Who Knows about Milk?

[ERD50]

ditto what greg said

ditto what samclem said

samclem provided data. greg said he is afraid.

samclem, thanks for the Ames quote. I have read about his work, and have seen some good quotes but that is very powerful.

Oh, and thanks for saving me time writing a long reply

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

he believes the female cow's milk tastes differently

OAP, if that prof was tasting male cow's milk for reference, well...

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

ERD50:

Finally, we don't as yet know what is really going on in food with all the things we've started adding to it in the past fifty years especially.

--greg

True. But if you take that to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't do ANYTHING, for fear of what might happen in 50 years.

I might have polio today, if they tried to be too careful about testing the effects of say, how polio vaccine interacts with the electro-magnetic radiation from those new Television consoles. Or rock-a-billy music, or poodle skirts, or Cadilac fins.....

Just think of all the things that people have been scared to death about, and how few of them prove out. Cell phone brain cancer, EMI from power lines, fluoride in the water.... Never forget the laws of unintended consequences, a few lives saved by being too cautious can be a death sentence for the many that could have been helped.

There will always be a grey area, and reasonable debate over how safe is too safe, how lax is too lax. I hope emotion does not rule over good science in this regard.

-ERD50

 

[greg]

Who woulda thunk a thread on milk could go political?

So, as momma bear might say, we don't want to run this thread too hot nor let this little node just shrivel up.

samclem:

I have trouble with a bit of your logic. You said "No, we know exactly what causes all of these things [degenerative diseases]: Living a long time." To me this is like saying life causes death and even more and longer life life may cause more death. So, if this is what you mean then the best way to avoid death is to never become alive. Am I seeing the logic in your statement wrong? To my mind, long life does not cause the degeneration of the body. What causes the degeneration of the body in may instances is the weakening of the various organs and systems. For example, excessive use of the toxin liquor oftentimes causes the degeneration of the liver. When the liver starts to fail, degenerate, then other systems also start to fail due to that initial degeneration. Docters, scientists, know the real causes and effects of liver disease. It is rarely old age.

Now it may be true that an old fart of ninty or one hundred has systemic weaknesses due to a wild and woolly younger life. This could consist of heart problems, circulation problems, a whole host of issues that may have related causes in past behaviors or even partially in genetic factors. Each of these separate issues could probably be traced back to a particular lifestyle or set of lifestyle related issues (e.g. Doctor to patient: You're a hundred pounds over weight and now everything is failing because you ate the wrong foods, were too sedentary and drank to much beer.) When this sort of system failure occurs the doctor may say it is just due to old age. He may be saying this to be polite though because I'm pretty sure that all doctors are well aware of some folks of very old age that have few, if any, serious degenerative problems. This stuff is not endemic to old age. What is endemic is that lots of folks lead hard lives, don't get enough sleep, don't take care of their bodies correctly, and look for excuses. When the doctor says the old person's problems are caused by old age, he may know (the doctor) it is time to quit fighting a losing battle: it is just time for the old and sick fart to just enjoy the last quality of life because the quantity of life is/may be rapidly deteriorating.

So, I see a flaw in your perceptions and subsequent conclusions.

Also, I should have done a better job of explanation too. What we do in this country is provide massive amounts of non or slowly perishing foods to folks. Pasturization, as you mentioned, is a good example. We can kill a lot of microbes and germs and stuff just by raising the temperature near boiling. This is wonderful, because if we didn't do that many, many children and others wouldn't have the nutrition they need to have healthy bodies and clear minds. This is good. And there are lots of examples of good stuff that gets foods to folks cheaply and quickly. My issue is confined to a subset of all those foods: Those foods, often but not always, in the center of the grocery store--all the canned, packaged, and altered with (toxic) chemicals. You about-faced my argument into one that said I was against all chemical--perhaps even H2O--a valuable ingredient used in making beer. You shouldn't twist things into what they are not--it's so [-]Republican[/-]Bush-like.

If you'd like to rework your arguments a tad, I'd be happy to continue down this milky way. I think my perceptions are valid and sound. And I'm willing to take you toward my conclusions. I can also address a few of your more legitimate concerns as best I can. Live long and [-]prosper[/-] don't degenerate.

 

[greg]

True. But if you take that to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't do ANYTHING, for fear of what might happen in 50 years.
...................poodle skirts...................

ERD50:

Ditto for you too. No, the above is NOT a logical or rational conclusion. It's an absurdity used to attempt a cheap, manipulative win. A rational, logical, and real world conclusion would be to find out if, for example, the wearing of poodle skirts does cause degenerative or harmful conditions to the wearer. My immediate perception and semi-rational thinking says "no, poodle skirts don't cause shorter lives; but evil, sick rapists that see girls in poodle skirts and then get sicko ideas, then, may cause girls that wear poodle skirts to have shorter lives." Just speculation, obviously. But one needs to be grounded in a good sense of what reality really is (as I imagine Ha might say).

That the logical conclusion to an unpleasant situation is always paralysis, while true in a few instances, is not true in general. Most folks react reasonably and prudently to dangers; and they try to rectify them so that they don't happen again. Action on and awareness of toxic chemicals are important issues in today's world, as you are well aware. They occur in the air, and water, and under our feet in the ground. And they also enter into our bodies. We need to be aware of the bad stuff. And the inference I draw from that is that we should examine some of the more obvious toxic brews, the preservatives that retard natural, organic processes--some of which are good and some of which are bad. Reasonable perceptions are a good place to start.

 

[samclem]

Who woulda thunk a thread on milk could go political?

. . . You about-faced my argument into one that said I was against all chemical--perhaps even H2O--a valuable ingredient used in making beer. You shouldn't twist things into what they are not--it's so [-]Republican[/-]Bush-like.

Hey, iI think i found the point where it turned political.

Well, of course my "long life causes degenerative diseases" quip was a little flippant, but it does serve to highlight a point. Most of these diseases were virtually unknown in earlier times because people died of other things first. We don't die that early as a rule anymore largely because of advances brought by technology.
I think you might profitably re-analyze your thinking on degenerative diseases and what causes them. If organs failed only, or even primarlly, due to lack of sleep, poor nutrition, and bad habits, surely there'd be somebody, among the billions of humans who have lived, who lived to be at least twice the average human age. Just a standard distribution would lead one to expect that, and there are clearly millions of people leading a relaxing, sleep-filled, "toxin free" life. Where are the modern Methuselahs? There are none. Zero. (And I don't believe there were ancient ones, either)
I think most biologists believe human senescence runs very much in parallel with that of all other animals. Our bodies are built to last a certain length of time, and anything beyond that is gravy. That length of time is the duration needed to raise a crop of offspring. After that time, from a hard-hearted point of view, a person is a drag on the resources of his tribe. In the present time older people are highly valuable because they have skills and knowledge needed by the culture. But, from an evolutionary standpoint, our modern societies (with their need for older people) has existed for just a blink of an eye, far too short to have resulted in an adaptation of the species. Nope, for millions of years a man (or woman) was pretty much dead weight after they could no longer throw a spear or suckle a child. Food had always been scarce, so the fewer Grammies and Pappies who were around, the more chow was available for Mom ad Junior. So, it's no surprise that we aren't over-engineered to last decades longer than it takes to get the kids to be self-sufficient. There's even strong evidence that our cells are actually built with an expiration date (Google the term "telomere" for an interesting peek).

IMO, while it is very possible that there will be tremendous lengthening of the healthy portion of human life in the decades to come, it is unlikely to result from munching organic fruit, taking naps, and abstaining from beer. It will more likely result from the labors of well trained scientists in government and corporate labs. They'll continue to fend off the individual diseases that afflict us and also explore and tweak the mechanisms that cause us to wear out. And the more money we, as a society, put toward it, the faster the progress will come on all fronts. Draw your own conclusions about health care policy from that (politics aside)

(What would Momma bear say--not too hot yet, is it?)

 

[ERD50]

ERD50:
No, the above is NOT a logical or rational conclusion. It's an absurdity...

wow, greg. Who brought politics into this?

Geez, I though the poodle-fin reference I made was an obvious attempt at over-statement to make a point, not a serious analysis. I'll try to stay closer to topic if this is going to cause problems. I find this criticism a bit odd from someone who was recently making very loose references to monkey tools?

The point was, people did not know for certain what the effects of a polio vaccination would be 50 years down the road. But hopefully, we make educated appraisals, and evaluate risk vs reward. If we try to eliminate near 100% of the risk, we will be very, very slow to implement things that are beneficial. In the mean time, people suffer/die from lack of that benefit. And that suffering/death is on the hands of people who try to be too risk-adverse. A death is a death, whether due to lack of action, or due to well intentioned, but tragic results. We should aim to minimize suffering/deaths.

OK, very simply. One must look at age-adjusted incidences of cancer to try to determine if the causes of cancer are getting worse (due to food processing, for example). IOW, are cancer rates for age 40-45 YO people in 2006 increasing, compared to people 40-45 YO in 1940? Repeat for each age group and timeframe. Do not look at cancer deaths, as this can be affected by treatment changes. Even this is tricky, as the methods used to detect cancers change over time. And of course, lung cancers need to be separated out - those have been influenced heavily by lifestyle changes. However, we have this report. Most cancers declining, only a few specific types are increasing.

So, if pesticides, preservatives, food coloring, etc were all so bad for us, why are most trends declining?

We do need to be prudent. I myself tend to avoid heavily processed foods. But not so much out of fear, but simply because much of that processing is geared towards things I'm not interested in. I don't like the flavor of most heavily processed foods, I prefer simple, and process it to my liking. I'll take frozen food over most canned for example. Less sodium, not heat treated, less packaging. And, I can't see any benefit to ingesting a bunch of added preservatives that add no value that I see. If others see a benefit, that is their choice. There just might be some risk to those preservatives over time, so I avoid them where I can, but I don't get too excited about it. Bigger things to worry about, AFAIAC.

-ERD50

Questions and Answers: Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1973-1996, With a Special Section on Lung Cancer and Tobacco Smoking - 04/20/1999

3. What is happening with cancer rates overall?

... incidence rates for all cancer sites combined decreased 0.9 percent per year during 1990 to 1996. ...

8. What is happening with breast cancer rates in women?

Female breast cancer incidence rates have been approximately level during the 1990s.

9. What is happening with prostate cancer rates?

Prostate cancer incidence rates continued to decline ....

10. What is happening with colon and rectum cancer rates?

Colorectal cancer incidence and death rates declined for males and females and for all racial and ethnic groups.

11. What other key sites had significant incidence and mortality findings?

During 1990 to 1996, incidence and death rates for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma continued to increase although the rates of increase are lower than in the 1980s.

Melanoma incidence rates also continued to increase on average 2.7 percent per year.

12. Are the rates of childhood cancer increasing or decreasing?

For children younger than 15 years of age, the incidence of cancer declined 0.4 percent per year between 1990 and 1996.

 

[HFWR]

OAP, if that prof was tasting male cow's milk for reference, well...

-ERD50

Male cow?

Tell them to eat their spinach, and then go outside and play.

Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health

To quote one Willie Nelson, after the police found pot (and some psychoactive mushrooms) in his tour bus:

"Hell, if it had been spinach, we'd all be dead by now..."

After speaking with my NYU professor neighbor, apt 45L, he believes the female cow's milk tastes differently depending on whether she had been recently "serviced" by the bull. It's a hormonal thing. He's friends with a biology professor.

So Al, it's probably a large dose of sperm that you drank. It may even invigorate you.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Ulp...

 

[ERD50]

Milk question for liberals:

Not political really, just a liberal philosophy question:

A) I've found no evidence that BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) is a health risk.

B) Higher milk production due to BGH reduces the cost of milk, and might have environmental benefits (more milk from less feed...).

C) Poor people are impacted the most by the cost of food.

D) Some people (that would probably describe themselves as liberals) are in favor of a ban on BGH.

Wouldn't that hurt poor people? Don't liberals claim to be all about helping poor people? What to do?

It's a serious question, not a troll against liberals. I am honestly curious.

-ERD50

PS - I also find it odd that some of the same people that would be against giving cows a supplementary dose of the same hormone they produce naturally might be in favor of taking a supplementary dose of Vitamin C for themselves. What's the diff?

 

[OldAgePensioner]

HFWR,
my professor buddy is also convinced (evidently he visited a NJ dairy farm recently with a NJ pacifist) that the taste of milk is highly dependent on how well the cows teets are washed free of feces and urine.

I stopped drinking milk after watching an "organic" cow being milked. NO TEET WASHING. Evidently to avoid soap contamination.

 

[TromboneAl]

In our house I've noticed no ill-effects from teet washing.

 

[twaddle]

My issue is confined to a subset of all those foods: Those foods, often but not always, in the center of the grocery store--all the canned, packaged, and altered with (toxic) chemicals.

You mean like the evil toxic poison sodium nitrite?

Sodium Nitrite May Be a Cheap, Potent Therapy for Heart Attacks, Strokes and Other Ailments, September 13, 2005 Audio Reports - National Institutes of Health (NIH)

 

[HFWR]

In our house I've noticed no ill-effects from teet washing.

After all, cleanliness is next to [-]godlessness[/-] godliness...

OAP,

One of my great-uncles was a dairy farmer back when. My veins are probably still clogged from the 1000% butterfat milk we used to have for breakfast. He did, however, wash the teets.

Amusing anecdote: Uncle Jack used to keep the radio on WHAS-AM in the milkhouse. The radio would "pulse" everytime the milker system would cycle on. The cows would sway in time with the music/milker...

 

[OldAgePensioner]

Al,
ever consider a Bay Area young Asian teet washerette, hand polished? Not sure that would make your cow's milk taste any better but it might take your mind off that issue.


HFWR,
funny about the cows, wonder if the milk tasted different with Alvin Lee playing Hey Joe, than it did with Hank Williams singing Poor Old Kawlijah. A little James Brown and you get chocolate milk?

My good friend in Iowa has birds that listen to Beck's Scarecrow and really get to rocking.


And for ERD50,
dude you are too cool for most. Kinda like you went to a turkey shoot and some farmer had allowed his turkeys to eat corn from old shotgun barrels. Nothing like plunkin down your $2 bucks and having a turkey walk up and stick it's head in the 12 guage's barrel.

Ooops, I musta watched Seargent York too many times.

Bush and Cheney are definitely responsible for adding Viagra to cow feed.

 

[greg]

samclem:

flippant


Main Entry: flip·pant
Pronunciation: 'fli-p&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from 1flip
1 archaic : [SIZE=-1]GLIB[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]TALKATIVE[/SIZE]
2 : lacking proper respect or seriousness

It got political for me when I perceived you acting like Bush-leaguer. When Tony Snow was around I used to watch him on TV once in a while. Sometimes when he caught in a lie or some other transgression from a previous press meeting, he would sort of flip it off during the current meeting by saying "you guys take me too serious sometimes." . . . when this was about something going wrong in Iraq or some other misperception of events, I was often disgusted that Snow would attempt to twist this into the press's fault for not being able to recognize his 'lightness of tone" or some other non-verbal cue that Snow implied he thought was apparent to all.

I see you doing something similar. What appeared to me initially as an attempt by you to make a sincere, legitimate, and logical argument about old folks and disease was transmogrified into my inability to see your flippancy. I addressed the illogic of your argument. You said you were just being flippant--after the fact. I saw no signs or hints in your original argument that you were being flippant. So I treated you respectfully and properly, taking your argument as a serious one--not a flippant one.

As I said, I see this pattern of behavior among a certain group of folks. It usually means they don't want a legitimate and reasoned argument. They just want to twist and manipulate things into a nasty little knot. I see it as emotional sophistry. I may have over-reacted. But I also think you can see how I came to the conclusion I did.

Sophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..........................................................................................

I have been watching for four years now how Bush and his neocons have manipulated and twisted things into the contorted and disappointing Iraqi/Middle East policy we have today. By adding additional layers of emotional and perceptual contortions the mess is far worse than it should have been. We shouldn't do this with milk too.
................................................................................................................

Also, we really don't know with any reasonable assurances that humans can't easily live comfortable lives for an easy hundred years or so. But we do know that many of these degenerative diseases that I've hinted at, and diabetes comes to my immediate mind, have significantly increased in numbers and in the percentages of folks who have it, especially over the past ten years. Even very young children are showing symptoms nowadays. This didn't happen quite so much before when kids got more exercise and less corn syrup and sugar and stuff. It is never the compound or chemical itself that is the problem, it is the lack of moderation in its usage and, perhaps, putting it where it shouldn't be. Nitroglycerin in large quantities is dangerous; in a small quantity, say a pill under the tongue for someone with angina, it's a good thing. Two pills in a row may be bad--or no. Lots of examination and exploration still needs to be done, especially regarding teets.

 

[greg]

wow, greg. Who brought politics into this?

Geez, I though the poodle-fin reference I made was an obvious attempt at over-statement to make a point, not a serious analysis. I'll try to stay closer to topic if this is going to cause problems. I find this criticism a bit odd from someone who was recently making very loose references to monkey tools?

And I responded in kind with a whack-o over-statement about poodle skirts also. My real response wasn't in the first paragraph but in the second. And I never attacked your poodle skirt comment or saw it as an argument point. I believe I saw your point and demonstrated that understanding by pushing the same point a tad further--in kind. I hoped you saw that.

Also, if I remember correctly, my reference to monkey tools wasn't loose--it was purposefully ambiguous and intentionally a pun--if the pun was seen as such it added a bit of lightness to the argument. I usually attempt this in many arguments-perceptions as you know.
..........................................................................................

Here's how I see Rush Limbaugh and many of his sort. When I have listened to him on the radio at times he seems to frequently find some crazy whack-o thing that someone does and then somehow associate it with Liberals. Then he says this whack-o behavior is common among or around Liberals--in that environment anyway. I can still remember fairly vividly the last time I listened to him. It was about some teacher that had sex with one of her students, a young boy. He implicitly and explicitly said that teachers all come from a liberal-Democrat-union environment, and it was that particular environment that created that very situation of child molestation and anything goes attitude. He took a specific whack-o event, tried to tie it to a specific group of people and then generalized even further by explicitly stating that all those dang liberals are like that. All this from a single person and event. Amazing what some folks listen to on a regular basis. The master of not just hyperbole but false hyperbole and the spinning of untruth to the masses.

So, when I start seeing over-statement and exaggeration, I see Limbaugh, neocons, GWB, and a rush to spin. I was letting you know that I saw it coming in, um, poodle skirts too. Live long and prosper.

 

[bright eyed]

wow, leave the house for a great day out and look what happens! y'all have been busy!

i studied a lot about the food system and agriculture - both US big agro business and rural/sustainable farming in developing countries...and i don't think a lot of the inventions of super seeds, etc were with anything but good intentions (well, perhaps a dose of profit motive ) involved... and now, yes, 50 or so years later it's time to scratch are heads and say what the consequences are that aren't immediate (ie we don't keel over the minute we eat it or after we plant it, spray it, whatever).

you can believe or not that the rising number of autistic, asthmatic and/or overweight kids have something to do with how we plant/process food. and that polluting the water, land, plants, fishes etc. does or doesn't have an affect on cancer rates or degradation of the environment.

but at some point there will be a convergance - that yes it is or it isn't. but if you're a parent or someone concerned about your health or that of your kids - and you're even a little suspicious or concerned - it is just exasperating (which is what my mini-rant was trying to convey). even if this stuff doesn't do what we think it might - the fact that we can't know for sure yet, can drive you crazy. so of course the safe thing to do is to learn what you can and take the safest route.

 

[ERD50]

you can believe or not that the rising number of autistic, asthmatic and/or overweight kids have something to do with how we plant/process food. and that polluting the water, land, plants, fishes etc. does or doesn't have an affect on cancer rates or degradation of the environment.

but at some point there will be a convergance - that yes it is or it isn't. but if you're a parent or someone concerned about your health or that of your kids - and you're even a little suspicious or concerned -

I guess my issue is that so much of this ignores the progress that has been made. We don't put lead in our fuel anymore, or in our paint (and China is getting heat for doing it), we don't X-Ray kids feet to fit them with shoes, we learned to cure stomach ulcers with antibiotics, we have seat belts and air bags in cars, etc, etc, etc.

Of course I am concerned about the health of myself and my family (and others for that matter). But I don't get all excited and up in arms about some additive that has known benefits, and no known health risk when there are known dangers that need to be addressed.

At this point I am concerned that the 'scare mongers' are doing far more harm than good. How many innovative products or medicines have not been brought to market because the entrepreneur has feared the backlash of people who might be afraid of it (w/o data), and force it off the market? I've heard of this with some safety devices. Even though they may save lives, the business is afraid of the one lawsuit if the device failed one time out of a thousand. It is a real concern.

Let's try this test of your faith: pick a year that you think was a safer time to eat, drink, and live in than 2007. If you had a time machine, which year would you pick? And no romanticizing the past - think about the reality of life w/o vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, chlorinated water supplies, the FDA (no matter how imperfect these are). Would you send your kids there?

If it was me, I would not budge. These ARE the good old days!

-ERD50

 

[bright eyed]

I guess my issue is that so much of this ignores the progress that has been made. We don't put lead in our fuel anymore, or in our paint (and China is getting heat for doing it), we don't X-Ray kids feet to fit them with shoes, we learned to cure stomach ulcers with antibiotics, we have seat belts and air bags in cars, etc, etc, etc.
-ERD50

i agree...let's not throw the baby out w/ the...you know.

again, though, there are also many examples where we thought something was ok, then find out oops, it will kill ya... (slow or fast) or make your life much more challenging...

not sure i could find a date in the past that would win in all the categories...but at least back in the day you knew your milk came from the milk man and the cows weren't juiced beyond belief and stuffed w/ gmo corn... butter was butter, bacon was bacon!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

We don't put lead in our fuel anymore, or in our paint

I guess that one of the points being made is that we did put those things in there at one time because they had a benefit that was perceivable and a bunch of problems that weren't.

My point was that I have a problem with paying extra for a product with certain characteristics - - milk from a cow that ate grass and wasnt shot up with anything - - and getting something plausibly inferior to what I'd get by paying less - - old dry milk from another country that fed who knows what to the cow and shot it up with who knows what, but because there arent any controls, could stamp "organic" on it and ship it to the US vs milk from a cow down the street that had no unusual treatment.

But then again, I remember a lot of guys who rambled on for years about how good leaded gas really was for their car, and a bunch of folks who even changed their fill tubes to let them continue putting leaded gas in their catalytic converter equipped cars...

 

[ERD50]

you can believe or not that the rising number of ... overweight kids have something to do with how we plant/process food.

I wanted to comment on the overweight kids (and adults, too).

Isn't it ironic that humans spent millions of years evolving and developing technology to collect enough food to keep from starving, and now that half the world has finally met that challenge the result is that we are dying from it!

We are overweight because there are too many calories easily available to us. And we have the DNA that tells us to eat, fatten up for the hard times ahead that just never come for most of us.

So again, let's test your faith. Which do you prefer:

A) The choice between cheap, available but maybe nutrient-poor calories; the choice of available, not-so-cheap, not-so-convenient but more nutrient rich foods, and the choice to say 'NO' to over-eating either of them,

or....

B) Not enough food to go around, period.

Choice B is all that is available to half the world, and most of the world for all of time except the last hundred years.

And we are complaining? I don't get it.

-ERD50

 

[Webzter]

I do know that the CSA we're part of is organic. And, as far as I know, this means organic in a very holistic way. They go through a lot of trouble in planting complimentary crops. For example, they plant pussy willows to attract aphids that secrete a sweet dew that attracts a certain wasp that then feeds on the catepillars. I believe the willows also give the bees a strong start before the strawberries are in bloom. They plant willow trees to provide branches for the birds that then feed on other pests.

For me, it's all about personal choice. If I choose to spend more because I want to regulate what is in my diet, then I have the freedom to do so. Conversely, if someone chooses to buy uniform fruit and dyed food that looks pretty, then that is their choice. I choose to not eat red meat and understand that there are potential health risks in doing that. Meanwhile, my neighbor chooses to eat a 48 oz prime rib and they should understand the potential health risks in doing that as well.

I feel that the choices that I make are more sustainable long-term, but with no kids and no plans for kids, I really don't care what happens beyond my life time. If my neighbor next door chooses to live without regard to the future, then that's their choice as well.

 

[ERD50]

i agree...let's not throw the baby out w/ the...you know.

again, though, there are also many examples where we thought something was ok, then find out oops, it will kill ya... (slow or fast) or make your life much more challenging...

not sure i could find a date in the past that would win in all the categories...but at least back in the day you knew your milk came from the milk man and the cows weren't juiced beyond belief and stuffed w/ gmo corn... butter was butter, bacon was bacon!

Agreed. And when we find out that something that we had every reason to believe was good for us is actually bad, well it is time to do something. We do need to be prudent, not just accept everything w/o question, but not do the baby/bathwater thing either.

Even leaded fuel served a purpose, it had a very big role in our winning WW2, some say we could not have won w/o it. I think these days, we are more sophisticated, and anticipate/avoid problems, or fix them sooner than in the past. I do want to see that based on science, not emotion.

CFB: The guys rigging their fuel pipes were more concerned about the health of their exhaust valves than the health of our/their children.

GMO corn!!!! What's wrong with GMO corn? I thought you didn't like artificial pesticides? The whole idea behind GMO corn is that it requires less pesticides, and the ones you can use on it are more environmentally friendly! Man has been hybridizing and selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years, GMO is just the latest technology to do this. Ever eat grass seed? That's about all corn was before man got involved. Back to the baby/bathwater thing....

-ERD50

 

[Khan]

But then again, I remember a lot of guys who rambled on for years about how good leaded gas really was for their car, and a bunch of folks who even changed their fill tubes to let them continue putting leaded gas in their catalytic converter equipped cars...

And disconnecting the PCV(?); very common in the SE USA in the '70s.

 

[samclem]

. so of course the safe thing to do is to learn what you can and take the safest route.

Absolutely. And you are right: Learning what is likely to be best is tough, and it never stops. It is also frustrating that "going back" isn't always the safest route either. Whether we're talking "regular" vs "organic" food or cars vs. horses and buggies, the seemingly "safe" thing to do (do what we did before, or what Grandpap did) can often be more perilous than the "newfangled" course. E.g. I read a few years ago that people who eat organic vegetables are 8 times as likely to get food poisoning than those who eat the regular stuff (we're not talking about a queezy stomach--but livers which never function properly again). So, there can be an elevated risk even with the "let's be safe" course of action.

It would be a real eye opener if foods were labeled with the chemicals they are really made of. The label on an "organic" peach (or celery stick, etc) would look like a Monsanto catalogue. Plants have been at war with bugs, viruses, bacteria, and fungi for millions of years, and they contain hundreds of chemicals to defend themselves. Very few of THESE chemicals have been tested for safety on humans, but we know some are nasty for us. And we eat them all when we take a bite. What are you gonna do--ya gottta eat!