#Dairy industry dangers | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rimaakter45 · 5 months

Text

नैतिक शाकाहारी भोजन: एक स्वस्थ, दयालु और अधिक टिकाऊ जीवन शैली

परिचय:

हाल के वर्षों में, नैतिक शाकाहार ने महत्वपूर्ण आकर्षण प्राप्त किया है, और अच्छे कारण से। पशु कल्याण, मानव स्वास्थ्य और पर्यावरणीय स्थिरता के बारे में बढ़ती चिंताओं के साथ, बढ़ती संख्या में लोग नैतिक शाकाहारी जीवन शैली का विकल्प चुन रहे हैं। यह लेख की अवधारणा पर प्रकाश डालता हैनैतिक शाकाहारी भोजन, आम गलतफहमियों को दूर करते हुए जानवरों, मानव स्वास्थ्य और ग्रह के लिए इसके लाभों की खोज करना।

पशु कल्याण

नैतिक शाकाहार के पीछे प्राथमिक प्रेरणा जानवरों को होने वाले नुकसान को कम करने की इच्छा है। नैतिक शाकाहारी मांस, डेयरी, अंडे और शहद सहित किसी भी पशु उत्पाद का सेवन करने से बचते हैं। इस जीवनशैली को अपनाकर, व्यक्तियों ने सक्रिय रूप से खाद्य उद्योग में जानवरों के शोषण को समाप्त कर दिया।

फैक्ट्री फार्मिंग, जहां जानवरों को भीड़भाड़, कैद और क्रूर प्रथाओं का शिकार बनाया जाता है, एक बड़ी चिंता का विषय है। नैतिक शाकाहारी इन उद्योगों से अपना समर्थन वापस लेने का विकल्प चुनते हैं, सक्रिय रूप से एक दयालु विकल्प को बढ़ावा देते हैं। पशु उत्पादों का बहिष्कार करके, नैतिक शाकाहारी लोग जानवरों की पीड़ा को कम करने में योगदान देते हैं, एक ऐसी दुनिया की वकालत करते हैं जो सभी संवेदनशील प्राणियों का सम्मान और महत्व करती है।

स्वास्थ्य सुविधाएं

आम धारणा के विपरीत, नैतिक शाकाहार कई स्वास्थ्य लाभ प्रदान करने वाला सिद्ध हुआ है। एक सुनियोजित शाकाहारी आहार इष्टतम स्वास्थ्य के लिए आवश्यक सभी आवश्यक पोषक तत्व प्रदान कर सकता है। शाकाहार व्यक्तियों को फलों, सब्जियों, साबुत अनाज, नट्स और बीजों का सेवन बढ़ाने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करता है, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप पोषक तत्वों से भरपूर आहार मिलता है जिसमें संतृप्त वसा और कोलेस्ट्रॉल कम होता है।

अध्ययनों से लगातार पता चला है कि शाकाहारी लोगों में हृदय रोग, उच्च रक्तचाप, मोटापा और कुछ कैंसर की दर कम होती है। पौधे-आधारित आहार पाचन तंत्र पर भी हल्का होता है, जिससे ऊर्जा का स्तर बढ़ता है और समग्र स्वास्थ्य में सुधार होता है। इसके अलावा, पशु उत्पादों को खत्म करने से मांस और डेयरी उपभोग से जुड़ी खाद्य जनित बीमारियों का खतरा काफी कम हो जाता है।

पर्यावरणीय प्रभाव

पशु कृषि के पर्यावरणीय प्रभाव को कम करके नहीं आंका जा सकता। पशुधन खेती को ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन, वनों की कटाई, भूमि क्षरण, जल प्रदूषण और प्रजातियों के विलुप्त होने में महत्वपूर्ण योगदानकर्ता के रूप में पहचाना गया है। नैतिक शाकाहारी जीवनशैली अपनाकर, व्यक्ति जलवायु परिवर्तन से निपटने और भावी पीढ़ियों के लिए ग्रह को संरक्षित करने में सक्रिय भूमिका निभा सकते हैं।

यह सिद्ध हो चुका है कि पशु उत्पादों से भरपूर आहार की तुलना में पौधे आधारित आहार में कार्बन फुटप्रिंट कम होता है। कृषि पशुओं को खिलाने के लिए आवश्यक फसलों के लिए बड़ी मात्रा में भूमि और जल संसाधनों की आवश्यकता होती है, जिससे अंततः वनों की कटाई और पानी की कमी होती है। पौधों के स्रोतों से सीधे उपभोग करके, नैतिक शाकाहारी पानी के संरक्षण, ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन को कम करने और जैव विविधता की रक्षा करने में मदद करते हैं।

गलतफहमियों को दूर करना

नैतिक शाकाहार के पक्ष में ढेर सारे सबूत होने के बावजूद, कई गलतफहमियाँ बनी हुई हैं। शाकाहार के खिलाफ सबसे आम तर्कों में से एक यह धारणा है कि पौधे-आधारित आहार में आवश्यक पोषक तत्वों, विशेष रूप से प्रोटीन और विटामिन बी 12 की कमी होती है। हालाँकि, उचित योजना और ज्ञान के साथ, शाकाहारी लोग विभिन्न प्रकार के पौधों पर आधारित खाद्य पदार्थों को शामिल करके अपनी सभी पोषण संबंधी आवश्यकताओं को आसानी से पूरा कर सकते हैं।

यह भी ध्यान रखना महत्वपूर्ण है कि नैतिक शाकाहार प्रतिबंधात्मक भोजन या अभाव का पर्याय नहीं है। शाकाहार की बढ़ती लोकप्रियता के साथ, कई स्वादिष्ट पौधे-आधारित विकल्प सामने आए हैं, जो नैतिक शाकाहारियों को उनके मूल्यों से समझौता किए बिना, उन स्वादों और बनावटों का आनंद लेने की अनुमति देते हैं जो उन्हें हमेशा से पसंद रहे हैं।

निष्कर्ष:

नैतिक शाकाहार केवल एक आहार विकल्प से कहीं अधिक है; यह एक ऐसी जीवनशैली है जो करुणा, स्वास्थ्य और स्थिरता को बढ़ावा देती है। पशु कल्याण की रक्षा करके, व्यक्तिगत स्वास्थ्य में सुधार करके और पर्यावरणीय क्षति को कम करके, नैतिक शाकाहारी सक्रिय रूप से एक दयालु, स्वस्थ और अधिक टिकाऊ दुनिया के निर्माण में योगदान करते हैं। नैतिक शाकाहारी भोजन को अपनाने से न केवल व्यक्तियों बल्कि हमारे ग्रह के सामूहिक भविष्य की भी सेवा होती है।

#Factory farm animal cruelty #Vegan diet benefits #Unnecessary meat consumption #Dairy industry dangers #Meat industry hazards #Animal abuse in agriculture #Health benefits of veganism #Climate change and meat #Antibio

0 notes

seogoogle1 · 3 months

Text

Untold Stories of Factory Farm Cruelty: Shedding Light on Animal Suffering

In the bustling metropolis of modern society, there exists a hidden realm obscured from public view, where the silent cries of billions of voiceless creatures echo within the walls of industrialized confinement. These are the untold stories of factory farm cruelty, narratives of suffering and exploitation etched into the fabric of our food system. While the glossy veneer of supermarket shelves may obscure the grim reality, beneath lies a world fraught with unimaginable torment.

Factory farming, with its emphasis on efficiency and profit, has transformed the once pastoral image of agriculture into a dystopian landscape where animals are reduced to mere commodities, stripped of their inherent worth and subjected to unspeakable horrors. Behind closed doors, away from prying eyes, lies a labyrinth of confinement and cruelty, where the principles of compassion and empathy are sacrificed at the altar of mass production.

The first whispers of these untold stories emerge from the heart of factory farms, where overcrowded and unsanitary conditions serve as the backdrop for a life of perpetual suffering. In cramped cages and barren enclosures, animals are deprived of the most basic freedoms, condemned to a life devoid of sunlight, fresh air, and the ability to engage in natural behaviors. Pigs, confined to gestation crates barely larger than their own bodies, are forced to endure a living hell, unable to even turn around or lie down comfortably. Chickens, crammed into battery cages so small they cannot spread their wings, suffer from broken bones and feather loss, their lives reduced to a cycle of despair.

But perhaps the most harrowing aspect of factory farm cruelty lies not in the physical confines, but in the psychological torment inflicted upon these sentient beings. Denied the opportunity to express their natural instincts, animals are driven to the brink of madness, their spirits broken by a relentless onslaught of stress and despair. From the incessant clanking of metal bars to the overpowering stench of ammonia, every aspect of their environment serves as a reminder of their subjugation, leaving psychological scars that may never heal.

Yet, even in the face of such adversity, the resilience of these animals shines through in moments of quiet defiance. From the mother pig who fiercely protects her young despite the confines of her cage to the chicken who refuses to surrender her will to live, there exists a flicker of hope amidst the darkness—a reminder that even in the bleakest of circumstances, the spirit of compassion cannot be extinguished.

The untold stories of factory farm cruelty extend beyond the confines of the farm itself, casting a shadow that stretches far and wide across the landscape of our society. From the environmental degradation wrought by industrialized agriculture to the public health risks posed by the overuse of antibiotics, the ripple effects of factory farming are felt by all, regardless of whether or not they choose to acknowledge them.

It is a testament to the power of ignorance and complacency that these stories remain untold, hidden beneath a veil of secrecy perpetuated by an industry that profits from our collective apathy. Yet, as the demand for transparency and accountability continues to grow, so too does the opportunity for change. Through education and advocacy, we have the power to shine a light into the darkest corners of factory farming, exposing the truth behind the glossy facade and demanding justice for those who cannot speak for themselves.

In the pursuit of a more humane and sustainable future, it is imperative that we confront the untold stories of factory farm cruelty head-on, challenging the status quo and demanding an end to the exploitation of sentient beings. By choosing compassion over convenience and empathy over indifference, we can rewrite the narrative of our food system, creating a world where the untold stories of factory farm cruelty are replaced with tales of resilience, liberation, and hope.

In conclusion, the untold stories of factory farm cruelty serve as a stark reminder of the ethical and moral implications of our food choices. By confronting these narratives with courage and compassion, we have the power to spark a revolution rooted in empathy and justice—a revolution that transcends the boundaries of species and embraces the inherent worth of all living beings. Let us heed the call of conscience and stand in solidarity with the voiceless, for in their liberation lies the true measure of our humanity.

website: cruelty.farm

#Untold stories of factory farm cruelty #Meat industry's contribution to climate change #Health implications of dairy consumption #Vegan response to factory farm cruelty #Partisan issues and animal rights #Environmental cost of dairy and meat industry #Animal cruelty in factory farms #Factory farm issues #Dangers of dairy industry #Vegan diet benefits #Vegan diet risks #Factory farming and animal rights #crueltyfarm #cruelty farm

1 note · View note

acti-veg · 11 months

Text

Denying the role that individuals need to play in combating the climate crisis is the leftist version of climate change denial. Anyone responding to suggestions of realistic, accessible changes to reduce your own impact with anything resembling ‘100 companies are responsible for most of our emissions so this is pointless’ are engaging in science denialism.

There is no way that collective action takes place without individuals making changes in their own lives. Yes, the rich are more responsible than the poor and yes, what we need is systematic change. However, there absolutely are things we can and should be doing to reduce our own impact and put pressure on polluting industries through direct action and boycott.

These include stopping or reducing flying, eliminating or drastically reducing our consumption of meat and dairy, buying second hand where possible, repairing, recycling and supporting environmental action and rewilding efforts. None of this in isolation will mend the world but its a hell of a lot better than passing the buck while refusing to make any changes in our own lives.

I know that the idea that climate change is caused by someone else; somewhere else, and that it’s up to them to change instead of us is seductive rhetoric, but it’s also extremely dangerous. It encourages the kind of apathy that plays directly into the hands of corporations who want us to feel powerless and to continue to consume as we do now.

We can’t just sit around and wait for The Revolution; we have to live revolutionary lives.

#climate crisis #climate change #environment #100 companies tho #original

1K notes · View notes

ghosties--writing · 8 months

Text

Farmer! 141 members + konig, alejandro, and rudy x reader (What they farm)

Cw: Fluff

After I posted about farmer! Call of Duty characters, I started thinking about what type of farmer they are. Meaning if I think they are a crop farmer, livestock farmer, rancher, dairy farmer, family farmer, industrial farmer, kitchen gardener, organic farmer, regenerative farmer, or an urban farmer. Also keep in mind that I imagine them being farmers around 1776 so it's not modern time.

First off just so you know what each farmer does here's a list:

Crop farmers- They grow crops such as grains, fruits, vegetables, and cotton.

Livestock farmers- They raise animals such as cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep.

Ranchers- They primarily raise livestock, often on a large, open range or pasture.

Dairy farmers- The specialize in producing milk and other dairy products such as cheese, yogurt, and ice cream.

Family farmers- They own and operate farms as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or family businesses.

Industrial farmers- They use large-scale, mechanized, and intensive methods to produce crops and livestock.

Kitchen gardeners- They grow vegetables, herbs, and fruits for their own consumption or scale.

Organic farmers- They use natural and sustainable practices to grow crops and livestock without synthetic chemicals or genetically modified organisms.

Regenerative farms- They use practices that enhance soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services to grow crops and livestock.

Urban farms- They grow food in urban areas, using spaces such as rooftops, balconies, backyard, or community gardens.

Ok, back to what I was talking about:

Price- I feel like he would be an industrial and dairy farmer. He would have farm hands since he's getting older and he need help around the farm but that doesn't stop him from going out into the feild to do what he can. At the end of the day after all of the men finish their duties and after they bring you all of the eggs, milk, even meat that was slaughtered that day for you to make them a meal. They would bring you everything and then sit either inside the house relaxing or out on the porch talking with eachother smoking while you cook. If they are inside in the living room relaxing you would have to tell them all multiple times to take their boots off of the rug or off of your blankets, even going as far as to threaten them with no food as John sits their and laughs.

Ghost- Rancher. That's all I'm going to say he seems like a rancher. He seems like he would enjoy being on a huge farm with his little wife surrounded by nothing but feilds. If you want to go to the market it takes almost all day to get there and back so you better plan a day to go because you know he's not letting you go alone. He also seems like he wouldn't have many farm hands just because he doesn't want to put you in danger. What if one of the farm hands disobey his duties on the farm and head over to the main house you are in and gets handsy with you while he's not there to protect you? He would feel horrible. But he caves in and let's maybe 2 or 3 farm hands work under him after you told him that he shouldn't have to do all the jobs on the farm since he came in every night complaining that his body ached.

Gaz- He seems like a family farmer and a rancher. Maybe he lived on the farm all of his life and once his father passed away he had control of the farm and inherited the house. Once he met you he felt like his life was complete, he had a pretty wife beside him who kept the house smelling like sweet baked goods. He has quite a few farm hands solely so he could spend time with you in the early morning and so he could come in early and spend time with you before the other men came in looking for a big warm meal to fill their empty stomachs. I see Kyle living more closer to town so he's not secluded like Ghost but it does take a bit of time heading to and from the market in town. He also trys to come with you every time you go into town or he sends a trusted farm hand with you.

Soap- You can not tell me that soap is not a dairy and livestock farmer. He absolutely lives in the Highlands of Scotland with a bunch of cows, both regular dairy cows and the fluffy highland cows. He does own other animals but he prides himself of how well his cows are taken care of, he keeps a good eye on all of his cows to make sure none of them get sick or hurt. I also believe that he does trim his cows feet himself but since he has so many cows and other animals he has farm hands to help out with the hoof trimming and other things like that. Since he is in the highlands almost everything would need to be made by hand since the markets are far away so he also has a lot of sheep so his sweet wife can make all of them (herself included) warm clothes for the winter. The only thing she really needed from the market was fabric and other things that weren't as easily obtained at her farm but good ol' Johnny would make sure she had water she needed. And he would take you with him so you have a say on the fabrics you get and whatever "unnecessary" items you needed.

König- I see him just as a industrial farmer. He obviously lives in Austria and he owns a pretty large farm and just like Ghost it takes a while to get to and from the market in town so you have to choose a day so you and König can go with eachother. Maybe you both go together because half of the time he needs something from the market too so he takes you with him so you can get what you need. He also has a lot of farm hands, but he need it because he can't take care of a large farm that is mass producing to feed the town all by himself, he needs a little help. But you make sure that all of the men have clean linens to sleep on and clean clothes to wear and you make sure that they have big warm meals to fill their stomachs at the beginning and end of the day. You also go into the feild every once in a while to suprise them with warm freshly baked sweets that you had just made which they always seem thankful for. König makes sure you have everything you need to make yourself, him and the other mens clothes or the farm hands bring you their clothes to men after the accidently rip it on a nail, just for them to find it perfectly mended and folded on their bed when they get to their rooms.

Graves- This American man is most definitely a rancher have you heard his southern accent. Anyways, he lives on a decent sized farm with a couple of farm hands and he's pretty close to town but not close enough where you could walk there. He always insists that he goes with you to the market and he always insists you buy something even though you both know you don't need it. You're always in the house cooking and baking so when your husband comes in with his farm hands they have warm fresh food and treats to feast on after a hard day's work. Graves always makes sure that you are happy and safe, if he ever finds out that something is bothering you he will find out something is bothering you he will sit you down and talk with you until he gets to the bottom of it. But he's nice about it, he doesn't want to make you sad, he just wants to keep you happy.

Alejandro- He's most definitely a crop farmer. He lives in Mexico in a semi secluded area with a pretty big farm that mostly only grows crops and there are only a few animals. You have a pet dog that stays with you in the house, Alejandro claims that it is to protect you while he is out in the feild. It takes a while to get into town but if you ever need to go into town Alejandro is right there with you, anytime you need to go. As long as it is not to late in the day or in the middle of the night, he will go with you whenever. He has farm hands that get up and work early so he doesn't have to leave your side in the morning. He loves any food you make and will drop everything if he hears that you have made food. Him and his farm hands always try to finish with all their chores on the farm as if it was a race between them because they want to be the first one to eat the food you make.

Rudy- I see him as the type of man to be a livestock farmer. He most definitely has a bunch of animals but his favorite animal is horses. He love you so much and would hate if something happened to you. Again like all the men on this list he wants to keep you happy and healthy. You do some things on the farm like gathering the eggs, but you don't do much than that. You mostly stay home washing and making clothes or cooking/baking. Occasionally you do go over to your friends house to keep eachother company or she comes over to you. If you do go over to your friends house either Rudy or one of his farm hands will come with you to make sure you stay safe. The market isn't far from home but again it takes a while to get there and almost all the time when Rudy accompanies you he manages to sniff out Alejandro. So you stay at the market much longer than you intended because they will talk for hours catching up with eachother. At the end of them chatting he invites Alejandro and his wife over to have dinner with the 2 of you. So you have to make even more food for dinner but don't worry because you are at the market so you can buy extra food for dinner.

Keegan- He doesn't own a huge farm like the others, instead he owns a decent sized house but he only really has a enough room on his land for a decent sized qarden. He grows fruits and vegetables but only enough for the 2 of you. He doesn't have any farm hands and he works as a blacksmith and a silversmith while you stay home and you tend to the garden. Since he doesn't really own a farm you both are really close to the market so if you really wanted to you could walk to the market. He does insist he comes with you whenever you go to the market to make sure that no random man trys to start anything with his pretty wife. You both also have a pet cat and dog, the cat is yours and the dog is his. The cat is a orange tabby cat and the dog is a spaniel. You stay home making different foods for the 2 of you to enjoy when he gets home along with taking care of some other things around the house that need to be done. (He definitely hand made your wedding ring since he is a blacksmith and a silversmith)

Roach- He is an industrial farmer. He does have many farm hands to help out with his farm and he also likes to invite Ghost and John over to his farm just so he can hang out and chat with them. He also will take you with him and travel over to one of there farms to hang out and you also get to chat with their wives and gossip about your husbands, as all women do. Again he loves your cooking and doesn't know what he would do if he ever had to make a meal for himself and his farm hands, you are the life line of the farm (other than the farm itself). Most of the time you make your own dresses but you and Roach do go into the market for the fabric because it's not something you can get from home, and while you are out you also pick up fabric for him so you can make him some clothes. Occasionally Roach works as a blacksmith but only really for making horse shoes for his horses. So whenever he's out making horse shoes almost all day you always bring him a snack like a couple of cookies to him as he works.

Masterlist

Please give me more to write about them, I am literally obsessed with the idea of Farmer! CoD characters.

Feed back is welcomed.

I do not condone my work being published on any platform or to be translated in any way.

Reblogs welcome.

142 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 10 months

Note

/726874196342407168/ this reminds me of a conversation I was in where someone had recently discovered that “non-dairy creamer” often still includes milk protein, it isn’t truly “dairy free” (because of industry bullshit) and someone else in the chat started up this whole moral panic about oh no this is so dangerous for people with the kind of milk allergy where if you consume it can kill you. And someone else in the chat who had that allergy had to speak up about, lol, no, those of us with truly dangerous allergies (and not just the kind of lactose intolerance that will give you the runs but nothing more) are in fact checking every ingredient list, because when it’s that severe you HAVE to. I think a lot of online discourse tends to assume that people with special needs are babies who need to have their hands held and I’ve basically never seen that be the case with anyone in those groups. In my experience, people with real PTSD triggers, like that asker described, tend to err on the safe side and just not read something that even looks like it could be in striking distance of that topic that they find upsetting, especially in fanfiction which so many people use as escapism. People who are truly upset by an Internet argument tend to quietly disengage and not keep wailing about how HURT they were by the other person’s WORDS. So much of the idea that the way to respond to this is by going on an extended angry rant and canceling everyone involved is coming from people who are not triggered and are not actually hurt, but just want to draw attention to themselves

I believe them that they feel upset. I just don't think it's other people's job to do their emotional regulation for them.

68 notes · View notes

naturalrights-retard · 2 months

Text

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

In a December 2023 article, Claire Panosian Dunavan, a UCLA professor emeritus, questioned the appeal of raw milk, citing historical efforts to reduce infant mortality through pasteurization and expressing concerns over the risks of illness from pathogens in raw milk

Sally Fallon Morell refutes claims about the heightened risk of illness from raw milk, pointing to data and analyses suggesting that the dangers are grossly overstated

Historical declines in infant mortality were more due to sanitation and public health measures than the pasteurization of dairy

Pasteurized milk has been shown to contribute to a range of health issues, including allergies and asthma

Studies from Europe and anecdotal evidence have linked raw milk consumption to lower rates of asthma, allergies, and stronger bones, among other health advantages

During the last few years, bureaucrats and public health officials have been quiet about raw milk, but then Iowa legalized its sale in May. The accompanying publicity — in The New York Times and USA Today,1,2 plus many other publications — has resulted in a flurry of pro-pasteurization, anti-raw milk Internet posts.

One of these appeared on December 8, 2023,3 written by Claire Panosian Dunavan, professor emeritus of medicine and infectious diseases at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and past president of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Dunavan can’t understand the “risky allure” of raw milk. “Is it buyers’ faith in ‘nature’s perfect food’ or sellers’ pure, naked greed?” she asks. The main claims in her article:

In the 1890s, Nathan Straus (co-owner of Macy’s) started a private foundation to dispense pasteurized milk after his son died of typhus during a vacation in Italy — the death blamed on raw milk. (Dunavan then credits Straus with a drop in U.S. infant mortality from 125 per 1,000 to fewer than 16 per 1,000 between 1891 and 1925.)

Raw milk consumers are 840 times more likely to suffer illness than those who drink pasteurized dairy.

Recent outbreaks of illness blamed on raw milk have occurred in California, Utah and Idaho.

Raw milk contains dangerous pathogens like campylobacter and salmonella.

Raw milk may cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.

People are avoiding pasteurized milk because of milk allergy “as opposed to a serious, even life-threatening infection.”

The real villains are the people who sell raw milk “because they believe there’s an audience out there that will buy it,” even though they “know” that raw milk will harm some people.

Are Raw Milk Farmers Driven by Greed?

Let’s look at these points one by one, starting with the accusation that raw milk farmers are motivated by pure, naked greed. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a dairy farmer who sells raw milk.)

Conventional dairy farmers today receive about the same price as they did during World War II, even while their costs have skyrocketed. Typically, they get $1.45 per gallon, which costs them $2 to produce.4

This explains why the number of licensed dairy operations in the U.S. has steadily declined by more than 55%,5 from 70,375 in 2003 to 31,657 in 2020. More than 3,000 dairy farms stopped production during 2020 alone — that’s eight per day.

Some of these farmers have avoided going bankrupt by switching to raw milk sales. Typically, consumers are happy to pay from $5 to $10 per half gallon — enough to save the family farm, especially if the farmer reduces his costs by nourishing his cows on grass (the natural food for cows) rather than feeding grain.

Dunavan refers to farmers’ desire to make a decent living as “pure, naked greed,” but let me give you an example of real greed. Dairy company CEOs typically make salaries upwards of $3 million per year. They do this by keeping milk prices as low as possible — hence the heartbreak of losing the farm inflicted on thousands of dairy farmers. That is what most of us would call pure, naked greed.

True Causes of Infant Mortality

About Nathan Straus losing his son to typhus and blaming it on raw milk, according to that font of conventional knowledge, Wikipedia, typhus is caused by bacteria spread by lice, chiggers or fleas.6 Since Dunavan is a public health expert, she should know this. (I have not been able to find any reference to raw milk causing typhus, except for the case of Straus’ son.)

Typhus reigns in filthy conditions and it was a real problem, especially in cities, before the advent of modern housing, sewage systems and washing machines. Even today we see outbreaks of typhus, but public health experts typically blame them on rats, never on raw milk!7

As for the decline in infant mortality in the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century, it was during this period that public officials worked to clean up our cities with the installation of sewage systems, rubbish collection and clean water.

This was also the period when the car gradually replaced the horse and mule — before the car, our cities were stinking cesspools of manure and grime. Immigrants huddled in crowded housing without running water and refrigeration, and with only rudimentary sanitation. The death rate by the age of five was 50% — and this was blamed on raw milk rather than unsanitary conditions — officials called it the “milk problem.”

Manure piled up on a New York City street creating deadly unsanitary conditions — health officials called this the “milk problem.”

Raw milk may indeed have contributed to the high death rate because it came from distillery dairies — inner city confinement dairies of unimaginable filth where cows were fed distillery waste. The milk was so deficient and watery that chalk was often added to make it look white — this was the milk that Straus wanted to pasteurize.

However, pasteurization cannot take the credit for the decline in infant mortality as it was around this time that distillery dairies were banned. The real hero was not Nathan Straus, who did nothing for public clean-up efforts, but Dr. Henry Coit, who worked to bring clean raw milk from the countryside to the cities.

Public health officials at the time lauded Coit’s certified raw milk with saving children’s lives and noted that children in orphanages brought up on raw milk were healthier than those given pasteurized milk.

Save This Article for Later - Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Questioning the Reports

About raw milk safety, Dunavan repeats the recent claim that people who drink raw milk are 840 times more likely to contract food-borne illness than those who don’t.8

But an analysis by epidemiologist Peg Coleman, based on data considered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), found that on a per annum basis, out of 23 foods considered, pasteurized milk ranked second highest and raw milk ranked seventh highest in causing severe illness.9 The real question that one must ask, however, is how accurate are reports of illness and death from raw milk?

The Weston A. Price Foundation analyzed a 2007 PowerPoint presentation by John F. Sheehan, then director of FDA’s Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, who contended that pasteurization is the only way to ensure the safety of milk.10

Table 1 shows that the 15 studies Sheehan referenced (through 2005) either were methodologically flawed or that bias or outright fabrication guided the conclusions that he drew; not one of the studies cited by the FDA actually proved that raw milk caused the illness.

We need to do the same analysis for reports of raw milk illness from 2005 to the present — one that includes the claims of illness from raw milk in California, Idaho and Utah. It’s safe to assume that many of them are bogus, given the alacrity of public health officials to blame raw milk for any illness without a thorough examination of all the data.

Table 1: Unfounded Conclusions From Raw Milk StudiesLAW OR BIASNUMBERPERCENTNo Valid Positive Milk Sample12/1580%No Valid Statistical Association with Raw Milk10/1567%Findings Misrepresented by FDA7/1547%Alternatives Discovered, Not Pursued5/1533%No Evidence Anyone Consumed Raw Milk Products2/1513%Outbreak Did Not Even Exist1/1513%Did Not Show that Pasteurization Would Have Prevented Outbreak15/15100%

According to the late Dr. Ted Beals, who analyzed reports of foodborne illness from 1999 to 2011,11 government data report an average of 42 illnesses from raw milk per year out of 90,771 illnesses from all sources.

Using these figures, Dr. Beals concluded that one is 35,000 times more likely to become ill from other foods than from raw milk. Beals also noted that there is no way to quantify whether any one food is safer than another from the data we have, but at the same time, it is clear that there is no basis for singling out raw milk as “inherently dangerous.”

Recently, melons have ranked high in causing illness — including an outbreak from cantaloupe that resulted in over 300 illnesses, over 100 hospitalizations and four deaths. Where is Dunavan’s outcry against greedy melon growers? And what about raw oysters, which kill 15 people per year?12 Where are the warnings to oyster lovers not to eat these terrible things?

Pathogen Facts

Dunavan implies that raw milk can cause Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) — a degeneration of the nerve cells that causes muscle weakness and paralysis — because raw milk can carry campylobacter, and campylobacter often gets the blame for GBS.

Of course, many, many foods harbor campylobacter. In 2019, there were over 100,000 reported cases of GBS worldwide;13 a quick Internet search does not find any of these cases associated with the consumption of raw milk.

By the way, campylobacter and salmonella, the two pathogens most commonly associated with raw milk, do not grow in refrigerated raw milk. In a pilot study sponsored by the Raw Milk Institute, refrigerated raw milk inoculated with high and moderate counts of these pathogens suppressed their growth.14

Inoculated listeria did grow in raw milk, but an association of this pathogen with raw milk is extremely rare. Moreover, a recent systematic review found that the risks of severe listeriosis infection were greater for pasteurized milk products than for raw milk products.15

Consumers Shunning Pasteurized Milk

Dunavan wonders why people would indulge in the risky behavior of drinking raw milk. There are very good reasons for drinking raw milk, but first, let’s consider why fewer and fewer people are drinking pasteurized milk. In both the UK and the U.S., consumption of pasteurized milk has declined by 50% since 1974 (Figure 3). (I would love to know whether Dunavan herself drinks pasteurized milk!)

Figure 3: UK per capita liquid milk consumption, 1974-2018

To find out why consumption of pasteurized milk is declining, let’s consider a 2019 study out of China, entitled “Processing milk causes the formation of protein oxidation products which impair spatial learning and memory in rats.”16

The researchers subjected milk to four processing techniques: boiling, microwave heating, spray-drying and freeze-drying. (Boiling takes milk to 212 degrees F; ultra-pasteurization takes milk to 280 degrees F. Most milk sold today is ultra-pasteurized.)

All four techniques (even freeze-drying) caused oxidative damage to the milk proteins and resulted in “various degrees of redox state imbalance and oxidative damage in plasma, liver, and brain tissues.” Feeding damaged milk proteins to rats resulted in learning and memory impairment — no wonder IQ levels are falling!

The researchers concluded, “humans should control milk protein oxidation and improve the processing methods applied to food.” But how to improve those processing methods? What types of processing methods would they suggest? How about no processing at all? Why not just treat milk carefully and cleanly and let the many natural antimicrobial compounds in raw milk do their work?17

Milk Proteins Are Easily Damaged

Milk proteins are not tough like muscle or collagen proteins; they are extremely fragile and easily damaged by heat and pressure (as in heated drying). No wonder the consumption of industrial pasteurized milk is declining — the body sees processed and damaged milk proteins as foreign proteins and mounts an immune response.

This explains why milk protein is the number-one allergy and why studies link consumption of pasteurized milk with digestive disorders, rashes, asthma, diabetes … and even sudden death.

Based on statistics provided by the Allergy & Asthma Network,18 one can deduce that pasteurized milk causes approximately 20 deaths from anaphylactic shock per year! The type of milk that is truly dangerous is pasteurized milk. Yes, indeed, a good “reason not to” drink pasteurized milk is allergy — life-threatening allergy. Parents are figuring out that they shouldn’t give this junk to their children … or drink it themselves.

Pasteurized milk is the milk that causes health problems, while raw milk is indeed Nature’s Perfect Food — after all, it is the food in Nature that nourishes all mammals, loaded with vitamins and minerals, each one of which has a special enzyme that ensures 100% assimilation. When milk is pasteurized, these nutrients are largely destroyed, or rendered very difficult to absorb (Table 2).

Table 2: Destruction of Nutrients and Nutrient Assimilation by Pasteurization

Vitamin C — Raw milk but not pasteurized can resolve scurvy. “Without doubt ... the explosive increase in infantile scurvy during the latter part of the 19th century coincided with the advent of use of heated milks.”19

Calcium — Longer and denser bones on raw milk. (Source: Studies from Randleigh Farm.)

Folate — Carrier protein inactivated during pasteurization.20

Vitamin B12 — Binding protein inactivated by pasteurization.

Vitamin B6 — Animal studies indicate B6 poorly absorbed from pasteurized milk. (Source: Studies from Randleigh Farm.)

Vitamin B2 — Completely destroyed.21

Vitamin A — Beta-lactoglobulin, a heat-sensitive protein in milk, increases intestinal absorption of vitamin A. Heat degrades vitamin A.22,23

Vitamin D — Present in milk bound to lactoglobulins, pasteurization cuts assimilation in half.24

Iron — Lactoferrin, which contributes to iron assimilation, destroyed during pasteurization. Children on pasteurized milk tend to anemia.

Minerals — Bound to proteins inactivated by pasteurization; Lactobacilli, destroyed by pasteurization, enhance mineral absorption.25,26

Reasons to Go Raw

More reasons to drink raw milk: less asthma and respiratory infections, fewer allergies and rashes. These are the conclusions of a number of European studies, which pasteurization proponents in the U.S. dismiss, but which public health officials in Europe have taken seriously. These include:

A 2001 study published in The Lancet — Less asthma, fewer allergies27

The 2006 PARSIFAL study (Clinical & Experimental Allergy) — Less asthma, fewer allergies28

The 2011 GABRIELA study (Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) — Less asthma, fewer allergies29

A 2012 study (Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology) — Less asthma, fewer allergies30

The 2014 PASTURE study (Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) — Less respiratory infection31,32

In the U.S., asthma kills nine people per day, many of them children. When parents see that raw milk relieves asthma in their child, they go out of their way to obtain this magical product from greedy farmers.

There’s more: early studies indicate that raw milk given to growing animals confers longer and denser bones compared to pasteurized milk.33 I’ve heard from several gals diagnosed with osteoporosis who started drinking raw milk daily and passed their bone density test two years later.

Raw milk also contributes to strong, healthy teeth.34 And many people who can’t tolerate pasteurized milk can enjoy raw milk without problems. I’ve even had parents tell me that their children’s behavior improved after they made just one change in their diet — switching from pasteurized to raw milk.

Looking to the Future

For these and other reasons — such as the fact that raw milk tastes so good — raw milk sales are booming. Our website realmilk.com gets almost 400,000 visits per month, most of them to the Raw Milk Finder page.

When we set up realmilk.com in 1999, we had only a handful of listings; today, the website lists over 3,000 places to get raw milk in the U.S., and there are many more not listed. Raw milk farmers tell me that they can’t produce enough raw milk to meet the demand — which means that these greedy farmers aren’t charging enough for it.

The truth is, pasteurization is a Rust Belt technology — a bit like hitting a pile of manure with a sledgehammer. It lets the industry get away with raising cows in filthy, crowded conditions, but it doesn’t make milk any safer, and it ruins Nature’s perfect food.

We have come a long way since the days of Nathan Straus. We have the technology to produce clean raw milk — stainless steel, rapid cooling, on-farm testing, an efficient nationwide cold chain — and get it to every growing child in the country.

Raw milk is the future. I predict that within 20 years, pasteurized milk will be a thing of the past. Small, grass-based dairy farms will proliferate to meet the demand, and no couple will start a family without making sure there is a supply of raw milk nearby. Health officials like Professor Dunavan can protest all they want, but fewer and fewer people are listening.

About the Author

Sally Fallon Morell is author of the best-selling cookbook “Nourishing Traditions” and many other books on diet and health. She is the founding president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (westonaprice.org) and a founder of A Campaign for Real Milk (realmilk.com). Visit her blog at nourishingtraditions.com.

25 notes · View notes

roseamoungstthethorns · 1 year

Text

A take on veganism

While veganism can do good on the world, It's current climate is toxic and unhealthy.

There is no act an individual can to that will effect the level of harm that corporations cause

The especially white vegan view of you have to be fully vegan in everything you consume is toxic, unethical, and often in achievable.

Plastic leather (pleather or vegan leather) is horrible for the environment and your wallet. It sheds a ridiculous amount of plastic products into the environment and does not hold up with time causing you to have to buy more and more. This of course causes more plastic in the environment and more expenses to you.

Most leather is used as a byproduct from cows killed for the meat industry meaning these cows would still be killed if you did not consume leather as they are skilled for hamburger etc. and then instead of discarding their skin it is used for a durable environmentally friendly product.

In again, especially white vegans, the bid to not consume any animal products leads to more harm than good in cases.

Foods like quinoa (grain that has amino acids and protein) and agave (common substitute for honey) harm farmers and the countries who rely on them due to vegans driving up global demand.

Many vegans will boycott honey as it is derived from bees, but will still consume almond milk. This is hypocritical as bees are not harmed in the production of honey, buy are harmed in the transportation to and pollinating of almond groves.

The crazy vegan stereotype turns people away from veganism and decreased animal consumption. The over the top, angry, all or nothing type creates hatred towards the vegan community steating people away from it which creates the opposite effect that it is trying to.

Critic of concepts such as meatless Monday hurts everyone. Most people can't or aren't willing to be vegan or vegetarian but concepts such as meatless Mondays allows for less meat to be cooked when it otherwise would be.

The idea that vegan or vegetarian diets are cheaper is false. This is only true if your diet is mainly beans and rice, but that is not how almost everyone eats. Produce, and dairy and meat substitutes are more expensive than animal products. Furthermore in food deserts or countries/areas where vegan/vegetarian lifestyles aren't common it may be next to impossible to not consume animal products due to low availability and high price.

Most vegans and vegetarians will allow for medications that include animal products, but those who don't create an unsafe space for people who rely on them.

Medications is not the only reason to need to consume animal products and this is where the real danger lies. Any condition that causes a restrictive diet poses a risk in restricting more. Yes, veganism and vegetarism are restrictive diets. Some, but definitely not all, are chron's, gerd, ANY ED, needing to tube feed, IBS, colonoscopy bag users, people on a liquid diet, and much more. Talk to your healthcare provider please before attempting vegan or vegetarian lifestyles if you have any of these types of issues. The vegan movement shames people who rely on animal products to stay healthy and that is dangerous.

Racism plays into the vegan movement as well. Many, again, especially white, vegans shame cultures who use animals. Cultures and traditions who care for animals, use all their parts, farm, and take care of their land and animals are much better than traditionally western practices and the need for veganism is no longer needed. The animals and land are cared for and treated respectfully. Veganism would do more harm than good here.

There us a line between ethical and unethical veganism, however the line is blurred. Knowing when it does more harm than good is not often enough talked about and I believe it's important that unethical veganism is talked about more.

Some ways to help promote ethical living besides veganism

Freegan. A freegan is vegan with the exception to animal products that would otherwise be discarded.

Ethical consumption. Buy from local farmers. Start a community garden. Have your own chickens for eggs. Etc.

Trade and barter. This works around capitalism which is a driving factor towards unethical animal practices.

Support indigenous people. They know how to care for the land and the animals. Importantly their rights have been abused and violated and we need to support them as well.

Shop local. This keeps money out of the hands of big corporations. As well as being environmentally friendly due to less co2 emissions.

Reduce reuse recycle. Start by reducing the products use consume. Then reuse what you can as much as you can. Finally recycle everything you can. This is the order that makes the smallest imprint.

Pescitarian. The only meat pescitarians consume is fish.

Vegetarian. Vegetarians consume animal products but not animals. This can include eggs, but not chickens, milk, but not cow, honey, silk etc. Lakto-vegitarians consume dairy but not eggs and ovo-vegitarians consume eggs but not dairy.

Cutting out any type of meat or animal products.

Only consuming foods that are ethically produced in regards to the environment, animals, and/or humans

Feel free to add more

Remember your health comes first, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, any change is better than no change.

TL;DR Veganism has problems and isn't the end all be all of ethicality. Reduce consumption in general in the ways you can. Remember your health comes first.

#psa #veganism #vegan #vegitarian #ethical consumption #anti vegan #white veganism #white vegan

222 notes · View notes

0xo · 2 months

Text

so h5n1 has officially jumped to humans in texas and texas being texas, i think we are fucked

edit: i was misinformed about the possibilities of human-to-human transmission. i didn't realize that it going from a cow to a human doesn't necessarily mean it will go straight to human-to-human. it's one confirmed case of a dairy worker contracting h5n1, but it is most likely not contagious from him. i hope that he recovers, and that it doesn't spread.

that said, i am very on edge about the chicken and dairy industries' lackluster response and wide refusal to cull infected livestock. even if it's "only" transmitting from animals to workers, it's unacceptable to put the workers in such a dangerous situation. and every transmission increases the risk of it becoming human transmissible. our current stats on h5n1 in humans reflect a grim survival rate. it's not okay to put people at risk this way for profit.

i am still extremely nervous about this situation, but i will try to be more cautious about sharing information. as always, please stay masked, stay safe, and stay vigilant.

12 notes · View notes

master-john-uk · 5 months

Text

Farming is one of the most dangerous industries to work in. A farm worker is 20 times more likely to have a fatal injury at work than all other employment sectors combined.

Regardless of the type of work they do, nearly everybody is probably guilty of taking shortcuts and ignoring health & safety advice at times... I know I have in the past!

For the first ten years after I purchased the mainly arable farm it was largely run by Farmer Frank, and just two full-time farmhands... with extra help hired during the busy harvest season.

It has become increasingly difficult to recruit seasonal staff. After I bought the neighbouring dairy farm in 2018, we had a lot of formerly unused land to utilise for crop production... and my farm grew into a much bigger agricultural operation. We had to increase the number of full-time farmhands.

We now work closely with several universities and colleges, and the majority of our staff are either apprentices, recent graduates, or gap-year students. With so many younger farmhands, it is important that we rigidly abide by health & safety rules, and guidance.

Even I have to follow the rules! Although I do not do as much work on the farm as I used to, I have to set a good example when I am there.

10 notes · View notes

rimaakter45 · 5 months

Text

Этическое веганство: устойчивое и сострадательное питание

Введение :

Концепция чего-либоЭтическое веганское питание в последние годы привлекла широкое внимание, поскольку люди все больше осознают влияние своего диетического выбора на окружающую среду, благополучие животных и здоровье человека. Этическое веганство выходит за рамки растительной диеты; это образ жизни, направленный на уменьшение вреда для животных и содействие устойчивому развитию. В этой статье предпринимается попытка изучить ключевые принципы этического веганства, его преимущества и то, как оно может служить катализатором позитивных изменений в нашем обществе.

Понимание этического веганства:

Этическое веганство основано на убеждении, что все разумные существа имеют неотъемлемые права и к ним следует относиться с состраданием и уважением. В этом смысле веганство выходит за рамки тарелки и охватывает все аспекты жизни, включая одежду, косметику и другие потребительские товары. Мотивация этического веганства может быть связана с опасениями по поводу воздействия животноводства на окружающую среду или этического обращения с животными в пищевой промышленности.

Многочисленные научные исследования подтвердили, что животноводство является основной причиной вырубки лесов, выбросов парниковых газов и загрязнения воды. Принимая этическое веганство, люди активно способствуют усилиям по борьбе с изменением климата, сохранению биоразнообразия и экосистем.

Преимущества этического веганства:

Преимущества этического веганства выходят за рамки экологических соображений. Хорошо спланированная веганская диета может предложить широкий спектр преимуществ для здоровья, включая снижение риска ожирения, болезней сердца, диабета и некоторых видов рака. Он также способствует сбалансированному потреблению необходимых питательных веществ, таких как клетчатка, витамины и минералы, которые способствуют общему благополучию.

Более того, этическое веганство выступает за более сострадательное общество за счет минимизации вреда животным. Воздерживаясь от потребления продуктов животного происхождения, люди активно отвергают эксплуатацию животных для еды, одежд�� или развлечений. Этическое веганство признает животных как разумные существа, способные испытывать боль, радость, страх и любовь, и стремится защитить их интересы, пропагандируя образ жизни, основанный на растениях.

Создание позитивных изменений:

Рост этического веганства вызвал глобальное движение за более устойчивый и сострадательный образ жизни. Многие компании отреагировали на растущий спрос, разработав ряд альтернатив растительного происхождения и продуктов, не тестируемых на животных. Этот сдвиг в потребительских предпочтениях также привел к значительному снижению спроса на продукты животного происхождения, что вынудило отрасль искать более устойчивые и гуманные методы ведения сельского хозяйства.

Более того, этическое веганство служит мощным инструментом пропаганды, поскольку люди вдохновляют своих друзей, семью и более широкое сообщество принять более осознанный подход к еде. Делясь знаниями об экологических и этических последствиях животноводства, этические веганы могут поощрять открытые разговоры и способствовать более устойчивому будущему.

Заключение :

Этическое веганство — это философия, направленная на минимизацию вреда для животных, защиту планеты и содействие более здоровому обществу. Принимая этическое веганство, люди вносят свой вклад в создание более устойчивого и сострадательного мира. Положительное влияние этического веганства выходит за рамки личного здоровья и охватывает благополучие животных, сокращение выбросов парниковых газов, сохранение природных ресурсов и стимулирование изменений в пищевой промышленности. Поскольку все больше людей осознают необходимость этического выбора в своих пищевых привычках, этическое веганство продолжает набирать обороты, предлагая надежду на более светлое и устойчивое будущее. Пожалуйста, посетите здесь Этическое веганское питание Для дополнительной информации.

0 notes

the-trans-dragon · 4 months

Text

Hello! Are you interested in learning how to navigate the FDA recall website? Here's a little information about it!

As of now, the website is at: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts

Here's what you'll see when you visit:

Below this, you'll find two things:

- A search feature

- The comprehensive list.

How to interpret the list:

I will use the first item as an example. It says "2/10/2024" and "SaveMart."

Do I frequently by any "SaveMart" food? I don't know. I'm not familiar with that brand. Sometimes smaller, better-known brands are contained under these larger categories. So I will click on it:

Now I can see that "SaveMart" includes something else called "Lucky" and "Lucky California." I also see that this recall is about their "service deli chicken street taco kit" specifically.

Is that all the information I need? I will scroll down to read the Summary.

It's important to note WHY the product is being recalled! Some are "less serious" recalls, such as "oops, we said this product didn't have peanuts, but it might." (I say "less serious" because allergens are less of a health risk for the average person than pathogen contaminants like Listeria, E. coli, etc.) These "less serious" recalls can still indicate poor quality of production, so even if they aren't relevant to you, it's worth being aware of.

However, this recall is Listeria! What is Listeria? Often, the recall page will explain the contaminant and it's dangers. There is often other VERY IMPORTANT information too.

So I will scroll down and skim the next section:

Note, there is a description for Listeria.

But IMPORTANTLY, it notes that the risk comes specifically from cotija cheese from Rizo-Lopez Foods.

At this point, I'm not sure if other products containing this ingredient have issued recalls. Typically, recalls are made voluntarily by the brands/companies that sell the products. However, the FDA can also announce contaminants, if the companies do not volunteer that information. I will return to the main page and continue reading the recent recalls, looking for the Rizo-Lopez cojits cheese as I read about other recalls.

I click on the second one, Stater Bros., and hey! That looks familiar! Is it the same cheese? I scroll down to see:

Yep, same cheese!

And when I scroll down more, I find some very helpful information:

So, the FDA and CDC are investigating the outbreak. It's related to cojita and queso fresco. And, helpfully, there is a link for more information!

When I click the link, it takes me to a page for Rizo-López Foods, Inc, and their voluntary recall of dairy products. Tumblr says I can't add more pictures so here's some information from the page:

The recalled products were distributed nationwide by RLF and through distributors. Products also were sold at retail deli counters including, but not limited to, El Super, Cardenas Market, Northgate Gonzalez, Superior Groceries, El Rancho, Vallarta, Food City, La Michoacana, and Numero Uno Markets.

The recalled products include cheese, yogurt, and sour cream sold under the brand names Tio Francisco, Don Francisco, Rizo Bros, Rio Grande, Food City, El Huache, La Ordena, San Carlos, Campesino, Santa Maria, Dos Ranchitos, Casa Cardenas, and 365 Whole Foods Market.

Note that it discusses some of the places it was sold, and the brands it was sold under! If you have loved ones who buy the products, be a sweetheart and tell them.

At the bottom of this page is a BIG, HELPFUL SECTION OF PHOTOS of some affected products! You can screenshot those to reference at the store, and send the photos to loved ones.

If you are quick, you can scan a whole year's worth of recalls in 10-30 minutes. Then you just need to periodically check back for new ones!

Okay, hope that is helpful for someone! Stay up-to-date and stay safe! 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜

#sorenhoots #recalls #fda #references #guide #just tagging it so i can find it later lol :3

6 notes · View notes

green-and-grey-solarpunk · 2 years

Text

Veganism can be a great thing, industrial farming is ruining our planet and harming the animals of the world. But if done wrong, veganism can be just as dangerous. Some vegans indulge in vegan products made and distributed through the exploitation of humans and farmed through unsustainable methods.

The important thing to remember is that meat and animal products aren’t what’s immoral. The exploitative and harmful agricultural practices we use are. Indigenous people hunting as they’ve done for millennia isn’t immoral, they’ve shown that they know how to be responsible for the earth and sustainable with their methods. Small local farms producing on a small scale with sustainable and humane techniques aren’t immoral, they’re being stewards of the environment while still providing for their small communities. Meat and dairy from animals that lived long and happy lives and got a peaceful deaths isn’t immoral to consume, it was a symbiotic relationship, and humans are omnivores that tend to eat animal products. Honey isn’t inherently immoral, as long as the honey bees weren’t non-native, invasive, or over-represented species due to the honey farming.

Being vegan isn’t inherently moral or good for the environment. Being an omnivore isn’t inherently immoral or bad for the environment. The important thing to consider is the context in which these animal products are produced, and how much your consuming them will support the industrial farming industry.

#solarpunk #vegan #veganism #sustainability #socialism #communism #environmentalism #agriculture #ethics #consumption

196 notes · View notes

ms-hells-bells · 1 year

Note

doesn't peta literally take + kill people's pets though? I recall even the vegan groups I used to be in distancing themselves from that organisation...

it was largely a misrepresentation. it's like saying 'crazy how hospices have such high death rates!'

peta, is not like most shelters, they are the last resort people or other shelters go to, they euthanise animals taken in that are either too sick or injured to live, so traumatised/feral that they can never be homed, and very elderly animals with not much time to go, and sometimes in desperate circumstances, others that they simply have no room to take in. peta shelters have an 'open door policy', meaning they NEVER say no, and they offer people free euthanasia (euthanising a pet is actually rather expensive and many low income people cannot afford it, so go to peta shelters to get it done, boosting the euthanasia numbers).

'no kill' shelters are a fallacy, they simply pick and choose who they take in, only taking in animals that are young, healthy, and attractive breeds. all the rest they refuse, and the refused animals just get dumped on the street. the only places that can take these animals are 'kill' shelters (with no kill shelters often giving animals who haven't been adopted within a few months to kill shelters), who try their best got adopt them out if they can.

what are you or other critics gonna do? adopt millions of starving, injured cats and dogs? including ones that pose a very high danger to humans? as a vegan i HATE it, but this is why both vegans and peta are against breeding, and puppy selling of animals. every new designer life born is a home lost for an already living animal, and our dragging of these species to environments where they have zero competition and few predators has created a massive global boom in their populations. peta tries to relocate as many animals as possible to shelters with space, but with so many, often (in peta's view) a painless euthanasia is far kinder than chucking them back to suffer with feline aids, tumours, ptsd, infectioned wounds, blindness (on the streets), starvation, etc.

people hate their actions regarding that, but have no solution themselves, they just wanna pretend there's no problem.

i'm not even being DEFENSIVE of peta, i don't like them either, but for proven, legit reasons like their use of misogyny and objectification in adverts and demonstrations, as well as their claims that drinking dairy is linked to autism (though they did somewhat rescind that statement in 2020, when the 2010 ad resurfaced online).

but the utter hypocrisy of people bringing that up when they're almost never vegan, therefore they contribute to hundreds of animal deaths each year with their wallet, drives me nuts. not to mention that this rage and misinformation is fueled and funded by the MEAT INDUSTRY, with things like the 'center for consumer freedom' being funded by farmers and big brands like kfc, as well as political lobbyists that get those sweet ag bribes. they literally run the website 'petakillsanimals.com', the one most quoted regarding this topic. these people are intent on destroying every group against their agenda, and people eat it up because they benefit. because they wanna eat eggs and bacon for breakfast.

41 notes · View notes

naturalrights-retard · 6 months

Text

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Synthetic dairy products, including milk made from genetically engineered yeast, are being touted as environmentally friendly health foods that should replace real milk from cows and other animals

Along with missing important micronutrients that are abundant in real milk, fake milk contains compounds that have never before existed in the human diet

Ninety-two mysterious, unknown compounds were detected in the fake milk that don’t exist in real milk

None of these compounds have been tested for safety by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Tech oligarchs and venture capitalists are funding most fake food technologies, which gives globalists unprecedented power and control over human health

Synthetic dairy products, including milk made from genetically engineered yeast, are being touted as environmentally friendly health foods that should replace real milk from cows and other animals. But this deceptive greenwashing is putting human health at risk, according to Dr. John Fagan, a molecular biologist who worked with the U.S. National Institutes of Health for 8.5 years.

Fagan is cofounder and chief scientist at the Health Research Institute (HRI). He spoke with Errol Schweizer for an episode of his podcast, "The Checkout," detailing concerning new findings about "animal-free" dairy. Along with missing important micronutrients that are abundant in real milk, fake milk — which Fagan and others refer to as a "synbio milk-like product" — contains compounds that have never before existed in the human diet.

"It’s really strikingly different. It just shows that this is not like milk. You can’t say that this is nutritionally like milk in any way," Fagan says.1

Full-Spectrum Analysis Reveals Unknown Compounds in Fake Milk

At Fagan’s HRI, they use "cutting-edge mass spectrometric and molecular genetic approaches to make the invisible visible."2 This full-spectrum analysis is capable of revealing so-called "nutritional dark matter," even in foods as mundane as wheat. The fact is, an estimated 85% of the nutritional components in common foods remain unquantified. The health implications of most compounds also remain largely unknown. New Scientist notes:3

"This is also true of individual micronutrients. ‘Consider beta-carotene,’ says [Albert-László Barabási at Harvard Medical School, who coined the term nutritional dark matter] … ‘It tends to be positively associated with heart disease, according to epidemiological studies, but studies adding beta-carotene to the diet do not show health benefits.

One potential reason is that beta-carotene never comes alone in plants; about 400 molecules are always present with it. So epidemiology may be detecting the health implications of some other molecule.’ Another probable cause is the effect of the microbiome on dark nutrients, says [FooDB founder David] Wishart. ‘Most dark nutrients are chemically transformed by your gut bacteria.

That’s probably why studies on the benefits of different foods give relatively ambiguous results. We don’t properly control for the variation in gut microflora, or our innate metabolism, which means different people get different doses of metabolites from their food.’"

We know even less about the constituents of processed foods and synthetic foods that ignorantly claim to be "equivalents" to whole foods, such as "animal-free meats" or "animal-free milk."

At HRI, Fagan and colleagues are using their full-spectrum analysis for a new category in the food industry — synbio milk-like product. For a bit of backstory, in 1994 Fagan returned close to $614,000 in grant money — and withdrew a request for an additional $1.25 million — to protest genetic engineering and the release of GMOs into the environment.

At the time, he said, "The benefits of genetic engineering have been oversold, and the dangers have been underrepresented."4 His efforts to advocate for food purity and safety, nutrition and food security have continued via HRI.

FDA Hasn’t Tested the 92 Unknown Compounds in Fake Milk for Safety

As Fagan explains to Schweizer, one form of synthetic biology involves bacteria, yeast or fungus cells genetically engineered to produce another compound, in this case cow milk proteins. The idea is once you have milk proteins, you can make something from that that supposedly is milk, he says. But Fagan and colleagues used a mass spectrometer to chart the differences in composition between synbio milk-like products, biodynamic milk and organic milk.

While important micronutrients exist in organic and biodynamic milk, they’re missing, or very low in, synbio milk. Further, mysterious, unknown compounds were detected in the fake milk that don’t exist in real milk. Fagan says:5

"These are small compounds, and they include things like … fungicide and other really weird compounds ... These are huge amounts of these compounds that are present in synbio milk and not present in real milk. Literally, I counted and there are 92 different compounds.

Most of them are so uncommon that we don’t even have names for them. And so we can say with good confidence that these compounds have never been part of the human food supply before, and yet they are the predominant small molecules in synbio milk."

None of these compounds have been tested for safety by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.6 "This product has been put on the market without any safety testing, and your FDA — the FDA that you are paying taxes to watch and make sure your food is safe — looked the other way," Fagan says.7

The proteins in synbio milk are also different from proteins in real milk. "Most of the protein that they’re putting into this synbio milk-like product is not milk proteins from cows, but it’s fungus and yeast proteins … we don’t know which, because that’s one of their trade secrets."8

In recent years, the idea that we can replace whole foods with synthetic, genetically engineered or lab-grown alternatives that are wholly equivalent to the original food has taken root. In reality, that’s simply impossible.

How can scientists create equivalence when they don’t even know what 85% or more of the whole food they’re trying to replicate consists of? Common sense will tell you they can’t. It might look, smell and even taste similar, but the micronutrient composition will be entirely different and, as a result, the health effects will be incomparable as well.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Selling Precision Fermentation as ‘Natural’

Fake food companies want you to believe their products are natural because they’re made with components of plants, yeast or fungus, even though nothing like them exists in nature. Be on the lookout for their industry buzzwords like precision fermentation, a term the biotech industry is using to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation.

Precision fermentation, however, is nothing like its natural counterpart. It’s a form of synthetic biology that’s been around for at least 20 years. It uses genetically engineered microorganisms, such as yeast and bacteria, that are fermented in brewery-style tanks under high-tech, pharmaceutical grade sterile conditions. This is because these cultures are highly susceptible to contamination that could ruin the entire batch.

And, contamination can happen easily, so billions of dollars have been poured into this technology, which is using biological pathways that have never before existed in nature. Biotech firms have obliterated the precautionary principle, as the long-term outcomes are completely unknown, to produce fake meats, fake fats and fake milk.

But it’s all serving the underlying agenda, which is total control and world domination. There’s no easier way to achieve this than by taking control of the food supply. These fake, ultraprocessed foods give the globalists unprecedented power and control over human health, and they’re using stealthy marketing techniques. As Schweizer wrote in Forbes:9

"The biggest set of questions here revolves around ownership, governance and social equity considerations. Just about all of this new food technology is heavily funded by tech oligarchs, venture capitalists, or the occasional celebrity. Bill Gates is just one such example. He made his fortune by enclosing, privatizing and scaling what had previously been mostly an open-sourced, common-pool resource: software.

The investor model here is very Silicon Valley: identify a particular market sector or category and its sales potential, fund the company to offset large losses as it scales, and compete aggressively with the goal of cornering this market as a monopoly or a duopoly. Think: Uber, Doordash, Instacart, Amazon. The investors throwing billions of dollars at such enterprises are not altruists …"

Bill Gates’ startup company BIOMILQ, announced in June 2020, is one such example. It’s using biotechnology to create synthetic lab-made human milk for babies. Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says "recreates conditions similar to in the breast."10

Aside from Gates, BIOMILQ investors include Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Masayoshi Son, Jack Ma, Michael Bloomberg and Marc Benioff.11

Metabolic engineering is another major subset of precision fermentation, which involves methods such as next-generation sequencing, high-throughput library screening, molecular cloning and multiomics "to optimize microbial strains, metabolic pathways, product yields, and bioprocess scale-up."12 Sounds just like something down on the farm, doesn’t it?

Whether it’s called precision fermentation, gene editing, GMO or something else, don’t fall for the hype that it’s good for you, for society or for the planet.

Is Synbio Milk Better for the Environment?

The idea that animal-free milk is "carbon neutral" and environmentally friendly is another marketing tool being used to promote this inferior product. In Forbes, Schweizer raises a host of important questions that consumers should be asking to get to the bottom of fake foods’ true environmental impacts. Among them:13

Is the nutrient bath derived from corn or soy, typically genetically modified to withstand high dosages of herbicides?

What is the caloric conversion and nutrient uptake efficiency of the microbes compared to animal livestock?

How much farmland acreage would be impacted?

How much waste material is produced by such microorganisms relative to sellable product?

What kind of testing has been done to understand the potential environmental impact for if and/or when the microbes escape the confines of a fermentation plant, particularly as the technology scales?

When these types of inputs are factored in, fake foods are far from sustainable. Fagan explains:14

"The reality is that many of the carbon footprint calculations have been done starting with the fermentation process and going forward, but where did the high fructose corn syrup come from that is the primary energy component that goes into these fermentations?

… And you look at that industrial agriculture and you add that carbon footprint on to what they have been using in their calculations and suddenly it goes way in the wrong direction. And so we can’t even use the sustainability arguments to justify what’s being done. It just doesn’t work."

Real Food Is Best

Just as was the case with GMOs, raising awareness about the dangers of fake foods, including synbio animal-free milk, is important, especially in this early and aggressively expanding phase. Tell your social circle that to save the planet and support human health, it’s necessary to skip all the fake food alternatives and opt for real food instead.

When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are what we need to support a healthy, autonomous population. As Fagan puts it:15

"The biggest thing to keep in mind … we need to trust Mother Nature and go with what she has developed. Her R&D stretches back billions of years. So, there’s a lot of deep knowledge there that’s optimized for life. We should be putting our attention on maximizing that and creating an environment that supports that. So, purity of food and simplicity, all of these things are really important."

24 notes · View notes