with plants instead of growing plants for animals.

By going vegan, you can also reduce your carbon footprint by 24%, improve your health by having less risk of heart attack, type 2 diabetes, cancer and stroke et etc.  These are the big human killers that destroy lives and families.

If anyone is scared about what to cook and how to live life as a vegan then seek out the hashtag #veganuary.  Or alternatively join a Facebook group like Plant based Geeks, New Vegan Support, VeganUK is also a good one.  Other vegans will help you get you through the first few months as your taste buds adapt to appreciate the taste of plant-based food.  Your cravings for meat and dairy will eventually subside after about a month as the addictive components of these foods get flushed out of your body.  After only a few weeks of being a vegan, your body will change physically, your skin will look better, you will have more energy, your muscle tone will improve, you will sleep better, and concentrate fully etc.  The beneficial effects are virtually endless, I was sceptical at first but now I am convinced that as omnivore humans we are simply eating the wrong type of food which their bodies cannot digest properly.  Plant based diet is the best!

The cows will like it too.

----------


## mi16

> Veganism isn't about being perfect.  No vegan can live a perfect life in a world that is full of cruelty.  Being vegan is about living your life in the least cruelest way possible and with causing as least harm to the environment as possible, it is about making a positive difference. Call it Ahimsa if you like.  Being vegan is about making a positive difference to ourselves and the planet...and the animals.
> If you are going to convince me that I should eat animals to save lives and stop suffering then you will have a hard job on your hands.
> 
> Animal products are ubiquitous in virtually every manufactured product. These products are usually supplied with waste products from the butchering process like bones, skin, fat, tendons and sinue.  Manufacturers only use these products because they are cheap, they are waste.  Little profit is gained to the meat industry from these waste products.  However, the more and more people who go vegan will make these waste meat products unattractive to the manufacturers of finished goods, this will force them to seek out alternative and ethically sound products.  But I reckon that by refusing to consume meat, dairy or other meat products we can hit this cruel industry at its heart and usher in a healthier and environmentally better future for ourselves.   We will liberate farmers from their cruelty, they will thank us in the end as they too will seek to nourish us with plants instead of growing plants for animals.
> 
> By going vegan, you can also reduce your carbon footprint by 24%, improve your health by having less risk of heart attack, type 2 diabetes, cancer and stroke et etc.  These are the big human killers that destroy lives and families.
> 
> If anyone is scared about what to cook and how to live life as a vegan then seek out the hashtag #veganuary.  Or alternatively join a Facebook group like Plant based Geeks, New Vegan Support, VeganUK is also a good one.  Other vegans will help you get you through the first few months as your taste buds adapt to appreciate the taste of plant-based food.  Your cravings for meat and dairy will eventually subside after about a month as the addictive components of these foods get flushed out of your body.  After only a few weeks of being a vegan, your body will change physically, your skin will look better, you will have more energy, your muscle tone will improve, you will sleep better, and concentrate fully etc.  The beneficial effects are virtually endless, I was sceptical at first but now I am convinced that as omnivore humans we are simply eating the wrong type of food themselves.  Plant based diet is the best!
> 
> The cows will like it too.


I have no issue with veganism per se, its the bleedin vegans that are a pain in the anus though, trying to force their perceived superior ethical and moral vales upon us carnivores.

----------


## Rheghead

> I have no issue with veganism per se, its the bleedin vegans that are a pain in the anus though, trying to force their perceived superior ethical and moral vales upon us carnivores.


I'm not forcing my views upon you.  You are here participating in this thread by your own choosing.

----------


## mi16

> I'm not forcing my views upon you.  You are here participating in this thread by your own choosing.


indeed forcing was the wrong selection of word

----------


## Goodfellers

[QUOTE=Rheghead;1160320]Oat milk is an excellent substitute for dairy milk and has been claimed to have the most dairy

Ok. We have established local farmers can grow oats. Probably potatoes, turnips and grass too.
In a previous ‘Brussel Sprouts’ conversation you mention you could fry with olive oil. Who is producing that locally?
I look forward to a tasty  recipe using only the ingredients mentioned. (This could be a good format for a tv cookery programme).
I did say many moons ago that I was a poultry farmer for more years than I care to remember. When we moulted the hens, they were fed a diet of oats for fourteen days. This made them loose their plumage and put them off lay. This is because oats fill the stomach but do not provide the correct balance of nutrition needed.
I look forward to your tasty offering.

----------


## mi16

it is a very interesting question, if being ecologically friendly is high on your agenda.
Id be interested to see a breakdown of the ingredients in your kitchen and the countries of origin.
Surely buying things that required to be transported hundreds or even thousands of miles to get to you would be completely out of the question due to the carbon footpring, then you also have to question the method of harvesting the ingredients, were the workers paid a decent living wage and were the working conditions suitable? this will clearly have a huge impact of the cruelty footprint.

I look forward to the breakdown.

----------


## Goodfellers

I Googled ‘are humans natural meat eaters or vegetarians’ There are lots of scientific papers/research that contradict Rhegheads assertion that ‘we’ are herbivores.It appears that we started off that way but our brains only grew when we started eating meat. *That explains a lot when it comes to veggies/vegans* 
I will only bore you with two links to ‘research’, just Google the same question I did ifyou want more.
http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/sorry-vegans-eating-meat-and-cooking-food-is-how-humans-got-their-big-brains/2012/11/26/3d4d36de-326d-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html?utm_term=.09e2495fc25d
For those who cannot be bothered, below is a tiny sample of what I discovered

One study,published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,examined the brain size of several primates. For the most part, larger bodies have larger brains across species. Yet humans have exceptionally large,neuron-rich brains for our body size, while gorillas — three times as massive as humans — have smaller brains with one-third the neurons. Why?
“The bottom line is, it is certainly possible to survive on an exclusively raw diet in our modern day, but it was most likely impossible to survive on an exclusively raw diet when our species appeared,” Herculano-Houzel told LiveScience.
The second study, published in October the journal PLoS ONE, examined the remains of a prehuman toddler who died from malnutrition about 1.5 million years ago. Shards of a skull found in modern-day Tanzania reveal that the child had porotichyperostosis, a type of spongy bone growth associated with low levels of dietary iron and vitamins B9 and B12, *the result of a diet lacking animal products in a species that requires them.*
The child was around the weaning age. So either the child’s mother’s breast milk lacked key nutrients or the child himself did not consume enough nutrients directly from meat or eggs.
Either way,the finding implies that meat must have been an integral, and not sporadic,element of the prehuman diet more than 1 million years ago, said the study’s lead author, Manuel Dominguez-Rodrigo, an archaeologist at ComplutenseUniversity in Madrid.
This supports the theory that meat fuelled human brain evolution because meat — from arachnids to zebras — was plentiful on the African savanna, where humans evolved, and is the best package of calories, proteins, fats and Vitamin B12 needed for brain growth and maintenance.
“*Carnivore animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, are bigger-brained than herbivores,”* Dominguez-Rodrigo told LiveScience. He added that *“there is no [traditional] society that live as vegans*,” essentially because it wouldn’t be possible to get Vitamin B12, which is only available in animal products.

----------


## Kenn

So, is it alright to chop down virgin forest on the other side of the globe, destroying wild life, the local ecology, the lives of people who live in harmony with their environment in order to provide oils etc that need air miles to reach us? 
I'll stick to growing my own vegetables with NO insecticides and sharing any surplus with friends and neighbours.

----------


## smithp

> So, is it alright to chop down virgin forest on the other side of the globe, destroying wild life, the local ecology, the lives of people who live in harmony with their environment in order to provide oils etc that need air miles to reach us? 
> I'll stick to growing my own vegetables with NO insecticides and sharing any surplus with friends and neighbours.


It is perfectly alright. They always knew Charlton Heston could talk.

----------


## Rheghead

> I Googled are humans natural meat eaters or vegetarians There are lots of scientific papers/research that contradict Rhegheads assertion that we are herbivores.It appears that we started off that way but our brains only grew when we started eating meat. *That explains a lot when it comes to veggies/vegans* 
> I will only bore you with two links to research, just Google the same question I did ifyou want more.
> http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/sorry-vegans-eating-meat-and-cooking-food-is-how-humans-got-their-big-brains/2012/11/26/3d4d36de-326d-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html?utm_term=.09e2495fc25d
> For those who cannot be bothered, below is a tiny sample of what I discovered
> 
> One study,published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,examined the brain size of several primates. For the most part, larger bodies have larger brains across species. Yet humans have exceptionally large,neuron-rich brains for our body size, while gorillas  three times as massive as humans  have smaller brains with one-third the neurons. Why?
> The bottom line is, it is certainly possible to survive on an exclusively raw diet in our modern day, but it was most likely impossible to survive on an exclusively raw diet when our species appeared, Herculano-Houzel told LiveScience.
> ...


Thanks for that but there is just one or two reasoned facts that undermine that whole premise.

You are correct that vitamin B12 is an essential dietary necessity.  You are quite correct that animal products are high in vitamin B12.  But the crucial point to remember is that neither plants nor animals produce vitamin B12 in their bodies.  It all comes from the action of bacteria in the soil.  Animals just simply store B12 at higher concentrations than what plants do.  
Raw veganism is a healthy lifestyle that suggests what is in the name.  There are thousands of raw vegans who are living healthier lives as a result of their diet.  If meat was essential for a human brain then surely these raw vegans would have brain disease where they would wither and die?  That doesn't make sense.  Another point is that people suffer from vitamin B12 difficiency, not because they are not eating enough but the body cannot assimilate it because of aging.  Farmers regulary inject their own animals to suppliment the animals deficiency.

In other words, there is no link between larger brains and eating meat.  What drove larger brains was the need to communicate to others in a more complex social way.  Simply put,  Lucy is small brained, but she walked on two legs.  It was thought that a large brain was essential for walking on 2 legs, that was debunked.  And now the _large brain believers_ are trying to assign eating meat to the reason for large brains.  There is no single reason for except for the need to communicate and solve problems.  I have attended archaeology lessons where the teacher tried to convince me that humans needed a complex brain to break open the bones to get at the marrow after the vultures had left the carcass.  Well seeing as we know that the human brain can now split the atom and cure some cancers then it seems to be a big sledgehammer to crack open a bone.

----------


## Rheghead

Sainsbury report a 360% increase in the sales of vegan cheese (Gary) over the last decade.  

http://www.sainsburysmagazine.co.uk/...ut-going-vegan.

----------


## sids

> Sainsbury report a 360% increase in the sales of vegan cheese (Gary) over the last decade.  
> 
> http://www.sainsburysmagazine.co.uk/...ut-going-vegan.


Not in your link they don't.





> 9. Vegans really miss cheese. When Sainsbury's launched its FreeFrom alternatives to cheese last year, vegans went crazy with excitement! Sales in the first month were 300% greater than expected.

----------


## Rheghead

> Not in your link they don't.


It is suffice to say that consumers are turning to vegan cheese and enjoying the healthier, environmentally safer and ethically sounder alternative.

----------


## sids

> It is suffice to say that consumers are turning to vegan cheese and enjoying the healthier, environmentally safer and ethically sounder alternative.


You can say what you like, but telling the truth better suffices.

----------


## mi16

Not had a chance to go through the larder yet Reg?

----------


## Goodfellers

He has skillfully dodged that issue, should have been a politician!

----------


## Rheghead

> You can say what you like, but telling the truth better suffices.


Sales of vegan cheese is 300% better than expected.

The number of vegans has increased by 360% over the last decade.  I'm glad you are actually reading the links.

----------


## Alrock

> Not in your link they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				9. Vegans really miss cheese. When Sainsbury's launched its FreeFrom  alternatives to cheese last year, vegans went crazy with excitement!  Sales in the first month were 300% greater than expected.


Pretty meaningless stat that anyway, how many where they expecting to sell? One but sold three instead. Plus... How many of those three people got home only to realise that they had bought vegan cheese by mistake?

----------


## sids

> Sales of vegan cheese is 300% better than expected.


In one particular month.





> I'm glad you are actually reading the links.




I'm not glad you're a mendacious twister.

----------


## Rheghead

> Pretty meaningless stat that anyway, how many where they expecting to sell? One but sold three instead. Plus... How many of those three people got home only to realise that they had bought vegan cheese by mistake?


A pretty meaningless comment as a marketing strategy for a product would not be based on selling one single cheese.

----------


## Rheghead

> it is a very interesting question, if being ecologically friendly is high on your agenda.
> Id be interested to see a breakdown of the ingredients in your kitchen and the countries of origin.
> Surely buying things that required to be transported hundreds or even thousands of miles to get to you would be completely out of the question due to the carbon footpring, then you also have to question the method of harvesting the ingredients, were the workers paid a decent living wage and were the working conditions suitable? this will clearly have a huge impact of the cruelty footprint.
> 
> I look forward to the breakdown.


Calculating the carbon footprint of transporting products applies to everything whether it be clothes, people, cars or anything etc.  If you want to convince me of the need to reduce the carbon footprint of transport then there is no better way than doing it by rail.  I will fully support that.  I will also support providing that rail with electric power from renewable sources, are you with me?

A vegan lifestyle creates about 20% less carbon emissions than a omnivores lifestyle.  A vegan lifestyle does not depend more on overseas trade than a meateater's lifestyle.  If anything, it would even mean less air miles being incurred.  It is a fact that we export a huge amount of meat and dairy products only to import a huge amount of meat and dairy products.  All this criss-crossing of meat involves a huge amount of carbon emissions.  Some of those exports and imports involves live animals which means animals are couped up in terrible conditions just to be slaughtered at the end of their journey.  You seem to think your food comes from Farmer Giles' farm from just over the field.

And then if the meat and dairy does not involve live animals then there is a huge refridgeration cost and a huge carbon footprint to that.  

And since it takes about 10kg of plant protein to produce 1kg of animals protein for us to eat, then there is a huge amount of hidden carbon emissions in transporting and processing all that plant food to feed to the farm animals.  I do not think that is even accounted for in the calculation of the carbon footprint of meat and dairy.  I think the methane emissions just put the emissions of meat and dairy through the roof by itself because methane has about 26 times more warming potential than carbon dioxide.

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm not glad you're a mendacious twister.


I set out in this thread to investigate the original claim of the OP.  I did not know where that journey of investigation would take me.  But as i said in the first few pages, I wanted to bring the facts and finding to this forum.  Totally without bias.  I think i have achieved that and i am still achieving it.  All i have got in return is a lack of support from a small minority.  Eating meat and dairy is a public health issue, the evidence that i have presented fully supports that.  

All my facts and figures can be independently checked, my sources for information are the best and my interpretation is fair.  I am willing to ignore the insult as I believe you are trying to undermine the message that a vegan lifestyle is more environmentally safer, better for human health and is ethically better in terms of cruelty to animals. 

But the truth is, I do not mind your silly interventions, I quite like them because if you are prepared to make silly comments, nit-pick at small details and make mountains out of molehills then it reflects bad on you as a troublemaker.  _Internet speak_ has a much stronger word such such people.

In the end, there is huge amount of people reading this thread, nearly 17,000 views at my last look who quietly read what my investigation into the meat and dairy industry has to offer.  So keep making your comments, I will even quote you every time so that your attitude gets the fullest publicity.

----------


## mi16

Reg, are you not going to answer the question then.

i am not the one preaching about carbon and cruelty footprints fella, you are

----------


## sids

> I set out in this thread to investigate the original claim of the OP.


You are the OP.

----------


## Rheghead

> You are the OP.


Yes i am.  

Since you are the one making allegations of me twisting twisting the facts and science then this is a good opportunity where we give a reappraisal of the studies.  So what i propose to do is repost the all the science studies that show consuming animal products increases the risk of getting cancer.  This will give you another opportunity to discuss whether the science is flawed or faked or if i am twisting the science.

Here is a study which shows that consuming animal products  give rise to increased risk of developing cancer, and vegetarian diets give some protect against certain cancers but vegan diets are even more protective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929[/QUOTE]




> CONCLUSION:
> 
> Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer.





> Vegan diet seems to confer lower risk for overall and female-specific cancer than other dietary patterns.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929[/QUOTE]

----------


## Serenity

> Yes i am.  
> 
> Since you are the one making allegations of me twisting twisting the facts and science then this is a good opportunity where we give a reappraisal of the studies.  So what i propose to do is repost the all the science studies that show consuming animal products increases the risk of getting cancer.  This will give you another opportunity to discuss whether the science is flawed or faked or if i am twisting the science.
> 
> Here is a study which shows that consuming animal products  give rise to increased risk of developing cancer, and vegetarian diets give some protect against certain cancers but vegan diets are even more protective.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929



Give it up. I am open to vegan lifestyles but your way of promoting it just turns people off. I know that you will come back and say that proves you are right and everyone just doesn't want to admit it. It doesn't but think that if you want. Either way if you actually care about changing people's views, if you think it will help their health, the environment and animal welfare then find a different way to do it. This way does not work. If you genuinely care about these issues and aren't just on your soap box you would have realised this and adopted your posting style accordingly. You haven't so you are either ignorant, deluded or educating people is not your real aim here.

----------


## Rheghead

> Give it up. I am open to vegan lifestyles but your way of promoting it just turns people off. I know that you will come back and say that proves you are right and everyone just doesn't want to admit it. It doesn't but think that if you want. Either way if you actually care about changing people's views, if you think it will help their health, the environment and animal welfare then find a different way to do it. This way does not work. If you genuinely care about these issues and aren't just on your soap box you would have realised this and adopted your posting style accordingly. You haven't so you are either ignorant, deluded or educating people is not your real aim here.


My way is to raise the awareness of the science by posting the studies.  There is nothing ad hominem about that.  The worse thing i can do is keep silent as a medical injustice is being perpetrated by large retailers and cancer charities as i have demonstrated.  You want me to keep quiet because you do not want to be reminded of the health, environmental and ethical reasons to go vegan.  You are not going to change, but someone will.

I am doing this because I care deeply about others.

----------


## Serenity

Well that went as predicted. You are just a zealot. Over the years on this forum I've seen you act this way on various issues. You always go straight from zero to zealot. It never has the effect you claim you want.

As I said if you cared about people's health at all you would rethink the way you are presenting this information. But you won't so I can only conclude that you don't.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well that went as predicted. You are just a zealot. Over the years on this forum I've seen you act this way on various issues. You always go straight from zero to zealot. It never has the effect you claim you want.
> 
> As I said if you cared about people's health at all you would rethink the way you are presenting this information. But you won't so I can only conclude that you don't.


What a mind job!  I post the science, facts and reasoning why eating a plant based diet has so much benefit for your health, planet and the ethical treatment of animals......and i am the one who is made to feel bad and a zealot?  And yet people are put off the facts and science by knowing the facts and science?  wow!  That is actually funny if it wasn't so depressing.

----------


## Serenity

> What a mind job!  I post the science, facts and reasoning why eating a plant based diet has so much benefit for your health, planet and the ethical treatment of animals......and i am the one who is made to feel bad and a zealot?  And yet people are put off the facts and science by knowing the facts and science?  wow!  That is actually funny if it wasn't so depressing.


You like facts and studies so much. Here is an article with a link to one stating what I am saying is true. I'm sure if I didn't have a life I could find 20 pages worth of them quite easily. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...estyle-choices

So again, if you really do care and it means more to you than just being right, then take those studies on board in the same way you take the other ones on board.

----------


## Rheghead

> You like facts and studies so much. Here is an article with a link to one stating what I am saying is true. I'm sure if I didn't have a life I could find 20 pages worth of them quite easily. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...estyle-choices
> 
> So again, if you really do care and it means more to you than just being right, then take those studies on board in the same way you take the other ones on board.


Well there is a serious flaw in your reasoning for posting the link.

The subheading is "Positive health messages are more inspiring than fear based messaging",  i couldn't agree more!  That is why I am promoting a positive change to everyone's lifestyle.  You too can be part of a vegan revolution to change not just yourself but the planet.   I have always been positive in this thread about a vegan diet.  It is others who have been negative about a vegan diet.  It is others who have insulted me, claimed this thread is boring ....yadda yadda. 

You can be vegan from today and change the world for the better.  It doesn't need an act of parliament, it doesn't need a war or anything, it just requires you to stop filling your stomach with animal secretions and dead body parts.  It can start from this monent if you really wanted.  Nobody is in charge of your body than yourself.  I'm not in charge of you, I am not even in charge of you being a willing participant of this thread, you are here of your own volition.  If you do not like the subject matter then leave and save yourself some guilt.

----------


## Serenity

> Well there is a serious flaw in your reasoning for posting the link.
> 
> The subheading is "Positive health messages are more inspiring than fear based messaging",  i couldn't agree more!  That is why I am promoting a positive change to everyone's lifestyle.  You too can be part of a vegan revolution to change not just yourself but the planet.   I have always been positive in this thread about a vegan diet.  It is others who have been negative about a vegan diet.  It is others who have insulted me, claimed this thread is boring ....yadda yadda. 
> 
> You can be vegan from today and change the world for the better.  It doesn't need an act of parliament, it doesn't need a war or anything, it just requires you to stop filling your stomach with animal secretions and dead body parts.  It can start from this monent if you really wanted.  Nobody is in charge of your body than yourself.  I'm not in charge of you, I am not even in charge of you being a willing participant of this thread, you are here of your own volition.  If you do not like the subject matter then leave and save yourself some guilt.



Going on and on about the risks of cancer, and telling people they are ruining the environment is very much a fear based message which is my entire point. It might be true but it doesn't work.


And as you rightly say no one is forcing me to read or participate in this thread. I am choosing to do so. I am also choosing to reply with my thoughts on the way you are trying to share your message. And I have no guilt surrounding this issue, so stop putting your feelings onto other people.

----------


## sids

Reg must be a fine figure of a man, with his super diet and all.

And it must boost his brain so that he holds down a super job.

----------


## Rheghead

> Going on and on about the risks of cancer, and telling people they are ruining the environment is very much a fear based message which is my entire point. It might be true but it doesn't work.
> 
> 
> And as you rightly say no one is forcing me to read or participate in this thread. I am choosing to do so. I am also choosing to reply with my thoughts on the way you are trying to share your message. And I have no guilt surrounding this issue, so stop putting your feelings onto other people.


Promoting a vegan diet and proving the benefits is a positive message.  i have re-addressed whether that can be misinterpreted and it can't unless you do not give a damn about your health, the planet or the animal's welfare.  Any other interpretation is merely twisting basic values.  You either believe that eating food should be nourishing; should be least damaging to the planet or kinder to animals or you don't, it is as simple as that.  

Powerful people and stupid people have one thing in common. They always adjust the facts to suit their opinions, they never adjust their opinions to suit the facts.

I am not here to be psycho-analysed or make friends and influence people.  I am here to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of eating meat and dairy.  The science is sound.  Take it or leave it, you have made your position known.  But if you run against the science then it says more about you than it does about me.

Are you against having a diet that is much more beneficial for your health and the planet for yourself or do you not want others to have it too?

----------


## Goodfellers

I decided to google 'what is a truly balanced diet'................I chose to read the article by Harvard School of Public Health. This was part of Harvard Medical School until it became independent, so I would say highly reputable...........https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...-eating-plate/    They agree with Rheghead on a lot BUT they say limit red meat milk & dairy, you do not have to cut it out entirely.

This is a message that more people might take on board rather than 'bombarding' everyone with endless research links, find one sound bit and keep promoting that..............I think this thread has so many 'hits' is for the entertainment value, not the scientific content.

----------


## Rheghead

> I decided to google 'what is a truly balanced diet'................I chose to read the article by Harvard School of Public Health. This was part of Harvard Medical School until it became independent, so I would say highly reputable...........https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...-eating-plate/    They agree with Rheghead on a lot BUT they say limit red meat milk & dairy, you do not have to cut it out entirely.
> 
> This is a message that more people might take on board rather than 'bombarding' everyone with endless research links, find one sound bit and keep promoting that..............I think this thread has so many 'hits' is for the entertainment value, not the scientific content.


Any reduction in meat and dairy consumption is welcome for your health, the environment and animal welfare.

However... 

But how much is considered a truly healthy level?  How much is considered sustainable for the planet when population reaches 12 billion mid to late this century?  How much is considered to be cruelty-free?  Three different issues, three very good reasons to reduce or cut it out entirely. 

Let's put this veganism into practice.  When someone goes vegan, they are suddenly faced with the prospect of eating a healthy diet, no matter what they do.  They will really struggle to gain weight and they will look younger and have more energy.  Their bad cholesterol levels will plummet.  If they have type 2 diabetes, their need for medication will drop.  They will have the prospect of being faced with a huge variety of food options that are more varied and satisfying than meat and dairy.  

They have a red line that isn't to be crossed and that is consuming animal products, in a few weeks of being vegan then they won't even consider meat and dairy as food.  So tempting a vegan with a pork sausage is a bit like asking them to eat a piece of poo or a baby's leg.  So it is very easy to keep to their dietary choices, being a vegan is not like being on a fad diet, it is a lifestyle which enriches your life because being a vegan is causing less environmental damage, it is a healthy lifestyle and it is kinder to animals, that is very rewarding, not just on a physical level but on a spiritual and mental level as well.

But what is the alternative?  Restrict meat and dairy?  To what exactly? 1/4 of your plate? Depends on the size of plate and your link didn't just mention meat as the protein provider that occupies that 25%  Restricting your meat intake to a smaller amount sounds much like 'calorie counting' to me.  It is effective over small periods in a person's life but in no time at all the person is back up to the original amount because counting is hard work and boring.  In other words people just fail at the advice they are given...and there is not passion for life in it too.

I do not know the exact figures but I would give a ballpark estimate that the healthy level of meat, eggs and dairy is about the same amount as the rationing allowance was during WW2.  In other words a very small amount than what you are probably used to which doesn't sound very appetising to me.

I suspect the sustainable amount is a much lower level of meat and dairy per person if the Earth is required to sustain 12 billion persons later this century. So why the bother?  It seems to me that the option that people will actually stick to, honestly, is the vegan one.  The comment that i often see amongst new vegans is that the only regret they have of going vegan is that they did not do it much earlier.

----------


## mi16

> So tempting a vegan with a pork sausage is a bit like asking them to eat a piece of poo or a baby's leg.


I knew a girl who was vegan, when she got drunk she absolutely craved a sausage supper, she could often be found after a session, outside the chippy demolishing a pork sausage in batter.
So tats another untrue theory of yours!!

----------


## sids

Vegan and vegetarian diets are just choices about what you eat.

You don't turn into a new sub-human species that cannot eat sausages.

----------


## Rheghead

> I knew a girl who was vegan, when she got drunk she absolutely craved a sausage supper, she could often be found after a session, outside the chippy demolishing a pork sausage in batter.
> So tats another untrue theory of yours!!


She wasn't a vegan, dunno why she claimed she was a vegan.

----------


## sids

She may have been a Vogon.

----------


## Rheghead

> She may have been a Vogon.


Have you anything sensible or anything that has value to say?

----------


## sids

> Have you anything sensible or anything that has value to say?


You go first.

----------


## Goodfellers

> You go first.


      LOL.......That's why people keep visiting this thread............it can be entertaining, oh yes and very informative..............zzzz

----------


## Rheghead

> LOL.......That's why people keep visiting this thread............it can be entertaining, oh yes and very informative..............zzzz


I think you guys need to get your stories straight and sing off the same hymn sheet.  I have been told many times that this thread is past its time, boring, irritating, offensive, repetitive, uninteresting and having a detrimental effect on the forum.  It can't be any of these if it is entertaining and informative.  The truth is people just want to gag this thread because they don't want to be reminded that their lifestyle choices are bad for their health, bad for the environment and ethically bad for animals.  They'd rather just eat their meat in blissful ignorance.  It really is that simple.

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study to add to the growing body of evidence in the case against eating meat.




> CONCLUSIONS:
> 
> These results support the accumulating evidence that consumption of meats cooked by methods that promote carcinogen formation may increase risk of postmenopausal breast cancer.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17435448

----------


## sids

This thread is your blog.

But nobody would read it in an actual blog or Twitter (because there are millions of better ones by actual clever people)  which would be bad for your fragile ego, so you spam a forum with it.

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study to show that eating meat may raise the risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16172241

----------


## Rheghead

> This thread is your blog.
> 
> But nobody would read it in an actual blog or Twitter (because there are millions of better ones by actual clever people)  which would be bad for your fragile ego, so you spam a forum with it.


If you are irritated by it or offended by my ignorance then don't visit this thread and/or put me on 'ignore'.  It really is that simple.  Why put yourself through this?

----------


## Rheghead

Here is another study, that suggests that eating over cooked meat is _strongly associated_ with bowel cancer.  Not good news for those that like bbq meat.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11352869

----------


## The Horseman

Gotta keep up with the Colonoscopies!

----------


## sids

> If you are irritated by it or offended by my ignorance


What if I'm not?

What do you want to tell me to do then?

----------


## sids

> Gotta keep up with the Colonoscopies!


Have they got a new car?

----------


## Rheghead

> What if I'm not?
> 
> What do you want to tell me to do then?


If you aren't offended or irritated then why make out that you are?  Why the fake irritation?

----------


## sids

> If you aren't offended or irritated then why make out that you are?  Why the fake irritation?


Why indeed! 

Depends whether or not I'm offended or irritated, or not.

----------


## Goodfellers

> I think you guys need to get your stories straight and sing off the same hymn sheet.  I have been told many times that this thread is past its time, boring, irritating, offensive, repetitive, uninteresting and having a detrimental effect on the forum.  It can't be any of these if it is entertaining and informative.  The truth is people just want to gag this thread because they don't want to be reminded that their lifestyle choices are bad for their health, bad for the environment and ethically bad for animals.  They'd rather just eat their meat in blissful ignorance.  It really is that simple.


*Oh yes, and very informative…………..zzz* I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but it was said a little bit sarcastically. 
I would be interested to know what % of visits to this thread have taken on board the obvious benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle  Most people can see that being vegetarian would be good for the planet, *HOWEVER,*  very few of us will change our ways for whatever reason.
If you have not managed to convert anyone with all this information, you might as well give up.
You are also promoting a carbon neutral/green lifestyle. 
Do you drive?  Does anything in your house contain plastic?
Is all the food in your cupboard grown locally?  Do you have a refrigerator?
Was all the furniture in your house made locally out of sustainable timber?  Do you use toilet roll?
Are you connected to the electricity mains?  Does your house have any insulation?
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
You have posted many links to research, yet I doubt you have managed to convert anyone. I have listed them below to save new readers having to read all 19 pages of ‘chat’. Apologies if I missed any out (it started to get a bit tedious after a while).
Actually too many to put on one page, so listed separately.

----------


## Goodfellers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10868428/Give-up-dairy-products-to-beat-cancer.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/ask/ask-the-expert-dairy-products
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effect-of-soy-on-precocious-puberty/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-6691152a.pdf
http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/444735http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704029
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12710911http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20529402http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21930800
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357483http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724470http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6015
http://www.healthline.com/health/gerd/esophageal-cancer#RiskFactors4http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2016/summer/6192-diet.htmlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/#!po=43.1034
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23975508https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948848
http://yumuniverse.com/addiction-to-cheese-is-real-thanks-to-casomorphins/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478761http://www.snore.net/cows-and-snoring/
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages/snoring-sleep-apnoea-cancer-risk.aspx
http://www.drgreene.com/qa-articles/milk-constipation/

----------


## Goodfellers

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/sales-milk-could-plummet-its-8786992
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1353.abstract?ijkey=f32e0c0c9e1a6d310919598b1448fb  e4cc588fe3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/doctors-urge-cubs-to-help-men
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/tesco-raises-record--12m-for-cancer-research-uk.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125328https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21717454
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15122580https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442749
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12646508https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056595
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17490979https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25416035
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/101/1/87.abstracthttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704029
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25548184
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?257190-Dairy-products-are-causing-cancer&p=1158876#post1158876
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11316316/Red-meat-triggers-toxic-immune-reaction-which-causes-cancer-scientists-find.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25237656
http://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2017/01/03/gutjnl-2016-313082.full?sid=9776b261-0b61-4aca-87ae-abcf9a8d5e5f
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11566656https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18398033
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf
https://doorcountypulse.com/sen-baldwin-pushes-keep-dairy-related-labeling-off-plant-based-beverages/
http://www.sainsburysmagazine.co.uk/blog/item/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-going-vegan
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17435448
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16172241https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11352869

----------


## Rheghead

> *Oh yes, and very informative…………..zzz* I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but it was said a little bit sarcastically. 
> I would be interested to know what % of visits to this thread have taken on board the obvious benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle  Most people can see that being vegetarian would be good for the planet, *HOWEVER,*  very few of us will change our ways for whatever reason.
> If you have not managed to convert anyone with all this information, you might as well give up.
> You are also promoting a carbon neutral/green lifestyle. 
> Do you drive?  Does anything in your house contain plastic?
> Is all the food in your cupboard grown locally?  Do you have a refrigerator?
> Was all the furniture in your house made locally out of sustainable timber?  Do you use toilet roll?
> Are you connected to the electricity mains?  Does your house have any insulation?
> I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
> ...


It is erroneous to compare eating meat and milk to other activities because if I promoted driving, using a fridge, electricity then I wouldn't have so much hate pointed towards me.  Going vegan doesn't hurt anything, it doesn't harm the environment to great extent and it certainly doesn't harm the the vegan.  So why all the _hate_?

----------


## Goodfellers

Apologies if you detect 'hate' in my posts. None intended.

I am just trying to point out you are fighting a losing battle with the audience you have on here.

Countless links to research that very few, if any bother to look at.

In post 302 you  mention Atmosphere and Climate asking if we care about our carbon footprint. I am pointing out if you want to 'inform' us (some might say 'lecture' ). Then you need to be squeaky clean, hence the questions relating to your lifestyle.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't like your style of presenting research, it feels like we are idiots who need setting straight. I am fairly intelligent and know the risks of most activities I carry out, be that eating meat, riding a motorbike at silly speeds or sky diving. I choose to do these things knowing the risks and to be honest, I am having a great life. 

You can carry on trying to preach to the masses, but I personally think you are fighting a lost cause.

----------


## sids

Perhaps a better tack would be to teach by example. 

Tell us about the superior Reggie lifestyle, so we'll envy you, then we might copy you, to gain the same elite position, health and athleticism.

----------


## Rheghead

> You can carry on trying to preach to the masses, but I personally think you are fighting a lost cause.


Perhaps you can post a few pro-vegan posts and show me how it is done?

----------


## Rheghead

> Perhaps a better tack would be to teach by example. 
> 
> Tell us about the superior Reggie lifestyle, so we'll envy you, then we might copy you, to gain the same elite position, health and athleticism.


This thread isn't aboout me, it is about raising awareneness of the science that suggests that eating dairy and meat is linked to poor health, harming the environment and is ethically bad for the animal welfare.

----------


## Rheghead

Alzheimers disease is a truly frightening disease.  It robs us of our faculties and brain function.  But high cholesterol levels have been linked to the formation of the disease.    Bad cholesterol (LDL) gets in the blood by the consumption of animal products like meat and dairy.  Vegans do not have high LDL cholesterol levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580703

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...42/508.summary

----------


## Goodfellers

> Perhaps you can post a few pro-vegan posts and show me how it is done?


I would not try to convince anyone ever.

My wife is/has been an NHS nurse for over 30 years. She is surrounded by doctors, nurses and even consultants who smoke. These are people who are very aware of the huge risk they are taking but still choose to do it.  Several of them are clinically obese and still they choose to stuff their face with unhealthy food. This is *their choice.*


If highly intelligent doctors are prepared to make poor choices then I seriously doubt you will convince many to change to a healthy vegetarian lifestyle by bombarding them with study after study, if they didn't get it after the first link then it isn't going to happen.

I would love to convince everyone of the joys of motorcycling (apart from the so & so's who 'invented' the NC500 who are spoiling the best roads in the UK). I could go on about the fuel economy, no damage to road surfaces, or at least minimal, lack of congestion, I know that's not an issue up here, different story down South, but I don't because I know most people are set in their ways and resist change.

However, if you wish to continue posting studies, then I wish you luck, the more vegetarians up here the better. It means more meat for me  :Grin:  ::

----------


## sids

> Alzheimers disease is a truly frightening disease.  It robs us of our faculties and brain function.


I suppose it could be that, yes.

Or have you fallen on your head a lot of times?

----------


## Rheghead

> This is *their choice.*


Indeed, and that is why I stand by my words in the opening stages of my investigation into the links between dairy products, meat and cancer.  This thread has always been about raising awareness of the science into the health, environmental and ethical issues of those products.  What you choose to do with that information is purely up to you.  




> The results of my research will probably end in three courses of action.
> 
> 1. The links between dairy and cancer are not supported by science so there is nothing to worry about.
> 2. There is a link between dairy and cancer and the person chooses to consume dairy whilst knowing the risks.
> 3. There is a link between dairy and cancer and the person cuts down or eliminates the consumption of dairy products.

----------


## Rheghead

An article in Scientific American which explains how nearly all human ancestors were vegetarian.  Certainly the human body is physiologically herbivore

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...l-vegetarians/

----------


## mi16

> An article in Scientific American which explains how nearly all human ancestors were vegetarian.  Certainly the human body is physiologically herbivore
> 
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...l-vegetarians/



Herbibore you are Rheg

----------


## Goodfellers

> An article in Scientific American which explains how nearly all human ancestors were vegetarian.  Certainly the human body is physiologically herbivore
> 
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...l-vegetarians/


I actually took the time to read your link…your conclusions suit your view point, I interpret it slightly differently. Two excerpts from the study. I think the second statement says it all. While the first dispels the myth that we haven’t evolved to drink cow puss. 

_With agriculture, several human populations independently evolved gene variants that coded for the persistence of lactase (which breaks down lactose) so as to be able to deal with milk, not just as babies but also as adults. Drinking milk of another species as an adult is weird, but some human populations have evolved the ability_

*So, what should we eat? The past does not reveal a simple answer, ever. Our bodies did not evolve to be in harmony with a past diet. The evolved to take advantage of what was available*

----------


## Goodfellers

Mild *ONLINE PANIC due to fears of a bacon shortage

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38836782

I have never seen panic due to a shortage of lettuce!

----------


## Goodfellers

Would you believe it !!     one day after my 'lettuce' post

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38851097

----------


## Rheghead

There is a new full feature length documentary called Eating You Alive is being released.  I'm sure it will be promoted on youtube or Netflix in good time.  Here is a promotional trailer to give you a taster of what a dietary change to plant-based foods can do for you.  People just seem to be more energised and healthy on a plant-based diet.  What is not to like being on a tasty diet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sGE5n-i1Q

----------


## Rheghead

> Herbibore you are Rheg


Tam Dalyell has often been credited with the following quote:  "You must not be afraid to be thought a bore"

But when I come to think about it, I have made an effort to build up a body of evidence to suggest that animals products are causing harm to health, the environment and the animals.  Whereas others have pretty much repeated themselves about how repetitive that I am and how they are not going to change.  

I think I have been less repetitive and boring. It takes two to tango...

----------


## sids

You could forget about "building up bodies of evidence" on the internet and get yourself a life, you know like with a job and all that.

----------


## Rheghead

Replacing dairy with soy products seem to prevent breast cancer and improves survival.




> The relationship between soy food intake and breast cancer has been rigorously investigated for more than 25 years. The identification of isoflavones as possible chemopreventive agents helped fuel this line of investigation. These diphenolic compounds, which are found in uniquely-rich amounts in soy beans, possess both estrogen-dependent and -independent properties that potentially inhibit the development of breast cancer. *Observational studies show that among Asian women higher soy consumption is associated with an approximate 30% reduction in risk of developing breast cancer.* However, evidence suggests that for soy to reduce breast cancer risk consumption must occur early in life, that is during childhood and/or adolescence. Despite the interest in the role of soy in reducing breast cancer risk concerns have arisen that soy foods, because they contain isoflavones, may increase the likelihood of high-risk women developing breast cancer and worsen the prognosis of breast cancer patients. However, extensive clinical and epidemiologic data show these concerns to be unfounded. Clinical trials consistently show that isoflavone intake does not adversely affect markers of breast cancer risk, including mammographic density and cell proliferation. Furthermore,* prospective epidemiologic studies involving over 11,000 women from the USA and China show that postdiagnosis soy intake statistically significantly reduces recurrence and improves survival*.


http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/444735

----------


## Rheghead

They say people who adopt a plant-based diet are not anchored in the real world they're idealist hippies and trouble makers.  

However, these people go on to buy meat and dairy and choose to ignore that their food choices are responsible for the major causes of loss of biodiversity, single cause of carbon emissions, 70 billion lives being snuffed out per year, ocean dead zones, big cause of cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, obesity, high cholesterol, ulcerated colitis, sids, the list is endless.

----------


## Bystander1

As e Caithness fermer chiel would say "there's wiser eitan gress"

----------


## Neil Howie

> An article in Scientific American which explains how nearly all human ancestors were vegetarian.  Certainly the human body is physiologically herbivore
> 
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...l-vegetarians/


I take it you don't actually read what you link to ! 

  :: 





The recent adaptations of our bodies differ from one person to the next,  whether because of unique versions of genes or unique microbes, but our  bodies are all fully-equipped to deal with meat (which is relatively  easy) and natural sugars (also easy, if not always beneficial), and  harder to digest plant material, what often gets called fiber. 

and

6-I know, what I have shown is not that our ancestors were vegetarians  but instead that they tended to mostly eat vegetable matter. Here though I am using the definition of vegetarian that most humans use  where someone is a vegetarian if they decline meat in public but  occasionally, when no one is looking, sneak a beef jerky.

----------


## Rheghead

> I take it you don't actually read what you link to ! 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recent adaptations of our bodies differ from one person to the next,  whether because of unique versions of genes or unique microbes, but our  bodies are all fully-equipped to deal with meat (which is relatively  easy) and natural sugars (also easy, if not always beneficial), and  harder to digest plant material, what often gets called fiber. 
> ...


Actually I do, what does the title say?  *Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians*  I would be blind if I didn't read that.  I didn't say our ancestors were vegans, they were herbivores.  Herbivores can still eat the occasional dead animal and still be classed as a herbivore, it is called opportunism.  In the same token, a cat will go out and eat bits of grass but I would never call a cat an omnivore, it is a carnivore.  They would be ill if you fed them on plants, and in the same way, we are ill if we eat a lot of meat.  Animals like bears, raccoons and dogs can be classed as omnivores but they had carnivore ancestors, it shows in their teeth and physiology.  Our bodies are that of a herbivore, we omnivore by behavior but this is relatively a very recent step in our prehistory.

----------


## sids

> we are ill if we eat a lot of meat.


"We" meaning Rheghead, obviously.

And you're ill, mate, no matter what you do or don't eat.

----------


## Goodfellers

> Actually I do, what does the title say?  *Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians*  I would be blind if I didn't read that.  I didn't say our ancestors were vegans, they were herbivores.  Herbivores can still eat the occasional dead animal and still be classed as a herbivore, it is called opportunism.  In the same token, a cat will go out and eat bits of grass but I would never call a cat an omnivore, it is a carnivore.  They would be ill if you fed them on plants, and in the same way, we are ill if we eat a lot of meat.  Animals like bears, raccoons and dogs can be classed as omnivores but they had carnivore ancestors, it shows in their teeth and physiology.  Our bodies are that of a herbivore, we omnivore by behavior but this is relatively a very recent step in our prehistory.


Our ancestors were herbivores? That statement is at odds with an American research paper (I know you like American research as that is where most of your links originate) We are and were omnivores. As I pointed out in post #387 your own posted research says "*So, what should we eat? The past does not reveal a simple answer, ever. Our bodies did not evolve to be in harmony with a past diet. The evolved to take advantage of what was available*"

I think you must have a form of emotional masochism. you clearly thrive on being corrected, hence the number of posts on here.

Why not just accept that your evangelical approach has won you no converts, I expect it has had the opposite effect.  

Anyone who has been won over by Rheghead's  postings please feel free to comment.

http://www.miamicosmeticdentalcare.c...res-omnivores/

https://www.bowdoin.edu/~dfrancis/askanerd/omni/

----------


## Rheghead

> Our ancestors were herbivores? That statement is at odds with an American research paper (I know you like American research as that is where most of your links originate) We are and were omnivores. As I pointed out in post #387 your own posted research says "*So, what should we eat? The past does not reveal a simple answer, ever. Our bodies did not evolve to be in harmony with a past diet. The evolved to take advantage of what was available*"
> 
> I think you must have a form of emotional masochism. you clearly thrive on being corrected, hence the number of posts on here.
> 
> Why not just accept that your evangelical approach has won you no converts, I expect it has had the opposite effect.  
> 
> Anyone who has been won over by Rheghead's  postings please feel free to comment.
> 
> http://www.miamicosmeticdentalcare.c...res-omnivores/
> ...


I will let scientists do the talking...not some 'Ask a nerd' guy.

Here is an quote from a proper scientist in the field of nutrition.




> Although most humans consider themselves carnivores or at least omnivores, basically we humans have characteristics of herbivores


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603726/

----------


## Rheghead

A report by the meat industry on the meat and poultry industry states;




> Further, the report states that one challenge in market is health risks associated with consumption of processed meat. Due to health risks associated with processed meat, consumers in the US are reducing the consumption of such food products. *Excessive consumption of processed meat may lead to increased risk of premature deaths*. It was observed that* individuals consuming processed meat were at a 72% increased risk of acquiring a heart disease than consumers of non-processed meat*. Also, the* risk of dying from cancer was 11% higher*. A study conducted by the American Institute of Cancer in 2007 stated that *50 g of processed meat consumed daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 21%.* A study published in the Journal of Diabetology highlighted *the increased risk of the intake of processed meat leading to type 2 diabetes at 41%*.


https://www.whatech.com/market-resea...uipment-market

----------


## Goodfellers

Rheghead:

Some questions that need answering.

Why are almost all humans meat eaters? 
Why is the human race so successful?
Why has life expectance consistently risen?
Life expectancy has risen faster alongside the increased consumption of meat and dairy. Why?
Why dont the great apes rule the planet, they are far larger and stronger than us and as true vegetarians eat a far better diet than us?
Why has our brain developed to such a huge (comparatively) size despite our poor diet?
Could the planet feed a population of 7,484,540,473 (@8.07AM today)?
Do not make the mistake of looking at available land space. As a farmer I can tell you that most land (especially in this area) will not support vegetables. Veg needs top quality soil to thrive whereas livestock will thrive on relatively poor soil that will only support grass, thereby making good use of land that is otherwiseredundant.
From your posts I assume you would also advocate organic practises. How do you plan to fertilise enough crops to feed 7.5 billion people?
I know an organic farmer in Dorset who uses a huge number of rat traps to protect his grain; do the lives of the rats not count in your ethical world? This is common practice on all farms including organic
Once you have answered all these questions to my satisfaction, I will set the next lot.

----------


## Fulmar

Actually, most primates including the great apes are omnivores. The only ones that are not are the Orangutans. Humans evolved as omnivores, certainly eating a lot of plants based foods but also, eating fish and shell fish and meat (sparingly). Fish and shellfish have never entered into the discussions on here. Why?
Yes, I would be interested to read Rheg's responses to your questions as well. 
Another fact I came across is that the vast majority of people who attempt veganism lapse within 12 months for various reasons but usually, they do attempt to eat more ethically and perhaps sparingly of animal products after they have lapsed. 
If all people turned vegan overnight, all domestic herds would be slaughtered as it would be uneconomic to keep them and the fields would be empty and desolate. Is that the utopia that Rheghead wants to see, I do not know. Also, as you say, in very many of the scientific studies he refers to, the lab animals being used and in whom the results are obtained, are mice. Mice are far from ideal animals to use for extrapolation as to what might happen in humans, that is why they have to be so highly modified genetically in the first place. Their metabolism and everything else differs vastly to that of our own as they are rodents and we are primates and we are vastly more complex. But lab mice are the best that is available and their exploitation is just about tolerated ethically. Nevertheless, what about their 'rights' or does Rheg's concern and much trumpeted 'love of animals' only extend to the animals that people eat or obtain milk from? Why is Rheghead not calling for the mass slaughter of all those evil carnivores or is it only wrong for humans to eat other animals? I personally 'feel' for the wildebeest and the zebra and the gazelles or deer etc in all those graphic wildlife films that we have probably all seen as they are pulled down by lions, leopards, cheetahs, wolves or whatever it might happen to be.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead:
> 
> Some questions that need answering.
> 
> Why are almost all humans meat eaters? Humans mostly eat plants but they will eat meat when available.  Meat is nutritious, it can be tasty and delicious and has proteins and vital minerals in it.
> Why is the human race so successful?  By what yardstick do you measure success?  Inventiveness?  Living in peace and harmony?  etc
> Why has life expectance consistently risen?  Better water, better food production, better medicine, better knowledge, science really.
> Life expectancy has risen faster alongside the increased consumption of meat and dairy. Why? See above answers.
> Why don’t the great apes rule the planet, they are far larger and stronger than us and as true vegetarians eat a far better diet than us?  For the same reasons why shrimps and tigers don't rule the planet.  They are not smart enough.
> ...


None of my answers will be to your satisfaction as you see veganism as a threat to your way of life.

----------


## Rheghead

> Actually, most primates including the great apes are omnivores. The only ones that are not are the Orangutans. Humans evolved as omnivores, certainly eating a lot of plants based foods but also, eating fish and shell fish and meat (sparingly). Fish and shellfish have never entered into the discussions on here. Why?
> Yes, I would be interested to read Rheg's responses to your questions as well. 
> Another fact I came across is that the vast majority of people who attempt veganism lapse within 12 months for various reasons but usually, they do attempt to eat more ethically and perhaps sparingly of animal products after they have lapsed. 
> If all people turned vegan overnight, all domestic herds would be slaughtered as it would be uneconomic to keep them and the fields would be empty and desolate. Is that the utopia that Rheghead wants to see, I do not know. Also, as you say, in very many of the scientific studies he refers to, the lab animals being used and in whom the results are obtained, are mice. Mice are far from ideal animals to use for extrapolation as to what might happen in humans, that is why they have to be so highly modified genetically in the first place. Their metabolism and everything else differs vastly to that of our own as they are rodents and we are primates and we are vastly more complex. But lab mice are the best that is available and their exploitation is just about tolerated ethically. Nevertheless, what about their 'rights' or does Rheg's concern and much trumpeted 'love of animals' only extend to the animals that people eat or obtain milk from? Why is Rheghead not calling for the mass slaughter of all those evil carnivores or is it only wrong for humans to eat other animals? I personally 'feel' for the wildebeest and the zebra and the gazelles or deer etc in all those graphic wildlife films that we have probably all seen as they are pulled down by lions, leopards, cheetahs, wolves or whatever it might happen to be.


Chimpanzees and all the great apes (including us) are herbivores physically.  Chimpanzees are behavoral omnivores like us, but their natural diet is about 2-3% animals, 60% of which is insects.  A poor example.

You are right, the fields would be empty at first if we all went vegan overnight, that is a fanciful though, a gradual phase out is more likely.  But if it did then nature would take its course and we would see the natural fauna of the British isles return in large expanses of the countryside.  We'd have so much land available that it would make sense to encourage it to be natural by the reintroduction of extinct species.  It would be a Palaeolithic wildlife park where noble creatures could once again live wild.

----------


## pig whisperer

Jurassic Park ???    that didn't end too well

----------


## Goodfellers

> Chimpanzees and all the great apes (including us) are herbivores physically.  Chimpanzees are behavoral omnivores like us, but their natural diet is about 2-3% animals, 60% of which is insects.  A poor example.
> 
> You are right, the fields would be empty at first if we all went vegan overnight, that is a fanciful though, a gradual phase out is more likely.  But if it did then nature would take its course and we would see the natural fauna of the British isles return in large expanses of the countryside.  We'd have so much land available that it would make sense to encourage it to be natural by the reintroduction of extinct species.  It would be a Palaeolithic wildlife park where noble creatures could once again live wild.


Yet again, you come to some very odd conclusions with your vision of Utopia.

Question 1 What is the land area of the whole of the UK?    (This is completely different to usable agricultural land)
Answer  60.1973 million acres

Question 2 What is the current population of the UK?
Answer 65,363,172

This equates to less than one acre/person. A large proportion of this acreage will be mountainous, moorland or otherwise unproductive for growing food.

I want my acre to be productive land in somewhere like Lincolnshire. 

After reading your strange views on here I suggest your acre (Rheghead, just in case anyone wasn't sure) be on the top of Ben Nevis, where you can survey your Utopian world where the people are starving and wild animals from our distant history savage what's left of the  population.

Keep taking the tablets!!!!!!!!!!! ( no anger, just exasperation )Ps I think typing in red is far more 'angry' than using an !

----------


## cptdodger

Or you could walk across a road and get hit by a bus, then all these years of worrying about what causes cancer was all for nothing. For goodness sake just live your life, if you worry about every single morsel of food you ingest, the stress will get you.

----------


## Fulmar

Well, one 'vision' of the future poses a very different scenario and that is, with desertifiation taking over many productive lands in the south due to global warming, there will be mass migration of starving people to the remaining fertile lands in the north that are still capable of cultivation- of which Scotland will be one. Hence it will not be the 'Palaeolithic' wildlife that we need to fear (do you have some insider knowledge then, Rheghead, of the reincarnation of the likes of the sabre toothed tiger that the rest of us don't know about?) but one another.
There is, I'm afraid, no getting away from the benefits of animal based foods to omnivores and that is why in evolutionary terms, these foods have been and are sought after. Look at grizzly bears. What do they hunt when they are preparing for hibernation? Fatty, succulent oily salmon and they gorge on that to build up their fat reserves to see them through. As for chimpanzees, well they occasionally hunt monkeys and there is no doubt about the blood lust and the absolute craving for meat (uncomfortable to watch as it is quite close to home, I think) that every single one of them in the group exhibits.
 There are no naturally living human tribes who do not hunt and eat game when they can catch it and when they are successful, they celebrate it. It is not true either to say that these people are unhealthy. The Inuit eat a high fat, totally meat based diet but they do not suffer high rates of either cancer or heart disease. The same is true of the Masai. There may well be genetic factors at work in these people and that is the whole point. There are genetic factors at work in every single one of us which is why population studies of apparent food risks are interesting at population level but of dubious value at an individual level. We all know this and are capable of making up our own minds as to what is right for us to eat and in what proportions etc etc and as I have said before, there is not a single study in existence that proves that a modest, occasional serving of meat is any way harmful.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, one 'vision' of the future poses a very different scenario and that is, with desertifiation taking over many productive lands in the south due to global warming, there will be mass migration of starving people to the remaining fertile lands in the north that are still capable of cultivation- of which Scotland will be one. Hence it will not be the 'Palaeolithic' wildlife that we need to fear (do you have some insider knowledge then, Rheghead, of the reincarnation of the likes of the sabre toothed tiger that the rest of us don't know about?) but one another.
> There is, I'm afraid, no getting away from the benefits of animal based foods to omnivores and that is why in evolutionary terms, these foods have been and are sought after. *Look at grizzly bears*. What do they hunt when they are preparing for hibernation? Fatty, succulent oily salmon and they gorge on that to build up their fat reserves to see them through. As for chimpanzees, well they occasionally hunt monkeys and there is no doubt about the blood lust and the absolute craving for meat (uncomfortable to watch as it is quite close to home, I think) that every single one of them in the group exhibits.
>  There are no naturally living human tribes who do not hunt and eat game when they can catch it and when they are successful, they celebrate it. It is not true either to say that these people are unhealthy. *The Inuit eat a high fat*, totally meat based diet but they do not suffer high rates of either cancer or heart disease. The same is true of the Masai. There may well be genetic factors at work in these people and that is the whole point. There are genetic factors at work in every single one of us which is why population studies of apparent food risks are interesting at population level but of dubious value at an individual level. We all know this and are capable of making up our own minds as to what is right for us to eat and in what proportions etc etc and as I have said before, there is not a single study in existence that proves that a modest, occasional serving of meat is any way harmful.


I thought you were out of here?  If you think we need to promote clean energy to prevent Global environmental damage then I glad you share that concern.

As always, the foundation principle of your argument is deeply flawed.

We are not bears.  We do not hibernate and bears have carnivore physiology.  They do not suffer from atherosclerosis, they can eat as much meat as they like.  

Also your comments about Inuit are also misleading.  As far as I know, most Caithnessians do not have Inuit ancestry so the premise is irrelevent.  So if you are asking me to look at the Inuit as a justification for the consumption of meat globally then it would be very shaky ground indeed.

The Inuit and other aboriginal Canadians are on average more obese than other Canadians.  They have higher rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.  Lung cancer rates are higher.  They are susceptible to stroke at twice the rate. Compared to the general population of Canada, Inuit have a higher incidence of liver, oesophageal, nasopharyngeal, and salivary cancer.  However, they have lower rates (not non-existent)of breast, prostate, and endometrial  cancers. Meat eating is linked to lung cancer (though smoking is probablty the biggest cause), cardiovascular disease, diabetes and stroke. 

https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/upload...riesFINAL2.pdf

----------


## Rheghead

> Yet again, you come to some very odd conclusions with your vision of Utopia.
> 
> Question 1 What is the land area of the whole of the UK?    (This is completely different to usable agricultural land)
> Answer  60.1973 million acres
> 
> Question 2 What is the current population of the UK?
> Answer 65,363,172
> 
> This equates to less than one acre/person. A large proportion of this acreage will be mountainous, moorland or otherwise unproductive for growing food.
> ...


Please attack the arguments, not the person, it is getting tiresome and it just shows you up.

The people wouldn't be starving, on the contrary, we would have much more food to eat and we could even cure world hunger.

Again you have not provided a justification for industrialised livestock farming, the cancer, the cruelty, the bloodshed, the sexual assaults and the loss of biodiversity.   Please provide reasons as to why it is undesirable to have a healthy lifestyle, a healthy, planet and a natural landscape full of animals and plants to live in and admire.  Provide one single reason why eating meat is beneficial to your health, the animals and the environment.  I know you are a farmer, so you must be an expert in these matters unless your profits and dependency on subsidies are clouding your judgement? 

Upland farming is very damaging to the environment and it one of the major causes of loss of biodiversity, eg sheep farming and heath burning for grouse shooting as well as being a major of carbon emissions.  It prevents trees getting a foothold and providing shelter for animals in the future.

Overall livestock is estimated to be responsible for about 18% of all man-made greenhouse gases.  That is more than all the fossil fuels used for transportation.

----------


## Fulmar

You do not seem to know very much about bears, Rheghead. Although they all belong to the order Carnivora, most species are omnivores like ourselves. The only ones that are not are the polar bear (a true carnivore, although even they have been observed chewing on roots in times of starvation while waiting for the sea ice to re-form so that they can hunt) and the bamboo eating Giant Panda. The point I was making, which I really think was quite apparent though you seem to have missed it, was not to liken human beings to bears but to underline the nutritional value to an omnivore of eating flesh. Comparison between the highly diet- restricted Giant Panda and the omnivorous Grizzly further illustrates the point. The pandas have such a poor diet that they struggle to fulfil their nutritional needs and are only able to produce one cub (sometimes not even that) every 2 years and they are endangered whereas Grizzly and Brown bears commonly produce and rear 2 or even 3 cubs at a time. Being an omnivore allows animals and ourselves to exploit more ecological niches and opportunities and has conferred an evolutionary advantage. If not, it would have died out a long time ago.
You have also (presumably deliberately) not taken on board the point that I was making about those races of people following their traditional lifestyle. The Inuit living in this way do not suffer high rates of cancer or heart disease, despite their high fat and pretty much entirely flesh eating diet. There are plenty of references to this if you Google it (and it has attracted a lot of study and attention) and it is called the Inuit paradox. (What happens to people when they are either forced or choose to give up that lifestyle and are exposed to the modern ills of addiction, inactivity, poverty, depression and the like is entirely another matter. This presumably, is what you are highlighting whereas I was not). However, the point is, and contrary to all your assertions, the Inuit provide proof that eating even a lot of meat does not necessarily equate to poor human health. The situation is far more complex than that.
There is a link in western society between high red meat consumption (with no differentiation made between processed and non processed meat) and bowel cancer. _It is stated that for people in the UK, bowel cancer is the third most common type of cancer. An estimated 38,000 new cases of bowel cancer are diagnosed each year and an estimated 16,000 people die from bowel cancer each year. Approximately 80% of bowel cancer cases develop in people who are over 60.
An estimated 40,000 new cases of bowel cancer are diagnosed each year and about one in every 20 people in the UK will develop bowel cancer during their lifetime. Almost nine out of 10 people who develop bowel cancer are over 60. Also, People who smoke cigarettes are at greater risk of developing bowel cancer. Stopping smoking will reduce your risk.
Obesity and being inactive are also linked to an increased risk of bowel cancer._ 

The overall increased risk from red meat eating of developing bowel cancer is very small. So small that some colorectal surgeons who are at the coal face when it comes to dealing with the disease pay it little heed. The studies that have been done are observational and rely on people accurately reporting what they eat. The flaws in this approach are notorious and well recognised. Studies have also not differentiated between other lifestyle factors; do the red meat eaters also eat lots of vegetables or very little; are they overweight or not; are they active or sedentary. Do they smoke; do they consume alcohol etc. My whole point is that (and here I will shout and use as many exclamation marks as you please), there is NO EVIDENCE that if meat is eaten sparingly as part of a balanced diet eating as wide a variety of foods as possible, that it is anything other than good for you. NOT A SINGLE STUDY proves otherwise. Current nutritional advice is not to cut out red meat from your diet completely but to eat it more sparingly, if you need and want to.
For example, the TV presenter Nick Knowles has recently brought out a highly successful, no nonsense vegan cookbook. He went from being, by his own admission, a 3 meat meals a day man (clearly excessive) to now, being veggie 80% of the time. He looks and feels better but is not hung up about the other 20% of what he eats and continues to enjoy eating meat sparingly if he feels he wants to. If this had been your approach then I, for one, would be more on board with you.
Aging is definitely the greatest risk factor for bowel cancer. So what should we conclude then- that none of us should grow old or should the over 60s give up eating meat. No!
_Red meat is one of the most nutritious foods you can eat.
It is loaded with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and various other nutrients that can have profound effects on health.
A 100 gram (3.5 ounces) portion of raw ground beef (10% fat) contains (3):
·         Vitamin B3 (Niacin): 25% of the RDA.
·         Vitamin B12 (Cobalamin): 37% of the RDA (this vitamin is unattainable from plant foods).
·         Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine): 18% of the RDA.
·         Iron: 12% of the RDA (This is high quality heme-iron, which is absorbed much better than iron from plants).
·         Zinc: 32% of the RDA.
·         Selenium: 24% of the RDA.
·         Then there are plenty of other vitamins and minerals in there too, in smaller amounts._
Critically, these nutrients are recognised to be in the most bioavailable form- an important factor for the elderly in whom absorption of nutrients declines with aging. Many elderly people are short of iron, vitamin B 12 and selenium due to age-related mal-absorption and while there are undoubtedly plant sources for some of these, they are mostly in a form that is far harder to digest. Meat and animal based foods are a better source.
It is also sensible and recommended everywhere to eat more oily fish and fish is likewise flesh and not vegan. Another issue that you refuse to address.
_I thought you were out of here._ 
So much for your much heralded professions of concern for the welfare of others. What are you afraid of Rheghead? Why are you so defensive of your thread- a bizarre concept anyway on what is supposed to be open discussion on a public forum, up for comment by all. Never mind, if you wait long enough, perhaps the bad dudes will fade away and some militant vegans to whom you can fully relate and who will join you in denigrating the views of others will pop along to give you their support and you can then enjoy a mutual, oh so superior, veggie love in. I wish you joy in it.
You are right though, I should be out of here and I now will be. Before I go though, how dare you assert _that as always_', your arguments are _'deeply flawed_ .What gives you that God given right? Try examining your own posts a little more critically. You remind me of some world leaders that are in the news a lot at present. Dont like the facts, fine? Just make up some alternative facts and if you shout them loud enough, maybe people will believe you. Dont like those who insist on an alternative view; fine? Just hound the messengers who proclaim those messages. 
Try to gracefully accept, if you possibly can, that the Palaolithic ancestors of us all, including you, were hunter gatherers. Denial simply wont wash, Im afraid. Look again at Palaeolithic rock art. Funnily enough, it does not depict collections of fruit and nuts and leaves; it depicts animals, some of them with arrows sticking out of their sides! Explain that one away if you can (and no doubt you will) but one thing that it certainly was not is an early submission for the Turner Prize! Likewise the butchered animal bones found in cave deposits. A strange thing for, (according to you), human herbivores to be doing and associated with, dont you think?
I still feel sorry for you though. You are the one on the restricted diet not me but you just can't see it. As a mainly vegetarian (not vegan) person, all the foods that you eat are open to me (and are in my store cupboard, I can assure you) but my choices are so much broader and more interesting than yours. I eat ethically- it is perfectly possible to do that- and by the way, while on the subject, how dare you denigrate hard working, caring farmers the way that you have done on here? Shame on you. Where in Caithness does one find the bleak picture of animal husbandry that you portray- nowhere! Look around you and open your eyes. Visit a croft or a farm; perhaps you might learn something and lets hope it begins with a dose of humility.
Finally, (and I do not care if you believe it or not), I am a retired scientist. In the course of my life, I have worked in cancer research at a highly respected Scottish university; yes, in an actual lab, using actual, human cancer cells. It was team work that was published. I dont claim any special credit for it- it was a long time ago- although I have also been individually published. All my family are either research scientists or medics. I understand something about the mechanisms of cancer, that is all I lay claim to, so do not ever again tell me (or anyone else on here for that matter) that my arguments are deeply flawed. 
Thats it.

----------


## Rheghead

> You do not seem to know very much about bears, Rheghead. Although they all belong to the order Carnivora, most species are omnivores like ourselves. The only ones that are not are the polar bear (a true carnivore, although even they have been observed chewing on roots in times of starvation while waiting for the sea ice to re-form so that they can hunt) and the bamboo eating Giant Panda.You have not been reading my posts, selective reading.  I have said on many occasion that bears are carnivores by physiology but omnivores by behavior. The point I was making, which I really think was quite apparent though you seem to have missed it, was not to liken human beings to bears but to underline the nutritional value to an omnivore of eating flesh. Comparison between the highly diet- restricted Giant Panda and the omnivorous Grizzly further illustrates the point. The pandas have such a poor diet that they struggle to fulfil their nutritional needs and are only able to produce one cub (sometimes not even that) every 2 years and they are endangered whereas Grizzly and Brown bears commonly produce and rear 2 or even 3 cubs at a time.The panda is related to a raccoon, not a bear Being an omnivore allows animals and ourselves to exploit more ecological niches and opportunities and has conferred an evolutionary advantage. If not, it would have died out a long time ago. Yes for animals in the wild, we are humans with a herbivore physiology
> You have also (presumably deliberately) not taken on board the point that I was making about those races of people following their traditional lifestyle. The Inuit living in this way do not suffer high rates of cancer or heart disease, despite their high fat and pretty much entirely flesh eating diet. There are plenty of references to this if you Google it (and it has attracted a lot of study and attention) and it is called the ‘Inuit paradox’. (What happens to people when they are either forced or choose to give up that lifestyle and are exposed to the modern ills of addiction, inactivity, poverty, depression and the like is entirely another matter. This presumably, is what you are highlighting whereas I was not). However, the point is, and contrary to all your assertions, the Inuit provide proof that eating even a lot of meat does not necessarily equate to poor human health. The situation is far more complex than that. You asserted that the Inuit had resistance to various things that were completely untrue.  They suffer from less breast cancer but that could be down to that their terrain is less conducive to raising dairy animals.  I supplied a link from the inuit community to support that
> There is a link in western society between high red meat consumption (with no differentiation made between processed and non processed meat) and bowel cancer. _It is stated that for people in the UK, bowel cancer is the third most common type of cancer. An estimated 38,000 new cases of bowel cancer are diagnosed each year and an estimated 16,000 people die from bowel cancer each year. Approximately 80% of bowel cancer cases develop in people who are over 60.
> An estimated 40,000 new cases of bowel cancer are diagnosed each year and about one in every 20 people in the UK will develop bowel cancer during their lifetime. Almost nine out of 10 people who develop bowel cancer are over 60. Also, People who smoke cigarettes are at greater risk of developing bowel cancer. Stopping smoking will reduce your risk.
> Obesity and being inactive are also linked to an increased risk of bowel cancer._  I'd say obesity and a lack of exercise is linked to eating meat which is linked to bowel cancer.  Vegans tend to be more active, less obese.  You need to prove causality instead of reaming off a list of correlations.
> 
> The overall increased risk from red meat eating of developing bowel cancer is very small. So small that some colorectal surgeons who are at the coal face when it comes to dealing with the disease pay it little heed. The studies that have been done are observational and rely on people accurately reporting what they eat. The flaws in this approach are notorious and well recognised. Studies have also not differentiated between other lifestyle factors; do the red meat eaters also eat lots of vegetables or very little; are they overweight or not; are they active or sedentary. Do they smoke; do they consume alcohol etc. My whole point is that (and here I will shout and use as many exclamation marks as you please), there is NO EVIDENCE that if meat is eaten sparingly as part of a balanced diet eating as wide a variety of foods as possible, that it is anything other than good for you. NOT A SINGLE STUDY proves otherwise. Current nutritional advice is not to cut out red meat from your diet completely but to eat it more sparingly, if you need and want to. Define sparingly.  You know, people who claim to be able to smoke one cigarette every day really keep to that regime.
> For example, the TV presenter Nick Knowles has recently brought out a highly successful, no nonsense vegan cookbook. He went from being, by his own admission, a 3 meat meals a day man (clearly excessive) to now, being veggie 80% of the time. He looks and feels better but is not hung up about the other 20% of what he eats and continues to enjoy eating meat sparingly if he feels he wants to. If this had been your approach then I, for one, would be more on board with you.  Good for him if he can keep to that.  But if I know humans as I know humans, rarely do people stick with diets as it means counting calories and making an effort.  They son relapse into their old ways.  Vegans have a clear red line, no animal products in their diet.  It is simple, healthy and easily kept.
> Aging is definitely the greatest risk factor for bowel cancer. So what should we conclude then- that none of us should grow old or should the over 60s give up eating meat. No!
> ...


I do not denigrate, I say it as it is, I provide links to studies.  You have just waffled.  

See above responses.

----------


## Rheghead

> You are right though, I should be ‘out of here’ and I now will be. Before I go though, how dare you assert ‘_that as always_', your arguments are _'deeply flawed’_ .What gives you that God given right? God?  You gave bogus premises for your arguments, that is a red rag to a bull for me.Try examining your own posts a little more critically. You remind me of some world leaders that are in the news a lot at present. Don’t like the facts, fine? Just make up some alternative facts and if you shout them loud enough, maybe people will believe you. Don’t like those who insist on an alternative view; fine? Just hound the messengers who proclaim those messages. Oh for goodness sakes.  Made up facts?  I've been posting lots of scientific studies and have been raising awareness about the health, environmental and ethical issues of eating animal products.
> Try to gracefully accept, if you possibly can, that the Palaolithic ancestors of us all, including you, were hunter gatherers. Denial simply won’t wash, I’m afraid. Look again at Palaeolithic rock art. Oh for goodness sakes, I have never claimed otherwise.Funnily enough, it does not depict collections of fruit and nuts and leaves; it depicts animals, some of them with arrows sticking out of their sides! Explain that one away if you can (and no doubt you will) but one thing that it certainly was not is an early submission for the Turner Prize! Likewise the butchered animal bones found in cave deposits. A strange thing for, (according to you), ‘human herbivores’ to be doing and associated with, don’t you think?Oh for goodness sakes, have you not been reading my posts or only the bits you disagree with?  Those cave paintings were done about 30,000 years ago, we were already evolved as we are now for at least 120,000 years before that with herbivore physiology.  I feel like banging my head against a wall
> I still feel sorry for you though. You are the one on the restricted diet not me but you just can't see it. As a mainly vegetarian (not vegan) person, all the foods that you eat are open to me (and are in my store cupboard, I can assure you) but my choices are so much broader and more interesting than yours. I eat ethically- it is perfectly possible to do that- and by the way, while on the subject, how dare you denigrate hard working, caring farmers the way that you have done on here? You can work hard on something irrespective of the ethical implications, it doesn't give them an excuse. Shame on you. Where in Caithness does one find the bleak picture of animal husbandry that you portray- nowhere! Animal husbandry is all around us.  Just because it happens here does make it kind or anyway benign. Look around you and open your eyes. Visit a croft or a farm; perhaps you might learn something and let’s hope it begins with a dose of humility.
> Finally, (and I do not care if you believe it or not), I am a retired scientist.You fooled me. In the course of my life, I have worked in cancer research at a highly respected Scottish university; yes, in an actual lab, using actual, human cancer cells. It was team work that was published. I don’t claim any special credit for it- it was a long time ago- although I have also been individually published. All my family are either research scientists or medics. I understand something about the mechanisms of cancer, that is all I lay claim to, so do not ever again tell me (or anyone else on here for that matter) that my arguments are deeply flawed. 
> That’s it.


As I showed above in red.  Your views are deeply flawed.  I have provided links to lots of studies that has shown beyond any doubt that there is a significant link between eating meat and dairy to an increased risk of developing cancer.  It also has devastating consequences for the health of the planet as well.  The ethical issues are fairly straightforward.

----------


## kinloch

Boring now not many interested let's get on

----------


## Rheghead

25% of all abattoirs in England and Wales failed basic hygiene tests raising fears of contaminated meat getting into the food chain.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...irs-fail-tests

----------


## sids

> raising fears


A coward dies a thousand deaths.

----------


## cptdodger

> 25% of all abattoirs in England and Wales failed basic hygiene tests raising fears of contaminated meat getting into the food chain.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environm...irs-fail-tests


How absolutely pathetic.

----------


## Goodfellers

You're getting desperate now Rheg. How many household kitchens would fail the same rigorous tests. Answer almost all.

As a vegetarian, you may not understand that cooking meat kills the bacteria.  you will struggle to find any research that shows properly cooked meat is dangerous....apart from in your world where all meat is bad.

How did abattoirs in Scotland fair? I see you failed to mention them. 

As an aside, how many vegetarian restaurants are there in Caithness? Surely there are enough of your disciples to sustain several?

I understand a famous vegetarian was as zealous as you...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...rian-diet.html

Let me guess....you dismiss the Telegraph as not scientific enough, as compared to your biased links  that I have shown to disagree with what you claim....you casually ignore those posts though....ummm says a lot about your character. Do you have a food taster? Now for a few exclamation marks to emphasis !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## sids

> your biased links that I have shown to disagree with what you claim....you casually ignore those posts


He is using the mendacious tactics typical of such zealots.  He knows most people won't read his boring links, so when he says the links agree with him, some people will believe him.  Like many partisan internet "campaigners" (lol!) he long ago lost sight of what the word "truth" even means.

I think he has, with this thread, successfully persuaded a lot of people that there's a nut case called Rheghead, on the internet.

----------


## Goodfellers

Sids, I agee

He is without a doubt, one of the most stubborn deniers I have ever had the misfortune to spar with. Ever bit of 'research' he posts is 'the truth' and anything anyone else posts 'is lies'. I am going to post one more entry defending the farming industry then like everyone else, I am going to leave him to it as he is beyond saving. 

*denier1* 



*noun*


A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

----------


## Goodfellers

Had you been around at the end of the Second World War and suffered food rationing for many years, you would understand what an amazing job the farming industry does.
The Agriculture Act 1947 paved the way for intensive farming. As I mentioned in earlier posts I produced eggs on a 140,000 intensive farm and a 32,000 bird free range unit. So hens and eggs are my area of expertise.
After 1947 the government wanted farmers to produce far more produce than had ever been achieved before. This they (we) did with remarkable success. Egg production has more than doubled. I understand from arable friends, they have achieved even better results with grain production.
Of course profit comes into it. Who in their right mind wants to work seven days a week EVERY day of the year just to break even? 
The government asked us to feed the nation and this has been done admirably despite the bleaters like you.
Have you ever been inside a commercial cage unit pre 2012? I doubt it. I invited both the BBC and ITV in and allowed both to film anywhere they wanted. I was not ashamed of what I was doing. The birds were well looked after and despite your view intensive caged birds are amongst the healthiest there are. The do not need anti biotics, they only eat clean fresh food and water. I used to have egg eating vegetarians come to the farm and buy intensive eggs over free range as free range birds eat anything that moves i.e. worms insects even baby rats.
Instead of running down the UK farming industry, you should be thanking us for securing the food supply for all, including you.

----------


## Rheghead

> Had you been around at the end of the Second World War and suffered food rationing for many years, you would understand what an amazing job the farming industry does.
> The Agriculture Act 1947 paved the way for intensive farming. As I mentioned in earlier posts I produced eggs on a 140,000 intensive farm and a 32,000 bird free range unit. So hens and eggs are my area of expertise.
> After 1947 the government wanted farmers to produce far more produce than had ever been achieved before. This they (we) did with remarkable success. Egg production has more than doubled. I understand from arable friends, they have achieved even better results with grain production.
> Of course profit comes into it. Who in their right mind wants to work seven days a week EVERY day of the year just to break even? 
> The government asked us to feed the nation and this has been done admirably despite the bleaters like you.
> Have you ever been inside a commercial cage unit pre 2012? I doubt it. I invited both the BBC and ITV in and allowed both to film anywhere they wanted. I was not ashamed of what I was doing. The birds were well looked after and despite your view intensive caged birds are amongst the healthiest there are. The do not need anti biotics, they only eat clean fresh food and water. I used to have egg eating vegetarians come to the farm and buy intensive eggs over free range as free range birds eat anything that moves i.e. worms insects even baby rats.
> Instead of running down the UK farming industry, you should be thanking us for securing the food supply for all, including you.


What happens to the male chicks?

----------


## Rheghead

> Let me guess....you dismiss the Telegraph as not scientific enough, as compared to your biased links


The bulk of my links have been scientific studies.  Science is not biased, it is science.

----------


## Rheghead

> Sids, I agee
> 
> He is without a doubt, one of the most stubborn deniers I have ever had the misfortune to spar with. Ever bit of 'research' he posts is 'the truth' and anything anyone else posts 'is lies'. I am going to post one more entry defending the farming industry then like everyone else, I am going to leave him to it as he is beyond saving. 
> 
> *denier1* 
> 
> 
> 
> *noun*
> ...


All I have done is to raise awareness that eating animal products give rise to health, environmental and ethical problems. When I started this investigation, everyone thought there was no truth in that animal products were bad for us.  I have provided scientific links to prove my point.  You can deny all you like about your actions but that is the truth.  To be honest, thou doth protest to much.  If you are responsible for industrial damage to peoples health, animal health and the environment, then be proud of it. Don't try to kid me otherwise when the scientific evidence doesn't show it.  If the cap fits then wear it!

There's a large amount of cognitive dissonance on display here.  We really do know that eating animals and their secretions are bad for us and we know that the slaughter of animals is going on on an industrial scale but we keep on eating those products.  We claim to love animals and the landscape and yet to justify our tastes we have compartmentalised our thirst for blood.

----------


## Rheghead

Thousands of male chicks dumped as industrial waste.  They would have been ground up anyway.  Pseudo air of concern abound.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-39015085

----------


## Rheghead

Eggs are bad for our heart.  High cholesterol.  Egg consumption was compared with smoking.  

Carotid total plaque area (TPA) increases linearly with age. TPA increases exponentially with smoking pack-years. TPA increases exponentially with egg-yolk years. The effect size of egg yolks appears to be approximately 2/3 that of smoking.  Probably egg yolks should be avoided by persons at risk of vascular disease.



http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.c...504-7/abstract

----------


## scoobyc

> The bulk of my links have been scientific studies.  Science is not biased, it is science.


If everything was paid for by one central organisation maybe, but meanwhile in the real world where there are all sorts of implications on funding etc, I doubt it very much and I doubt you believe it either  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> If everything was paid for by one central organisation maybe, but meanwhile in the real world where there are all sorts of implications on funding etc, I doubt it very much and I doubt you believe it either


I'm acutely aware of where funding comes from for carrying out a study and to provide links to independent research.  I've not seen a study yet that has been sponsored by a major dairy that shows dairy products pose a significant increased risk to cancer.  Which begs the question if they're sitting on a pile of studies that do show risks to health from consuming dairy products.

----------


## sids

> The bulk of my links have been scientific studies.  Science is not biased, it is science.


I might believe you, were you a scientist.

----------


## Rheghead

It has been erroneously long held in modern culture that eating red meat is associated with masculinity.  Men take charge of the BBQ and traditionally carve the turkey at festive holidays.  But apparently the reverse could be true.  

RESULTS:

Only few studies assessed the role or the effect of diet on ED. *A dietary pattern which is high in fruit, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, and fish but low in red and processed meat and refined grains is more represented in subjects without ED*. Mediterranean diet has been proposed as a healthy dietary pattern based on evidence that greater adherence to this diet is associated with lower all-cause and disease-specific survival. *In type 2 diabetic men, those with the highest adherence to the Mediterranean diet had the lowest prevalence of ED and were more likely to be sexually active*. In clinical trials,* Mediterranean diet was more effective than a control diet in ameliorating ED or restoring absent ED in people with obesity or metabolic syndrome.*
CONCLUSION:

The adoption of a Mediterranean diet may be associated with an improvement of erectile dysfunction.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20487239

----------


## sids

> It has been erroneously long held in modern culture that eating red meat is associated with masculinity.  Men take charge of the BBQ and traditionally carve the turkey at festive holidays.  But apparently the reverse could be true.....
> 
> 
> .....The adoption of a Mediterranean diet may be associated with an improvement of erectile dysfunction.


What is the reverse of men carving a turkey?

Say what you like about Mediterranean folks, but they get through a hell of a lot of pork, drink and fags.

----------


## Rheghead

The consumption of meat is a risk factor in the development of type 2 diabetes.

Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:

A diet rich in meat has been reported to contribute to the risk of type 2 diabetes. The present study aims to investigate the association between meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes in the EPIC-InterAct study, a large prospective case-cohort study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.
METHODS:

During 11.7 years of follow-up, 12,403 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were identified among 340,234 adults from eight European countries. A centre-stratified random subsample of 16,835 individuals was selected in order to perform a case-cohort design. Prentice-weighted Cox regression analyses were used to estimate HR and 95% CI for incident diabetes according to meat consumption.
RESULTS:

Overall, multivariate analyses showed significant positive associations with incident type 2 diabetes for increasing consumption of total meat (50 g increments: HR 1.08; 95% CI 1.05, 1.12), red meat (HR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03, 1.13) and processed meat (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05, 1.19), and a borderline positive association with meat iron intake. Effect modifications by sex and class of BMI were observed. In men, the results of the overall analyses were confirmed. In women, the association with total and red meat persisted, although attenuated, while an association with poultry consumption also emerged (HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.07, 1.34). These associations were not evident among obese participants.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:

This prospective study confirms a positive association between high consumption of total and red meat and incident type 2 diabetes in a large cohort of European adults.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22983636

----------


## cptdodger

Oh for the love of god, do you get some kind of perverse pleasure in trying to frighten people ? My mother who was 88 died last year, she did everything you are telling people not to do, yet she did not die of cancer and she was not diabetic. You can bang on for anther 22 pages about what people should and should not eat because if they do they _may_ get this or they _may_ get that.

 It is all irrelevant, the only certainty in life is death, nobody and I do mean nobody, not even you, gets out of this alive.

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh for the love of god, do you get some kind of perverse pleasure in trying to frighten people ? My mother who was 88 died last year, she did everything you are telling people not to do, yet she did not die of cancer and she was not diabetic. You can bang on for anther 22 pages about what people should and should not eat because if they do they _may_ get this or they _may_ get that.
> 
>  It is all irrelevant, the only certainty in life is death, nobody and I do mean nobody, not even you, gets out of this alive.


What have you against raising awareness about the unhealthy aspects of consuming meat products?  If you don't like the subject then don't click on it.  It really is that simple.  I'm promoting health, a better environment and better animal welfare.  Those are all positive things in life.  Get over yourself.  If I was promoting something that was unhealthy, damages the environment or hurting animals for sport or food then I guess nobody would bat an eyelid.

Why is it so terrible for you?

----------


## cptdodger

Me get over myself ?? You really are having a laugh. It is absolutely your way or no way. Anybody dares disagree with your "promotional vendetta" and you come down on them like a ton of bricks. As far as I know, we are all adults on this forum, all capable of doing our own research if we wish and drawing our own conclusions. 

Let's look at this little scenario, everybody turns vegetarian/vegan overnight, all your "promoting" has worked. What do you think is going to happen to all the sheep/cattle/pigs, that you care so much about ?

----------


## Rheghead

> What do you think is going to happen to all the sheep/cattle/pigs, that you care so much about ?


I only care about the planet and its habitats and ecosystems, the health of the human race and welfare of animals.  Farming animals is the biggest cause of loss of biodiversity.

If we all went vegan gradually (not overnight) there will eventually be no livestock in the fields and then the land will return to a natural landscape which would be rich in wildlife. There will be no profit in keeping the land looking like a farm. The butterflies of meadows will return.  We would see animals living naturally in the wild, predator vs prey, it will be a rich and rewarding landscape to enjoy.  They would have plenty of land to roam, unhindered by humans.  Our planet would be much healthier, we could stabilise the rising global temperatures.

There is little point in worrying about the welfare of farm animals that are extinct when we could have a much richer alternative.

The reason I sound autocratic is because I make sense.  You just do not want to give up your meat to realise a better way of living.

----------


## joxville

It'll be a cold day in hell before I turn vegan; three years ago I tried a strictly vegetarian diet for a month, I was glad when it was over and celebrated with 4 bacon sandwiches. We've all read countless reports over the years about how almost everything is bad for us in one way or another but there's always the caveat, 'in moderation', so I shall continue to enjoy dairy products, red meat and drink beer in moderation and die happy. 

I recall meeting you Rheghead and you came across as a genuinely nice guy, but my god, you can be very sanctimonious.

----------


## Goodfellers

I wasn't going to comment on this thread anymore, but I had to post this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39040146

Male life expectancy is rising quickly as is almost all life expectancy despite Rhegheads assertion that we are all heading for an early grave.

*Men catching up*The study, published in the Lancet, also shows the gap in life expectancy between women and men is closing. 
Prof Ezzati said: "Men traditionally had unhealthier lifestyles, and so shorter life expectancies. 
"They smoked and drank more, and had more road traffic accidents and homicides, however, as lifestyles become more similar between men and women, so does their longevity."

Rheghead, please note this isn't one of your biased US pro vegetarian links, this is The Lancet.....lets see you run them down, or will it be a first and you accept you are wrong. I wont hold my breath.

My advice....ignore everything that Rheghead posts, and keep doing what you are doing if you want to live a _HAPPY_  and long life.

----------


## Goodfellers

[QUOTE=Rheghead;1161771]Eggs are bad for our heart.  High cholesterol.  Egg consumption was compared with smoking.  

Carotid total plaque area (TPA) increases linearly with age. TPA increases exponentially with smoking pack-years. TPA increases exponentially with egg-yolk years. The effect size of egg yolks appears to be approximately 2/3 that of smoking.  Probably egg yolks should be avoided by persons at risk of vascular disease.
Stop making statements that are not true......what the 'research' says is 

This hypothesis should be tested in a prospective study with more detailed information about diet, and other possible confounders such as exercise and waist circumference.


​Do you actually read what you post, or do you see a few words you like then post?

----------


## Goodfellers

> Eggs are bad for our heart.  High cholesterol.  Egg consumption was compared with smoking.  
> 
> Carotid total plaque area (TPA) increases linearly with age. TPA increases exponentially with smoking pack-years. TPA increases exponentially with egg-yolk years. The effect size of egg yolks appears to be approximately 2/3 that of smoking.  Probably egg yolks should be avoided by persons at risk of vascular disease.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.c...504-7/abstract


http://www.jamieoliver.com/news-and-...s-are-healthy/

 Quote from above article.....This makes eggs a great food choice for vegetarians,

https://authoritynutrition.com/why-a...-good-for-you/

 Above link....Eggs Do Not Cause Heart Disease

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/29/should-i-eat-more-eggs

 Quote from link.....The British Heart Foundation not only dropped its advice to limit eggs to three a week in 2007, but now has egg recipes (and not just for egg-white omelettes) on its website.

 Also......Eggs feature prominently in the Palaeolithic diet as a nutritious food that stone age man or woman would have gobbled down

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eggs-nutrition.aspx

 Above link...The NHS (far more trustworthy than your links ..... Eggs are a good choice as part of a healthy, balanced diet.


 ::  Shame I can't find a 'smiley' that conveys my current thoughts on you warped views

----------


## Goodfellers

> What happens to the male chicks?


They are gassed as a rule. Why would we want to rear male chicks that don't produce eggs. I would have thought that would be obvious. What you need to remember before you get all tearful is that even the female chicks only live for 72 weeks. I would have thought being gassed at birth would be preferable to 72 weeks of a living hell being looked after by money grabbing farmers.

----------


## Rheghead

> They are gassed as a rule. Why would we want to rear male chicks that don't produce eggs. I would have thought that would be obvious. What you need to remember before you get all tearful is that even the female chicks only live for 72 weeks. I would have thought being gassed at birth would be preferable to 72 weeks of a living hell being looked after by money grabbing farmers.


You said it, not me.  But some egg producers just throw them into a grinder alive.  A real cruelty is involvved with just owning chickens.  They have been selectively bred to ovulate 250-300 times per year.  Birds in the wild ovulate about 12-20 times a year.  This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.

If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.jamieoliver.com/news-and-...s-are-healthy/
> 
>  Quote from above article.....This makes eggs a great food choice for vegetarians,
> 
> https://authoritynutrition.com/why-a...-good-for-you/
> 
>  Above link....Eggs Do Not Cause Heart Disease
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/29/should-i-eat-more-eggs
> ...



 The British Heart Foundation is another charity that has toned down its advice about unhealthy foods in the wake of entering a corporate donor arrangement with Tesco, the largest retailer of groceries in the UK.  They are buying off charities who threaten their profits, I think we touched on this with Cancer Research UK.

The important thing is to keep the profits rolling in, even at the expense of people's health.




> In the UK today, around 4.2 million people are living with Type 2 diabetes, and an estimated 7 million people are living with heart and circulatory disease.
> 
> Did you know that having Type 2 diabetes can double your risk of developing heart and circulatory disease?
> 
> Thats why Diabetes UK, the British Heart Foundation and Tesco are working together to raise funds to inspire millions of people to eat better, get active and reduce their risk of developing these largely preventable conditions. We want to help people learn new ways of cooking, how to fit activity into their daily lives and look after their health.


http://tescocharitypartnership.org.uk/

----------


## Rheghead

> I wasn't going to comment on this thread anymore, but I had to post this;
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39040146
> 
> Male life expectancy is rising quickly as is almost all life expectancy despite Rhegheads assertion that we are all heading for an early grave.
> 
> *Men catching up*The study, published in the Lancet, also shows the gap in life expectancy between women and men is closing. 
> Prof Ezzati said: "Men traditionally had unhealthier lifestyles, and so shorter life expectancies. 
> "They smoked and drank more, and had more road traffic accidents and homicides, however, as lifestyles become more similar between men and women, so does their longevity."
> ...


Longer life expectancy has nothing to do with eating animal products.  It has more to do with a better understanding of medicine, hygiene, health and exercise, better working conditions.  Trying to put longer life expectancy down to eating animals is just clearly wrong in the light of all the scientific evidence that suggest meat and dairy consumption is linked to obesity, cancer, diabetes, stroke and a whole host of other diseases.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  But you are a farmer so I guess you have your own interests to look after.

----------


## Rheghead

[QUOTE=Goodfellers;1161840]


> Eggs are bad for our heart.  High cholesterol.  Egg consumption was compared with smoking.  
> 
> Carotid total plaque area (TPA) increases linearly with age. TPA increases exponentially with smoking pack-years. TPA increases exponentially with egg-yolk years. The effect size of egg yolks appears to be approximately 2/3 that of smoking.  Probably egg yolks should be avoided by persons at risk of vascular disease.
> Stop making statements that are not true......what the 'research' says is 
> 
> This hypothesis should be tested in a prospective study with more detailed information about diet, and other possible confounders such as exercise and waist circumference.
> 
> 
> ​Do you actually read what you post, or do you see a few words you like then post?


Ahem, I just merely copied and pasted the interpretation of the paper and now you are claiming I'm distorting the science, please get a hold of yourself and stop twisting my posts.

The paper just proposed further study into this field of study.  The interpretation was sound that eggs should be avoided with people with heart disease.  Since you get acquired heart disease by eating foods with high levels  of ldl cholesterol like eggs, meat and dairy then it is you that is twisting or playing down the conclusions of the study.

Meat eggs and dairy are bad for LDL cholesterol  which makes us at higher risk of heart disease.  Plants do not have LDL cholesterol.

----------


## Rheghead

> It'll be a cold day in hell before I turn vegan; three years ago I tried a strictly vegetarian diet for a month, I was glad when it was over and celebrated with 4 bacon sandwiches. We've all read countless reports over the years about how almost everything is bad for us in one way or another but there's always the caveat, 'in moderation', so I shall continue to enjoy dairy products, red meat and drink beer in moderation and die happy. 
> 
> I recall meeting you Rheghead and you came across as a genuinely nice guy, but my god, you can be very sanctimonious.


No sanctimony intended but I can see why that accusation would be thrown from a position of scientific and factual weakness.

----------


## Rheghead

This is big, Germany has now banned meat at all its official functions citing the impact on the environment.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/...ons/ar-AAn9p9f

----------


## Goodfellers

> This is big, Germany has now banned meat at all its official functions citing the impact on the environment.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/...ons/ar-AAn9p9f


I'm sure we could arrange a whip-round for a one way ticket. Everyone will want to contribute I bet

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm sure we could arrange a whip-round for a one way ticket. Everyone will want to contribute I bet


Thanks Goodfellers, you're a gift from Heaven.

----------


## Rheghead

Another cohort study, this time involving over 100,000 people in Sweden that showed that higher mortality and hip fractures (especially in women) were associated with dairy product consumption.  This goes against the accepted advice that dairy is good for bones and teeth.  However, only 30% of calcium is absorbed through animals products but plants can give greater absorption rates.  

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6015

----------


## sids

> This is big, Germany has now banned meat at all its official functions citing the impact on the environment.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/...ons/ar-AAn9p9f


Have you no respect for people who fought and died to keep German rules out of Britain?

----------


## smithp

> This is big, Germany has now banned meat at all its official functions citing the impact on the environment.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/...ons/ar-AAn9p9f


Vegetarianism and German government; that worked well last time did'nt it.

----------


## joxville

> No sanctimony intended but I can see why that accusation would be thrown from a position of scientific and factual weakness.


Not just scientific and factual weakness, also a huge dollop of being sick of do-gooders telling others how to live their lives. I think you missed your calling to be an MP.

----------


## Goodfellers

> This is big, Germany has now banned meat at all its official functions citing the impact on the environment.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/...ons/ar-AAn9p9f



great statement, however when you read into it,  it appears that it's one rule for guests at functions and another for staff who put out the decree.....just about says it all!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ministry-bans/

*But Ms Hendricks has been accused of hypocrisy after it emerged that the ban only applies to official functions, and that meat and fish are still available to ministry officials in the staff canteen.*

----------


## Goodfellers

[QUOTE=Rheghead;1161870]You said it, not me.  But some egg producers just throw them into a grinder alive.  A real cruelty is involvved with just owning chickens.  They have been selectively bred to ovulate 250-300 times per year.  Birds in the wild ovulate about 12-20 times a year.  This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.

If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.[/QUOTE  

Let me get this straight. you claim humans evolved bigger brains by natural selection (rather than eating high protein meat) BUT 
when farmers use natural selection to improve productivity, it's an abhorrent practice? 

Where is your evidence for calcium deficiency?
Laying hens are fed a very balanced diet which is formulated to maintain optimum health. Why would hens be deprived of calcium as it is calcium that forms the shell? A sick/poorly bird does not lay eggs. As it's all about profit, birds get as much calcium as they need which is the cheapest component of their feed. At 60 weeks old they are given additional calcium in the form of oyster shells because at this age they lay the largest eggs and large eggs require more shell.

We have had ex layers as pets and they live longer than any wild fowl so your statement that they have a short life is not entirely true, they will live for nearly nine years if we let them. We chose to slaughter hens at 72 weeks because they are uneconomic. It's all about profit. Hens that eat more than the value of the eggs they lay are not profitable.

When hens go to slaughter, a ministry vet is on site checking bird health. if more than a tiny % have damaged breast bones or damaged legs, we get paid nothing. When you have just sent off 16,000 hens (approx. 30 tonnes) you want them in tip top condition.

Find a different source for your outdated biased opinion of modern farming practices in the UK, which has some of the most rigorously enforced welfare standards in the world.

----------


## Goodfellers

> Longer life expectancy has nothing to do with eating animal products.  It has more to do with a better understanding of medicine, hygiene, health and exercise, better working conditions.  Trying to put longer life expectancy down to eating animals is just clearly wrong in the light of all the scientific evidence that suggest meat and dairy consumption is linked to obesity, cancer, diabetes, stroke and a whole host of other diseases.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  But you are a farmer so I guess you have your own interests to look after.


*You should be ashamed of yourself..............*Why?
*Trying to put longer life expectancy down to eating animals is just clearly wrong........Where do I claim that?

*​All the Lancet study says is that life expectancy is rising.......none of the study group converted to vegetarianism to increase their life expectancy. The group did nothing other than reduce alcohol and reduce smoking........So if you read my post properly I am saying you don't need to become a vegetarian to live longer.

----------


## Rheghead

> Vegetarianism and German government; that worked well last time did'nt it.


Goebbels' propaganda still working well I see.

----------


## Rheghead

It seems we should be eating twice as many fruit and vegetables as the current recommendations to reap the benefits of our custom made herbivore physiology.  Where do we leave room for animal protein?  The answer is we don't need to, the advantages are all in the plants.




> Eating loads of fruit and vegetables - 10 portions a day - may give us longer lives, say researchers.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39057146

----------


## Rheghead

> Not just scientific and factual weakness, also a huge dollop of being sick of do-gooders telling others how to live their lives. I think you missed your calling to be an MP. ��


Doing good is a virtue.

----------


## Shaggy

here's a scientific report into Computer Monitors and the link to all sorts of brain issues. I think it's very relevant to this post. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ages-the-brain

----------


## Goodfellers

Not sure how reliable the source is!!...but I want to  believe it  ::  :: 

It wasn’t worth it, says 103-year-old vegetarian



http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/h...20151027103301

----------


## Rheghead

A common theme that runs through people who are resistant to adopting a plant-based diet is that they quote that their freedom to choose what to eat is being infringed.

I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat.  The World would be a very draconian place indeed if the State imposed restrictions on our freedoms especially in our food choices.

But with Freedoms comes Responsibilities, hand-in-hand.  

In the same way that we all cherish our freedom to express ourselves, we also have a responsibility to make sure that Freedom to express ourselves doesn't extend to having the freedom to express racist slurs, incites to violence, phrases to defraud others etc etc.  I feel the way about the freedom to choose what we want to eat.  Our choices should not involve violence towards animals, serious damage to the environment and certainly should not include misleading or fraudulent claims about our health.

I also want the freedom to enjoy a world which is rich in biodiversity.  I want the freedom to choose a wide range of foods in a restaurant without having to eat something that involves the killing of another sentient being.  I also want the freedom to choose foods that nourish well and provide worthwhile jobs for the farmers.

Freedom to eat animals to the detriment of your health, the environment and animal welfare is not a freedom.  Eating animals and their secretions is slavery for the human race as it locks us into a Cycle of Violence to other animals.  It also denies us a multiple of other food choices on a grand scale.  Due to the Inclosure Acts which require us to enclose animals into discrete parcels of land, the consequences of meat eating has denied us free access across the United Kingdom and has pushed wildlife to eak out an existence in the fringes of the hedgerow.

Eating meat also locks us into a cycle of dependency on powerful meat and dairy lobbies who feed us unhealthy food and unreliable information about the impact of their products on our health and our pocket.

I want more for my fellow humans that animal foods cannot provide, I want them to be free of the constraints that keep them in bad health, a poor degraded environment and their Cruelty to others that share our planet.  

Going vegan _is Freedom_, it frees us from worrying about foxes, badgers, bird flu, bovine TB, land enclosure, farming subsidies, and animal cruelty.

----------


## 2little2late

No such thing as a Vegan

----------


## Rheghead

> No such thing as a Vegan


It seems you do not understand what a vegan is.

----------


## sids

> It seems you do not understand what a vegan is.


Nobody understands their madness.

----------


## Rheghead

An interesting article that explains how dairy products like cheese are so hard to give up, because in the milk there is actually an opiate like protein called casein that works on the brain which keeps us hooked on the stuff.

The cheese is the one in charge of our thoughts, not us.




> "A cup of milk contains about 7.7 grams of protein, 80 percent of which is casein, more or less. Turning it into Cheddar cheese multiplies the protein count seven-fold, to 56 grams. It is the most concentrated form of casein in any food in the grocery store.
> 
> Call it dairy crack."


http://nhpr.org/post/doctors-book-pr...crack#stream/0

----------


## Alrock

> An interesting article that explains how dairy products like cheese are so hard to give up, because in the milk there is actually an opiate like protein called casein that works on the brain which keeps us hooked on the stuff.
> 
> The cheese is the one in charge of our thoughts, not us.
> 
> 
> 
> http://nhpr.org/post/doctors-book-pr...crack#stream/0


Hmmm, so cheese is now a legal high, must stock up before it gets made illegal.

----------


## Goodfellers

Cheese is a drug..........That's_ crackers 

_I'm wasted on here

----------


## scorrie

> Hmmm, so cheese is now a legal high, must stock up before it gets made illegal.


I've been smoking Cheese for years. The taste is excellent but the melting fat plays havoc with your reefers.

CRACK-er Barrel is the most addictive one, so go easy with that brand.

----------


## Rheghead

Eating cheese is associated with a high risk of developing breast cancer while yoghurt reduces risk.  This seems to be conducive with higher levels of oestrogen in the fat layer of milk having an effect on developing breast cancer.


http://cdn.nutrition.org/content/ear...cdn.117.000422

----------


## scorrie

> Cheese is a drug..........That's_ crackers 
> 
> _*I'm wasted on here*



If you keep smoking Cheese, you'll be wasted all right.

----------


## Rheghead

The Dairy industry is appalled about high profile campaigns against animal cruelty in the media.  They don't deny the reports though.

https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/...iling-industry

----------


## Goodfellers

> The Dairy industry is appalled about high profile campaigns against animal cruelty in the media.  They don't deny the reports though.
> 
> https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/...iling-industry


I like this part of the report........................

However, it is important to note that the Go Vegan World campaign is not about ruining livelihoods. According to campaign director Sandra Higgins,* farmers should not to feel threatened as we would need them "more than ever"* in a vegan world.

How does this fit in with your hatred of farmers? It seems all farmers irk you, cereal farmers destroy hedges/biodiversity and we are all fully aware of your views on livestock farming.

You need to all sing from the same hymn sheet before you go posting conflicting ideas.

----------


## Rheghead

> I like this part of the report........................
> 
> However, it is important to note that the Go Vegan World campaign is not about ruining livelihoods. According to campaign director Sandra Higgins,* farmers should not to feel threatened as we would need them "more than ever"* in a vegan world.
> 
> How does this fit in with your hatred of farmers? It seems all farmers irk you, cereal farmers destroy hedges/biodiversity and we are all fully aware of your views on livestock farming.
> 
> You need to all sing from the same hymn sheet before you go posting conflicting ideas.


Absolutely I agree with those findings.

I do not hate farmers, I love farmers, my food was grown by farmers.  

Please take the advice of the report and do not feel threatened by the reduced demand for animal products.  Only consumers will change your behavior and attitudes though.  Although the opposition to my posts has largely been led from people within the farming community, my posts are not directed at them, they are directed at the people who quietly read and take in the content of my posts.  When you come back to rebuke me then you just make yourself look silly as I am not doing this to change your attitude, it is all about changing consumers attitudes, about being aspirational for better food choices on the basis of better health, environment and ethics.  It is not about winning an argument with you, I am just about providing the best information to make those choices.  You lose it yourself every time you come back with an impolite and aggressive rebuke.

I accept that you can feel threatened by a less demand of animals productsthough, but it is a feeling born out of a lack of understanding.  Animal livestock farming has been a way of life for many, it has become traditional and a good source of income. You will appreciate that we have been conditioned to appreciate farmers ever since our mothers sang Old MacDonald's farm to us in our crib.  But things cannot stay the same.  People are now demanding food choices that are better for our health, they are demanding food choices that are better for the environment and people are demanding food choices that are not dependent on the industrialised cruelty towards animals.  I find those demands fairly reasonable.  Do you? I think farmers are our answer to providing food choices that satisfy those demands. For example, I think there is a huge opportunity for local farmers to market a local oat milk and have a Caithness branding to it.  It is a growing market and will surpass the thirst for cows milk which is in decline. 

Already 30% of the Earth's surface is given over to animal livestock grazing which causes damage to biodiversity with 7 billion souls on the planet, what happens when there is 12 billion soulson the planet demanding milk and meat?  Do we just shrug our shoulders and lament the squeezing out of the wild animals from the planet and convince ourselves that nothing could be done for them?

Food choices have got to be influenced by more than just what we like to taste.  Our choices have to be influenced by wider concerns.

----------


## Goodfellers

Views on this anyone?

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5443


I would also like to point out I am retired from farming. I am now a man of leisure so no longer benefit financially from looking after livestock that was RSPCA freedom food approved, Lion code approved and DEFRA approved as well as having the highest hygiene rating.

Rheghead..you still haven't explained how the UK is going to feed nearly 70 million people on a vegetarian diet. Or do you propose a cull of the population somehow? I would be interested to see some sensible proposals.

If you are so concerned about the world, why are you posting all this amazing research on a 'local' forum? Your audience on here is pretty limited and I haven't seen many posters supporting you. Are you informing the wider population on a different board?

----------


## Rheghead

> Views on this anyone?
> 
> http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5443
> 
> 
> I would also like to point out I am retired from farming. I am now a man of leisure so no longer benefit financially from looking after livestock that was RSPCA freedom food approved, Lion code approved and DEFRA approved as well as having the highest hygiene rating.
> 
> Rheghead..you still haven't explained how the UK is going to feed nearly 70 million people on a vegetarian diet. Or do you propose a cull of the population somehow? I would be interested to see some sensible proposals.
> 
> If you are so concerned about the world, why are you posting all this amazing research on a 'local' forum? Your audience on here is pretty limited and I haven't seen many posters supporting you. Are you informing the wider population on a different board?


Firstly, in attempt to seek common ground for discussion, do you agree that it is reasonable that people should be demanding food choices that are better for their health, the environment and animal welfare?  And do you see that a reduced meat and dairy intake as part of that solution?

----------


## sids

> Eating cheese is associated with a high risk of developing breast cancer while yoghurt reduces risk.  This seems to be conducive with higher levels of oestrogen in the fat layer of milk having an effect on developing breast cancer.
> 
> 
> http://cdn.nutrition.org/content/ear...cdn.117.000422




That would be ironic.  Dairy products being bad for the breasts.

----------


## mi16

Please refrain from feeding the troll folks

----------


## Goodfellers

> Firstly, in attempt to seek common ground for discussion, do you agree that it is reasonable that people should be demanding food choices that are better for their health, the environment and animal welfare?  And do you see that a reduced meat and dairy intake as part of that solution?


As we live in a democratic country, everyone, including vegetarians, should be free to eat what ever they want. Almost everyone is aware of the risks associated with eating various foods. As I mentioned in an earlier post some very intelligent people choose to smoke. Why?

The difference between you and I, is that I am happy for you to eat vegetables, I will not try to dissuade you. on the other hand, you are never going to give up trying to make meat/dairy eaters feel somehow inferior.

As this is a democratic forum you are free to keep posting your findings. Good luck with the crusade but I do think you need to widen your horizons and post on UK wide boards as you do not seem to have won many fans here. Accepted some may read and not comment, but as I said earlier, there doesn't seem to be much vocal support for your views.

I will always believe that if animals are raised and slaughtered in a humane/compassionate way then there is nothing wrong with that. From my experience, animals have no idea they are going to slaughter. Have you noticed,  as a general rule, we as humans only eat 'prey' animals, not the 'hunter' animals. just an observation.

----------


## Goodfellers

> Please refrain from feeding the troll folks


Sorry, was posting last reply when this request popped up!

----------


## sids

> Please refrain from feeding the troll folks


No-one tells me what to do.

Even if they ask nicely with "please."

----------


## Rheghead

> As we live in a democratic country, everyone, including vegetarians, should be free to eat what ever they want. Almost everyone is aware of the risks associated with eating various foods. As I mentioned in an earlier post some very intelligent people choose to smoke. Why?
> 
> The difference between you and I, is that I am happy for you to eat vegetables, I will not try to dissuade you. on the other hand, you are never going to give up trying to make meat/dairy eaters feel somehow inferior.
> 
> As this is a democratic forum you are free to keep posting your findings. Good luck with the crusade but I do think you need to widen your horizons and post on UK wide boards as you do not seem to have won many fans here. Accepted some may read and not comment, but as I said earlier, there doesn't seem to be much vocal support for your views.
> 
> I will always believe that if animals are raised and slaughtered in a humane/compassionate way then there is nothing wrong with that. From my experience, animals have no idea they are going to slaughter. Have you noticed,  as a general rule, we as humans only eat 'prey' animals, not the 'hunter' animals. just an observation.


I'll ask again...

Firstly, in attempt to seek common ground for discussion, do you agree that it is reasonable that people should be demanding food choices that are better for their health, the environment and animal welfare? And do you see that a reduced meat and dairy intake as part of that solution?

----------


## Rheghead

> Please refrain from feeding the troll folks


You've just given birth to a new kind of troll who is polite, assertive against the abuse and who , raises awareness about a healthier, environmentally friendlier and ethically sound lifestyle and who provides scientific resources to back up the claim.  If that is being a troll then I am proud to be one.  Thanks. x

----------


## Goodfellers

I think both our views are well documented on here. you will not alter my beliefs and I am sure you are set in your ways. Lets leave it at that.

----------


## sids

> do you agree that it is reasonable that people should be demanding food choices that are better for their health, the environment and animal welfare?


Definitely not.  People should either buy their "food choices" or raise it themselves.

Demand food indeed!  Is that what you do?  Do you not earn your living and pay your way, fair and square?

----------


## Rheghead

> Definitely not.  People should either buy their "food choices" or raise it themselves.
> 
> Demand food indeed!  Is that what you do?  Do you not earn your living and pay your way, fair and square?


What is wrong with wanting food that is nourishing, healthy, kinder to the environment and the animals?  It seems to me that just eating plants fits the bill on all fronts.  Why would you be opposed to others wanting those constraints on their food?

----------


## sids

> Why would you be opposed to others wanting those constraints on their food?


It's not a constraint if they want it.  Why don't you talk sense, in some sort of normal, propaganda-free language?

Oh- because you're a crank.

----------


## Rheghead

> It's not a constraint if they want it.  Why don't you talk sense, in some sort of normal, propaganda-free language?
> 
> Oh- because you're a crank.


Thanks pal.

----------


## Rheghead

I watched Countryfile tonight.  A sheep farmer reported that they were preserving the landscape by having sheep to graze the land.  Otherwise without sheep the land would be scrub within 5 years and within 50 years the land would be woodland.  It seems to me that farmers agree with what I am saying.

----------


## Hannah Faulkner

I don`t think so there is a problem with dairy... According to latest researches the most dominant causes of cancer is the increased used of processed food, plastics and microwaves in our daily lives

----------


## Goodfellers

> I only care about the planet and its habitats and ecosystems, the health of the human race and welfare of animals.  Farming animals is the biggest cause of loss of biodiversity.
> 
> If we all went vegan gradually (not overnight) there will eventually be no livestock in the fields and then the land will return to a natural landscape which would be rich in wildlife. There will be no profit in keeping the land looking like a farm. The butterflies of meadows will return.  We would see animals living naturally in the wild, predator vs prey, it will be a rich and rewarding landscape to enjoy.  They would have plenty of land to roam, unhindered by humans.  Our planet would be much healthier, we could stabilise the rising global temperatures.
> 
> There is little point in worrying about the welfare of farm animals that are extinct when we could have a much richer alternative.
> 
> The reason I sound autocratic is because I make sense.  You just do not want to give up your meat to realise a better way of living.


*''The butterflies of meadows will return​''

''it will be a rich and rewarding landscape to enjoy''

**Rheghead quote from 5th March 

''I watched Countryfile tonight.  A sheep farmer reported that they were preserving the landscape by having sheep to graze the land.  Otherwise without sheep the land would be scrub within 5 years and within 50 years the land would be woodland.  It seems to me that farmers agree with what I am saying.​''

Which do you believe? As your statements from different dates appear at odds with each other. Do we manage butterfly meadows, or do we let nature return them to woodland within 50 years? Moorland can quickly be over run with bracken without human intervention (plus sheep/goats) driving out any native plants/wildlife. It is because landowners manage the landscape that diversity thrives.

Blanket woodland is NOT a diverse landscape which is why farmers/landowners often clear patches of woodland to encourage diversity. Have you ever seen a beautiful managed woodland glade. a real magical place. Your 'plan' is to let nature reclaim the land. So in 50 years we are surrounded by woodland. Great diversity then.

You appear to want to go back to medieval times where we all had a piece of land and grew our own food. A bit idealistic as the population is now  nearly 70 million compared with around 2 million. Perhaps reintroduce the plague and wipe out a few of us and you could take back the land from its legal owners and have your Utopia. sounds like a form of Communism to me. Often inspired by unhappy people who think they know better than the masses, an 'equal' society where some are more equal than others. 






*

----------


## Rheghead

> Which do you believe? As your statements from different dates appear at odds with each other. Do we manage butterfly meadows, or do we let nature return them to woodland within 50 years? Moorland can quickly be over run with bracken without human intervention (plus sheep/goats) driving out any native plants/wildlife. It is because landowners manage the landscape that diversity thrives.
> 
> Blanket woodland is NOT a diverse landscape which is why farmers/landowners often clear patches of woodland to encourage diversity. Have you ever seen a beautiful managed woodland glade. a real magical place. Your 'plan' is to let nature reclaim the land. So in 50 years we are surrounded by woodland. Great diversity then.
> 
> You appear to want to go back to medieval times where we all had a piece of land and grew our own food. A bit idealistic as the population is now  nearly 70 million compared with around 2 million. Perhaps reintroduce the plague and wipe out a few of us and you could take back the land from its legal owners and have your Utopia. sounds like a form of Communism to me. Often inspired by unhappy people who think they know better than the masses, an 'equal' society where some are more equal than others.


No conflicts, you are just creating a conflict where none exists.  

Farming is the biggest cause of biodiversity loss in the UK.  The ideal landscape for a farmer is a field with one species of grass in it with no weeds and a flock or herd of livestock.  A farmer is a pains to prevent any biodiversity getting  a foothold by the use of insecticides and herbicides.  That is biodiversity loss.

Take these words...




> From the time when humans first occupied Earth and began to hunt animals, gather food and chop wood, they have had an impact on biodiversity. Over the last two centuries, human population growth, overexploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation have resulted in an ever accelerating decline in global biodiversity. Species are diminishing in numbers and becoming extinct, and ecosystems are suffering damage and disappearing.
> 
> Biodiversity - short for biological diversity - means the diversity of life in all its forms - the diversity of species, of genetic variations within one species, and of ecosystems.
> 
>     An estimated *80% of the original forest that covered the Earth 8,000 years ago has been cleared, damaged or fragmented.*
> 
>     Some experts assess the rate at which *species are becoming extinct at 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the natural rate would be.
> *
>     A sample of 23 common farmland birds and 24 common woodland birds monitored in 18 European countries show a decline in numbers by 71% between 1980 and 2002.


http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-04-27_en.htm

----------


## Goodfellers

No one is disagreeing with what currently goes on.

What I want to know is how your vision of the future is going to work..............please explain.

----------


## sids

> Please refrain from feeding the troll folks


Feed him?

He turns up his nose at any proper meit.

----------


## Rheghead

> No one is disagreeing with what currently goes on.
> 
> What I want to know is how your vision of the future is going to work..............please explain.


Well I think I have explained it many times before, sorry if it missed your notice.  

On a vegan diet we would need less land to produce our food.  Some enthusiastic estimates say about an 18th of the land, some more conservative estimates say 1/3rd f what is currently being used. Also we could produce an abundance of extra food to produce food for an expansion of population or feed populations in other countries.  That is because we are currently producing _far more_ crops to feed animals for meat and dairy. In other words, the animals are eating all the food.  The difference in land area required for creating food for a vegan population and that for a meateater could go wild thus providing habitats for wild animals and plants. 

 It is basic common sense, I could produce lots of papers to support this idea but I'm sure you can understand this.  You are not stupid, you are/were a farmer and they're the most intelligent people I know.

----------


## Neil Howie

> I'll ask again...
> 
> Firstly, in attempt to seek common ground for discussion, do you agree that it is reasonable that people should be demanding food choices that are better for their health, the environment and animal welfare? And do you see that a reduced meat and dairy intake as part of that solution?


r.e. dairy - well not if you're in Bulgaria, according to the BBC 2 programme "The Secrets of Your Food" (episode 1) where it identified the yoghurt as a possible contributor for their very long lives.

On a vegan front, it also showed them drying mushrooms in the sun which would give them extra vitamin D,  maybe important as you don't eat fish but not sure where you stand on the is it alive/dead with 'shrooms? 

  ::

----------


## Rheghead

Educators and farmers say that it is important that kids of today should know where their food comes from.  Do you think that a 360degree 3D tour of a slaughter house is a good step in the right direction?

https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/...rtual-abattoir

----------


## Alrock

> Educators and farmers say that it is important that kids of today should know where their food comes from.  Do you think that a 360degree 3D tour of a slaughter house is a good step in the right direction?
> 
> https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/...rtual-abattoir


Excellent idea... Educate the children from a young age on meat production, help normalise the idea so that they get used to it & less disgusted as adults due to the conditioning of their impressionable youhg minds.

----------


## Goodfellers

> Well I think I have explained it many times before, sorry if it missed your notice.  
> 
> On a vegan diet we would need less land to produce our food.  Some enthusiastic estimates say about an 18th of the land, some more conservative estimates say 1/3rd f what is currently being used. Also we could produce an abundance of extra food to produce food for an expansion of population or feed populations in other countries.  That is because we are currently producing _far more_ crops to feed animals for meat and dairy. In other words, the animals are eating all the food.  The difference in land area required for creating food for a vegan population and that for a meateater could go wild thus providing habitats for wild animals and plants. 
> 
>  It is basic common sense, I could produce lots of papers to support this idea but I'm sure you can understand this.  You are not stupid, you are/were a farmer and they're the most intelligent people I know.


I don't think you are getting my point.

Farmers can produce enough to feed the UK population, that's agreed. What we are currently debating is biodiversity.

What I am trying to find out from you is whether you want farmers to produce the food or whether there should be some sort of land redistribution, whereby we all have our own plot  as in medieval times.

If you want farmers to grow the food, your vision of lots of biodiversity will not work. there would still have to be farming on an industrial scale, i.e. monoculture. Do you know how much a pea harvester costs? To justify buying one, you need a huge acreage of peas. Same with potatoes, carrots and any other vegetable you can name. I think your vision is of farmers having a few rows of each, something like an oversized allotment. It can never be like that because of economy of scale.

So, we have established farmers will be growing food in huge single crop fields, no real biodiversity there especially as huge amounts of pesticide would be used, unless you allow GM crops bred to be pest resistant (new thread perhaps?) Any land not used would soon 'scrub up' as there are no animals to graze it. within 50 years new trees are established, within 100 years all  unfarmed land is forest with poor diversity, particularly in the more northern parts of the UK where it will be mostly pine which is a really poor environment for biodiversity. What happened to all your butterfly meadows? Your vast plains of grassland with wild animals free to chase and eat each other? Buried under elder, willow ash, bracken and alder, soon to be followed by oak, beech etc.

Will we be allowed to continue growing wheat and barley? Thinking of malting barley specifically, because in this new world we are all going to need a drink! Based on last years crop about 650,000 acers were given over to malting barley. Not much wheat grown in this country is suitable for milling, most is feed wheat, so I assume we will be allowed to import Canadian?US wheat for bread, or are we all going gluten free too?

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't think you are getting my point.
> 
> Farmers can produce enough to feed the UK population, that's agreed. What we are currently debating is biodiversity.
> 
> What I am trying to find out from you is whether you want farmers to produce the food or whether there should be some sort of land redistribution, whereby we all have our own plot  as in medieval times.
> 
> If you want farmers to grow the food, your vision of lots of biodiversity will not work. there would still have to be farming on an industrial scale, i.e. monoculture. Do you know how much a pea harvester costs? To justify buying one, you need a huge acreage of peas. Same with potatoes, carrots and any other vegetable you can name. I think your vision is of farmers having a few rows of each, something like an oversized allotment. It can never be like that because of economy of scale.
> 
> So, we have established farmers will be growing food in huge single crop fields, no real biodiversity there especially as huge amounts of pesticide would be used, unless you allow GM crops bred to be pest resistant (new thread perhaps?) Any land not used would soon 'scrub up' as there are no animals to graze it. within 50 years new trees are established, within 100 years all  unfarmed land is forest with poor diversity, particularly in the more northern parts of the UK where it will be mostly pine which is a really poor environment for biodiversity. What happened to all your butterfly meadows? Your vast plains of grassland with wild animals free to chase and eat each other? Buried under elder, willow ash, bracken and alder, soon to be followed by oak, beech etc.
> ...


Neither, market forces will take care of it all.  Of course there will be farming on an industrial scale as is now but only on a very much reduced land footprint.  As the demand for meat and dairy falls, a lot of the land used for growing crops for animal feed will just be not needed.  There will be no profit in keeping it looking like a farm.  Wild animals and plants will just simply move in which would require minimal management by us.

There will just be an abundance in food that it will be cheap to produce and consume.

I didn't say all the land will turn to forest or all the land will turn to meadow, that is just misrepresentation of my posts on your part.  What determines the final landscape is the underlying geology and nature will take its course, the land will be diverse.

Pine forests are not a poor environment for biodiversity, they are a rich environment for biodiversity.  There can be eagles, bears, wolves, fox, badger, lynx, deer, etc etc.

On another point, I think we should put a higher value on foods that are healthier, safer and better for the environment.  Currently the UK administers £3bn in farming subsidies.  About ~80% of this money goes to animal livestock, this makes the products cheaper at the shops, the rest goes to largely suger producers.  All the wrong priorities!.  The government can do much to redistribute that subsidy to make plants cheap to buy.  This extra money could buy specialist machinery for growing food for a vegan population.  It will also raise food prices for meat and dairy and cause economic pressure to grow healthier plant food.  I believe the Green party have policies that address this.

----------


## Goodfellers

* Rheghead states ''I didn't say all the land will turn to forest''

*Rheghead states
I watched Countryfile tonight. A sheep farmer reported that they were preserving the landscape by having sheep to graze the land. Otherwise without sheep the land would be scrub within 5 years and within 50 years the land would be woodland*. It seems to me that farmers agree with what I am saying*.

Are you saying within 50 years the ungrazed land would return to woodland? If not, what is it that you and the farmers agree on?

Rheghead says
 the land will return to a natural landscape which would be rich in wildlife. There will be no profit in keeping the land looking like a farm. The butterflies of meadows will return.

This natural landscape will be dense woodland within a few years by your own admission. Where are the meadows for the butterflies. 
*More importantly where are all the bees? Who will pollenate all your crops?*

Extract from a training manual ‘’  http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...DdMECWXUIeWjxQ
*Ecosystem (habitat) diversity*

This is the diversity of habitats or ecosystems within an area. A region possessing a *wide variety of habitats is preferable*, and will include a *much greater diversity of species,* than one in which there are few different habitats. More specifically a countryside which has ponds, river, woodland, hedgerows, wet meadowland and set-aside grassland will be more species rich and more diverse than countryside with ploughed fields, land drained and without wet areas and devoid of woods and hedgerows.


The Woodland trust say ‘’don’t let grassland fade away’’
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blo...assland-value/

You need human intervention to keep a diverse landscape. 

Rheghead says
I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat

So long as it’s not meat?? Sounds a bit like Henry Ford, you can have your car any colour you like, so long as it’s black.

Rheghead says
The Dairy industry is appalled about high profile campaigns against animal cruelty in the media. They don't deny the reports though

The full sentence from the NFU says ‘’ Oakes has not denied these allegations, but did say he was "*appalled" at the newspaper*, and that it was "demoralising" for farmers. He said: "*It makes you really angry. We are really conscious of welfare. The way we look after them is key. The last thing we want is any animal suffering. It portrays us in a really poor way which does not reflect our* *membership*

Rheghead says  ‘’This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.’’

*I am still waiting for your evidence to back up this untrue accusation.*

----------


## Rheghead

> * Rheghead states ''I didn't say all the land will turn to forest''
> 
> *Rheghead states
> I watched Countryfile tonight. A sheep farmer reported that they were preserving the landscape by having sheep to graze the land. Otherwise without sheep the land would be scrub within 5 years and within 50 years the land would be woodland*. It seems to me that farmers agree with what I am saying*.
> 
> Are you saying within 50 years the ungrazed land would return to woodland? If not, what is it that you and the farmers agree on?
> 
> Rheghead says
>  the land will return to a natural landscape which would be rich in wildlife. There will be no profit in keeping the land looking like a farm. The butterflies of meadows will return.
> ...


You are using big fonts now, you are desperate to force through your lack of content.

As i said, you are seeing contradictions in my posts where none exists, I do not know if this is negligent or willful.  

The farmer in question who said if the land wasn't grazed it would go to scrub in 5 years and into woodland in 50 years was talking about one particular landscape, the South Downs, that is just one example.    An absence of livestock would have a different effect in other areas depending on the geology.  An absence of livestock farming in the Norfolk area may result in the expansion of wetlands and give rise to an abundance of life associated with wild wetland areas, birds, butterflies.  An absence of livestock farming in other areas could give rise to all the meadows that we have lost.  Machairs are an important habitat etc etc.  There will be an abundance of bees to pollinate crops, it is biodiversity loss due to livestock farming that is killing off the bees.

As for the animal welfare, how do you look after an animal's welfare your intention is to brutally kill it before the end of its natural life? That doesn't make sense. 

As for the following quote




> I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat


It is my turn this time to complete the full quote;




> A common theme that runs through people who are resistant to adopting a plant-based diet is that they quote that their freedom to choose what to eat is being infringed.
> 
> I am 100% in favor to have the freedom to choose what we want to eat.  The World would be a very draconian place indeed if the State imposed restrictions on our freedoms especially in our food choices.
> 
> But with Freedoms comes Responsibilities, hand-in-hand.  
> 
> In the same way that we all cherish our freedom to express ourselves, we also have a responsibility to make sure that Freedom to express ourselves doesn't extend to having the freedom to express racist slurs, incites to violence, phrases to defraud others etc etc.  I feel the way about the freedom to choose what we want to eat.  Our choices should not involve violence towards animals, serious damage to the environment and certainly should not include misleading or fraudulent claims about our health.
> 
> I also want the freedom to enjoy a world which is rich in biodiversity.  I want the freedom to choose a wide range of foods in a restaurant without having to eat something that involves the killing of another sentient being.  I also want the freedom to choose foods that nourish well and provide worthwhile jobs for the farmers.
> ...

----------


## Goodfellers

Day off today?

Lets concentrate on one point that really annoys me


Rheghead says  ‘’This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.’’

Where is your evidence...?

Where is your evidence that animals are ''brutally'' killed..?

I have been to slaughterhouses, they are modern Gov. regulated facilities. I think you are living in the distant past when some questionable practices were considered 'ok'. The animals have no idea what is about to happen. I believe Countryfile did an episode on this very subject and the overwhelming response from the public was positive. I agree some 'culturally' killed meat is not right but the vast majority of animals do not suffer and as I said have no idea, one minute they are standing still, the next they are dead. Watching a wild animal stalked, played with and finally killed by a hunter animal is far more distressing. Having been on safari I can attest to that.

----------


## Goodfellers

Just re read your last posting.

_An absence of livestock farming in the Norfolk area may result in the expansion of wetlands and give rise to an abundance of life associated with wild wetland areas
_

Do you really have such a poor understanding of how the ecology of the UK works?

The wetlands of Norfolk are only there because of humans. Lets assume there is no further human intervention. The reeds would flourish, trapping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt, Alder would quickly establish itself. The wetlands would dry out allowing other tree species to establish. Within two generations the wetlands would disappear. Eventually the whole of Norfolk would be tree bound.

I have to ask; were you a spin doctor before you moved here to convert everyone? I only ask as you like to post headline grabbing sentences that  upon further investigation don't actually say what you claim. You should go and work for a politician.

I have said it before, but this time I am going to try *really hard* ​to move on from this thread. Unless you post anymore untrue statements, then I will have to respond. Still waiting for evidence that laying hens suffer from calcium deficiency.....keep looking on Google, you never know some one may have posted some misleading information in the past.

----------


## Goodfellers

One final question for you Rheghead.

You claim that wild animals hunting each other is acceptable to you, despite the fact that the hunted animal often dies a horrible agonising death and is often eaten whilst still alive (thanks F for reminding me of that fact). You find that acceptable but not a human abattoir?

My question. Humans are hunters and have been for at least 2,000,000 years (our forward facing eyes are also testament to that) If I were to go over to Swona with my wife and we were to drive one of the wild cows over a cliff would that be ok? The poor cow would probably suffer horribly from broken legs from falling over the cliff, I would then either have to hold on to its trachea until it suffocated or bash its brains with a rock until it eventually died. We could then eat the meat knowing that it was 'natural' You find this more acceptable than a clean painless kill at an abattoir?

----------


## Rheghead

> Day off today?
> 
> Lets concentrate on one point that really annoys me
> 
> 
> Rheghead says  ‘’This pressure to ovulate puts a huge strain on the bird's body making them calcium dificient and short lived as you have admitted.If you eat eggs then you are basically condoning this cruelty.’’
> 
> Where is your evidence...?
> 
> ...


Well for a starter for 10, if I led you through to a cosy room, sat you down and furnished you with your favorite night-time snack and gave you a reasonable time to eat it in your own time.  Then I led you through another door whereupon I instantly without you noticing, hit you, gassed you, or electrocuted you, and with in minutes, regardless if you were still fully dead of not you were being cut up.  Could you describe that process as being humane?

----------


## Rheghead

> One final question for you Rheghead.
> 
> You claim that wild animals hunting each other is acceptable to you, despite the fact that the hunted animal often dies a horrible agonising death and is often eaten whilst still alive (thanks F for reminding me of that fact). You find that acceptable but not a human abattoir?
> 
> My question. Humans are hunters and have been for at least 2,000,000 years (our forward facing eyes are also testament to that) If I were to go over to Swona with my wife and we were to drive one of the wild cows over a cliff would that be ok? The poor cow would probably suffer horribly from broken legs from falling over the cliff, I would then either have to hold on to its trachea until it suffocated or bash its brains with a rock until it eventually died. We could then eat the meat knowing that it was 'natural' You find this more acceptable than a clean painless kill at an abattoir?


I would not find it acceptable that you would chase a cow off a cliff and leave it in agony.  You are still foreshortening its life and also causing it more distress.

If we are getting on to the Cycle of Life question then we are getting on to the fact that proper animal carnivores do not have a real choice in what food they must eat, they have evolved as carnivores.  They do not have a freedom to choose what food they eat.  Whereas, in contrast, we evolved as herbivores, we have evolved intelligence enough to have the freedom to choose what goes down our necks.  Incidentally, we do not have a choice not to eat plants as we are herbivores, we absolutely require plants to eat.  Eating meat and dairy is a choice, and what is a choice is always born out of our beliefs and not of our requirements.

edit:Gorillas and all the great apes also have binocular vision, 100% herbivore physiology.

----------


## Rheghead

> Just re read your last posting.
> 
> _An absence of livestock farming in the Norfolk area may result in the expansion of wetlands and give rise to an abundance of life associated with wild wetland areas
> _
> 
> Do you really have such a poor understanding of how the ecology of the UK works?
> 
> The wetlands of Norfolk are only there because of humans. Lets assume there is no further human intervention. The reeds would flourish, trapping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt, Alder would quickly establish itself. The wetlands would dry out allowing other tree species to establish. Within two generations the wetlands would disappear. Eventually the whole of Norfolk would be tree bound.
> 
> ...


In order to lay eggs an unnaturally 300 times a year,  hens diet need to be supplemented with oystershell and rocks containing calcium.  If you didn't do that they would die because the calcium would be lost from their skeleton and suffer brittle bone disease.  You insist on making out that farming is a natural process but what is natural about a hen ovulating 300 times a year and supplementing the diet with oystershell and chalk?

You have used a broad brush there re the Norfolk area, you have read that the broads were used for clay industry and suddenly the whole Norfolk area is a man made landscape and it is mankind that is preserving the landscape.  It isn't that simple I am afraid to say.  There is a lot of pasture land there that has been drained that should be wetland also.

----------


## Goodfellers

> Well for a starter for 10, if I led you through to a cosy room, sat you down and furnished you with your favorite night-time snack and gave you a reasonable time to eat it in your own time.  Then I led you through another door whereupon I instantly without you noticing, hit you, gassed you, or electrocuted you, and with in minutes, regardless if you were still fully dead of not you were being cut up.  Could you describe that process as being humane?


You are making the mistake of attaching human emotion to animals that do not have the same thought processes. When you are shot with a large metal bolt straight into the middle of your brain, you know nothing about it. We as humans know what death is, animals do not. If someone crept into your house while you were asleep and shot you in the brain, what would you feel? NOTHING the same as animals.  as for being cut up alive, you are finding 'old' information, modern cutting machines discard animals that are not in the 'correct' position. all abattoirs have Ministry vets on site to make sure everything works as it should.

You still haven't satisfactorily explained why giving a hen a balanced diet is cruel? Natural selection is why hens lay 300 eggs a year, no freaky science just hard work on the part of pullet rearers. So contrary to your belief there is nothing cruel about it. A hen is a very temperamental creature, if she doesn't get the right sort of feed, she goes off lay, so sorry to disappoint you, she will not deplete her own skeleton. Have you been reading 'Farming for dummies'?   Ps hens are never fed 'chalk' they get limestone rock crushed down into grit as they need the grit to aid digestion, chalk is too soft. I'll turn you into a poultry farmer yet. 

So naturally bred hens eating a natural diet is cruel...what world do you live in? 

''We have evolved as herbivores'' here we go again. TWO MILLION years ago we were accomplished hunters and butchers, man as we know man came along 200,000 years ago so how far back are you going to claim we are herbivores?  Maybe to a time when we crawled out of the mud and didn't have the skills needed to kill animals.

I really am going now

----------


## Rheghead

> *You are making the mistake of attaching human emotion to animals that do not have the same thought processes.* When you are shot with a large metal bolt straight into the middle of your brain, you know nothing about it. We as humans know what death is, animals do not. If someone crept into your house while you were asleep and shot you in the brain, what would you feel? NOTHING the same as animals.  as for being cut up alive, you are finding 'old' information, modern cutting machines discard animals that are not in the 'correct' position. all abattoirs have Ministry vets on site to make sure everything works as it should.
> 
> You still haven't satisfactorily explained why giving a hen a balanced diet is cruel? Natural selection is why hens lay 300 eggs a year, no freaky science just hard work on the part of pullet rearers. So contrary to your belief there is nothing cruel about it. A hen is a very temperamental creature, if she doesn't get the right sort of feed, she goes off lay, so sorry to disappoint you, she will not deplete her own skeleton. Have you been reading 'Farming for dummies'?   Ps hens are never fed 'chalk' they get limestone rock crushed down into grit as they need the grit to aid digestion, chalk is too soft. I'll turn you into a poultry farmer yet. 
> 
> So naturally bred hens eating a natural diet is cruel...what world do you live in? 
> 
> ''We have evolved as herbivores'' here we go again. TWO MILLION years ago we were accomplished hunters and butchers, man as we know man came along 200,000 years ago so how far back are you going to claim we are herbivores?  Maybe to a time when we crawled out of the mud and didn't have the skills needed to kill animals.
> 
> I really am going now


You are now making the same claims made by people who captured and owned people of African descent in the 18th and 19th century.  The facts are that higher animals do perceive the world as we do.  They may not be able to fill in the Times crossword but they do feel fear, pain and suffering as we do.  They do empathise with our feelings as we should empathise with theirs.  All dog owners know that their animal understands them.  An animal is a _someone_, not a _something_.  Silence of the lambs?

I think your industrialised cruelty in your profession may have desensitised you from compassion for others and/or you need to display a cognitive dissonance to justify how you run your life.

Back to the hen thing.  The hens diet needs to be supplemented with vast amounts of calcium or it dies.  It cannot be set free even if it wanted to be set free because it would be unable live a normal life.  That is cruel.  That affects the hen.  And all that rock and oyster shell is something that it probably doesn't want to eat.  It is deficient in calcium.  A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. (though it needs to eat some)

There is no evidence to suggest that humans evolved as carnivores.  We do not have claws, we do not have slicing dentition, we cannot open our jaws very wide, our guts are massive unlike a carnivore's which is short, we have enzymes in our mouths unlike carnivores, the list of differences to a carnivore is massive.  These are facts not fiction.

I think you are pursuing a bogus philosophy to justify your lifestyle choice.

----------


## Goodfellers

_Back to the hen thing.  The hens diet needs to be supplemented with vast amounts of calcium or it dies.  It cannot be set free even if it wanted to be set free because it would be unable live a normal life.  That is cruel.  That affects the hen.  And all that rock and oyster shell is something that it probably doesn't want to eat.  It is deficient in calcium.  A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. (though it needs to eat some)

_*What agricultural college did you go to? ...............It needs closing down
You are talking absolute rubbish............................We are all getting used to that
As with all your pro-vegetarian posts, please post links to your scientific evidence to back up your claims.

As for ''vast amounts of calcium'' do you know what % is added to feed?  Just under 4%* _REALLY VAST

__A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material._ *How little you know, showing a huge amount of ignorance (yet again) , wild birds need grit in their diet, put crushed dried egg shells on your bird table and see how quickly they are taken. Snail shells will do as I doubt you would let an bird ovulation pass your lips.**

Hens often escaped to roam free around the farm, living happy lives...not dying a horrible death as you seem to think.

**Do you really believe the rubbish you post, or do you do it just to get a reaction 
Is your life so sad and lonely that you are forced to post 'bizarre' untrue statements?*http://www.bhwt.org.uk/rehome-some-hens/hen-keeping-starter-guide/

This is a link to a national charity that re-homes commercial layers, both intensive and free range. Talk to them before posting your rubbish on here. That way you are getting independent information, not my biased opinion.

I did say I would only post on this thread when you *lie* on here, I will always defend farming practices.

Still waiting for someone on this thread to support you.

----------


## Rheghead

> _Back to the hen thing.  The hens diet needs to be supplemented with vast amounts of calcium or it dies.  It cannot be set free even if it wanted to be set free because it would be unable live a normal life.  That is cruel.  That affects the hen.  And all that rock and oyster shell is something that it probably doesn't want to eat.  It is deficient in calcium.  A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material. (though it needs to eat some)
> 
> _*What agricultural college did you go to? ...............It needs closing down
> You are talking absolute rubbish............................We are all getting used to that
> As with all your pro-vegetarian posts, please post links to your scientific evidence to back up your claims.
> 
> As for ''vast amounts of calcium'' do you know what % is added to feed?  Just under 4%* _REALLY VAST
> 
> __A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material._ *How little you know, showing a huge amount of ignorance (yet again) , wild birds need grit in their diet, put crushed dried egg shells on your bird table and see how quickly they are taken. Snail shells will do as I doubt you would let an bird ovulation pass your lips.**
> ...


You are posting in big fonts again, thou doth protest too much...

Again you are misrepresenting the egg industry to hide the cruelty that happens in your battery sheds.

Under 4% of what exactly?  It doesn't mean anything.  how much calcium supplement is that? Without knowing how much you are feeding them then it is impossible to tell how much you are hiding from revealing it is.  The only reason why they need so much calcium is that they have been cruelly selectively bred to ovulate 300 times a year.  That is staggering increase from the hens natural ancestor which ovulates 12 times a year.   The egg also comes out of the same hole as the birds pee and poo, yes I suppose i am making that up as well?  The truth is that a hen is just physically wrecked after spending its time ovulating for your daily egg.  

You are just just interested in maximising egg production for the least amount of cost, you admitted that yourself when you throw the male chicks into the grinder or   gas chamber.

I'm not lying, I never tell lies, my information is able to be cross referenced.  A hen needs vast amounts of calcium supplements or it dies.  It is simple as that. 

As for the hen escapes, those escaped hens may live happier lives but in truth those have probably stopped laying and are no longer requiring all that calcium.  It also provides some justification for the cruelty, the lab assistants who test chemicals on lab animals quite often have a pet lab animal as a relief for their guilt.

A bird in the wild doesn't need a large constant source of grit, it reuses the grit in its stomach over and over.

In essence, you are misrepresenting the egg industry as a happy egg enterprise when the truth is something different.

----------


## sids

> Well for a starter for 10, if I led you through to a cosy room, sat you down and furnished you with your favorite night-time snack and gave you a reasonable time to eat it in your own time.  Then I led you through another door whereupon I instantly without you noticing, hit you, gassed you, or electrocuted you, and with in minutes, regardless if you were still fully dead of not you were being cut up.  Could you describe that process as being humane?


You've actually got a room for doing that, haven't you?

----------


## Rheghead

> *What agricultural college did you go to? ...............It needs closing down
> You are talking absolute rubbish............................We are all getting used to that
> As with all your pro-vegetarian posts, please post links to your scientific evidence to back up your claims.
> 
> As for ''vast amounts of calcium'' do you know what % is added to feed?  Just under 4%* _REALLY VAST
> 
> __A bird in the wild doesn't need to eat all that amount of inorganic material._ *How little you know, showing a huge amount of ignorance (yet again) , wild birds need grit in their diet, put crushed dried egg shells on your bird table and see how quickly they are taken. Snail shells will do as I doubt you would let an bird ovulation pass your lips.*


Well now I have a bit of time to reply properly, I will demonstrate that hens ARE being fed a vast amount of calcium, a vast unnatural and cruel amount in fact.

So lets calculate...

A hens eggshell weighs about 6g, 2.5g of that egg is calcium, but only about 50% of that calcium gets absorbed by the bird.

Therefore to sustain a hen to produce an egg per day you need to feed the bird about 12g of limestone everyday.  But a hen doesn't produce an egg everyday but about 300 times a year so lets approximate to 10g of limestone per day.

Now a natural hen ovulates 12 times per year that is 12 eggs per year but 12X12g spread over a year is 0.4g per day is attributable to egg production.  *That is 25 times less calcium in its diet than its battery hen counterpart.*

If I was to scale that up in human terms then the numbers become massive. A layer hen should weigh about 2.7kg.  Now I weigh 80kg, so proportionally if I was a hen then I would need to eat 80kg/2.7kg X 10g = a massive ~300g of limestone per day!!

*That is the equivalent of eating the weight of 3.5 average-sized apples per day of calcium carbonate or limestone.  In anybody's opinion apart your own, how is this not a vast amount of limestone? * 

In other words, you have just trivialise the amount of limestone or oystershell a bird needs to have as a supplement in their diet.

EDIT:  On another point about the grit, you are deliberately confusing insoluble grit that is  needed to digest food for a natural hen with limestone needed as supplement, two very different things.

----------


## Goodfellers

> You've actually got a room for doing that, haven't you?


I think he makes lampshades too

----------


## Goodfellers

> Well now I have a bit of time to reply properly, I will demonstrate that hens ARE being fed a vast amount of calcium, a vast unnatural and cruel amount in fact.
> 
> So lets calculate...
> 
> A hens eggshell weighs about 6g, 2.5g of that egg is calcium, but only about 50% of that calcium gets absorbed by the bird.
> 
> Therefore to sustain a hen to produce an egg per day you need to feed the bird about 12g of limestone everyday.  But a hen doesn't produce an egg everyday but about 300 times a year so lets approximate to 10g of limestone per day.
> 
> Now a natural hen ovulates 12 times per year that is 12 eggs per year but 12X12g spread over a year is 0.4g per day is attributable to egg production.  *That is 25 times less calcium in its diet than its battery hen counterpart.*
> ...



Oh dear.......someone has a bee in their bonnet!!!!   I can picture you hammering away on your keyboard, eyes bulging...the big vein on your temple pulsing and throbbing!

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Look around you at all the beauty and stop wasting your time sat at a keyboard trying to 'prove' things. you are failing miserably (and looking slightly foolish in the process). It's a nice day, go for a long walk and start enjoying life!

As the song from Frozen says ''Let it go, let it go''

A quote from one of my favorite films ''You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?

And finally a quote from Ann Robinson ''you are the weakest link. Goodbye.''

[COLOR=rgb(0,0,255)][/COLOR]

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh dear.......someone has a bee in their bonnet!!!!   I can picture you hammering away on your keyboard, eyes bulging...the big vein on your temple pulsing and throbbing!
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Look around you at all the beauty and stop wasting your time sat at a keyboard trying to 'prove' things. you are failing miserably (and looking slightly foolish in the process). It's a nice day, go for a long walk and start enjoying life!
> 
> As the song from Frozen says ''Let it go, let it go''
> 
> A quote from one of my favorite films ''You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
> 
> And finally a quote from Ann Robinson ''you are the weakest link. Goodbye.''
> ...


In typical style you attack me and you do not refute the facts as you cannot.  There were no eyes bulging , it was plainly evident that you were misleading the people of this message forum.  You failed to anticipate that I would prove you wrong.

----------


## Alrock

*'Healthiest hearts in the world' found & Guess What... They eat meat*

----------


## Rheghead

> *'Healthiest hearts in the world' found & Guess What... They eat meat*


So does this mean if we eat more meat then we will have a healthier heart?

EDIT:

Oh dear...




> One idea is that intestinal worms - which dampen immune reactions - could be more common and this may help protect the heart.

----------


## Alrock

> So does this mean if we eat more meat then we will have a healthier heart?


No... It means that eating meat won't necessarily lead to an unhealthy heart, lots of other factors need to be taken into consideration..




> EDIT:
> 
> Oh dear...
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				One idea is that intestinal worms - which dampen immune reactions - could be more common and this may help protect the heart.


That is one hypothesis, if proven to be true then maybe we will see live intestinal worm supplements being made available for meat eaters.

----------


## sids

> One idea is that intestinal worms - which dampen immune reactions - could be more common and this may help protect the heart. ..


It says "one idea," if you take time to read what you quoted.

Is it the only idea?

----------


## Alrock

If you are truly concerned about peoples health then instead of lecturing people on the evils of meat then why not try on educate them on sensible meat eating. If history teaches us anything it is that prohibition does not work.

----------


## Rheghead

> If you are truly concerned about peoples health then instead of lecturing people on the evils of meat then why not try on educate them on sensible meat eating. If history teaches us anything it is that prohibition does not work.


If it was just about _health_ then I would.

----------


## Alrock

> If it was just about _health_ then I would.



Well you just keep banging your head against a brick wall then. ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Well you just keep banging your head against a brick wall then.


Only if you are not open to change, then you will think I am banging my head against a wall but I am not here to win arguments, it is about providing the best evidence for food choices that is good for health, environment and animal welfare.  There is a hard core of people who are deeply opposed to vegan diets.  They do not explain why they are opposed for themselves except that they like the taste of meat and dairy.  They certainly do not explain why they are opposed to vegan diets for other people but it may have to do with those being most opposed are linked to the meat and dairy industry.  They are only a small number of posters but the number of people who have read this thread is up to 29,000.  That is different viewers not views.  With that amount of interest, it is neither boring or uninformative.  To be honest, if you are looking for support on this thread for a vegan diet, do you think they would post on this thread considering they would be willing to get abused as much as me?  I consider that such abuse just weakens their position, that is why I haven't reported it to admin.

You just provided a link with very dubious claim about how it could translate to how we could provide food.  I asked you a question which you have avoided.

----------


## smithp

> If you are truly concerned about peoples health then instead of lecturing people on the evils of meat then why not try on educate them on sensible meat eating. If history teaches us anything it is that prohibition does not work.


Al Capone may disagree. I like the idea of it 1930's style speakeasy's knocking out illicit mixed grills.

----------


## Rheghead

> Al Capone may disagree. I like the idea of it 1930's style speakeasy's knocking out illicit mixed grills.


It won't last long, eating the pork crackling will give the game away.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

A major dairy in the US has stopped dairy production at one of their plants after 90 years to produce plant-based milk due to big demand.

http://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/d...-to-plant-milk

----------


## Rheghead

Carnage is a hilarious BBC vegan comedy documentary which tells the story of a UK that has gone completely vegan in the year 2067.  We look back at the damage that we were doing to ourselves, the planet and the animals when we used to eat meat and dairy.  It can be currently viewed on BBC Iplayer.



http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7636871.html

----------


## sids

> Carnage is a hilarious BBC vegan comedy documentary which tells the story of a UK that has gone completely vegan in the year 2067.  We look back at the damage that we were doing to ourselves, the planet and the animals when we used to eat meat and dairy.  It can be currently viewed on BBC Iplayer.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7636871.html


We're holding our sides.

----------


## Neil Howie

there's no problem with the veganism, it's only when you try and use science for propaganda that raises my hackles.

----------


## Rheghead

> there's no problem with the veganism, it's only when you try and use science for propaganda that raises my hackles.


I'm completely fine with using science as propaganda, I get worried when people use propaganda as science.

----------


## Alrock

Just stumbled upon this interesting article...

*Lettuce is three times worse than bacon' for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for environment*

----------


## Goodfellers

> Just stumbled upon this interesting article...
> 
> *Lettuce is ‘three times worse than bacon' for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for environment*



Look out your window and see the storm clouds gathering over Reay. This thread has more life than Lazarus.

----------


## Rheghead

> Just stumbled upon this interesting article...
> 
> *Lettuce is ‘three times worse than bacon' for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for environment*


I never get surprised how far people will misrepresent vegan diets to divert away from the environmental impact of livestock production.  Honestly, lettuce farming is the new pan-global threat to human existence?  :: 

Journalism at its most humorous.

----------


## Shaggy

so please enlighten us as to what type of fertilizer a farm will use to grow all the vegan nibbles.

----------


## Fulmar

I expect it will be well rotted, animal dung! Nice and organic and full of composting worms. Oh, oops, sorry! Animal dung is of course, not allowed.

----------


## Rheghead

> so please enlighten us as to what type of fertilizer a farm will use to grow all the vegan nibbles.


That is a good question and one which needs to be addressed.

But first you need to understand that the reason that we need huge amounts of fertiliser in the first place is that we currently ask too much from our soils because we grow food stocks for animals which we kill for meat.   It takes about 10kg of plant protein to produce 1kg of animal protein.  We have this  romantic idea of farming where animal dung provides the only cycle of nutrients for fields, nothing could be further from the truth as we need the animal fertiliser _and_ chemical fertilisers just to keep the soils from degrading.  We need to break this mental lock.  When you consider that about 80% of crops in this country are grown for meat production then in a meateater's world we are hugely more dependent on animal derived fertiliser (Manure, bone and blood) and artificial fertilisers (chemicals).  It takes a lot more land (and fertiliser) to support a meateater's diet than a vegan world.  The Vegan Society conservatively estimate that we need a third of the current land to support a vegan population and some studies estimate we need an eighteenth of the land.  My understanding is that the first scenario (Vegan Society) relies on the soil's  natural ability to renew its nutrients over time using crop rotation and other land management techniques.  And the 18th of the land estimate relies more on intensive market garden farming techniques using chemical fertilisers. I think the truth will be somewhere in the middle.  With a combination of moderate chemical fertilisers and land management, a vegan population would be fully fed on an agricultural land footprint of much reduced size, say, a 6th of what we see now.  That would leave a huge land area which could go back to its natural pre-holocene state.  The land would once again be able to support a huge range of natural flora and fauna.  We could again be guest spectators to seeing large migrations of big animals, large predators,  insects like butterflies would also return.  We could have our natural forests back to provide shelter for birds and large beasts alike.  Large forests breathe in CO2 and cool the atmosphere helping climate change in a natural way without use of wind turbines.  The list of benefits are virtually endless.  But we don't have this spectacle because people are unwilling to have a vegan diet, their thirst for blood means more to them than a safe natural future for their children to inherit.

----------

