Consumers Digest

I'm looking for a quote from Consumer Digest about the price of central air conditioners? "Prices of central air conditioners vary widely, depending on the size of the system purchased, whether or not ductwork is required and in place, and the complexity of the installation."

How can I get telephone number for consumer digest subscription division.?

JD powers or consumer digest? Which is better to subscribe to? I tried consumer report and it sucks.

Is the demand for Readers digest price elastic? is the demand for reder's digest price elastic and if the price rises what will be the effect of consumers.

How good a value is a new car right now because of the recession? July 2009 From a value point of view, new cars have always been sub par because of the immediate drop in value once you leave the lot. But now, dealers are pretty motivated to sell, so I was wondering if you've done some research, what you've found on the value of buying new? Does Consumers Digest have anything to say? Thanks!

????hi anyone out there who is a member of consumer digest ???? i need to know about sewing machines HELP???? i want to know about sewing machines, which are best and last the longest i like brother 6000 or a singer 3962 singer 3116 singer2662 singer 1732 ,price ,ability to last , ease of use, i want to give 10 points to the best answer please help:)

Does anyone know anything about Lipovarin? On Consumer Health Digest it is rated as the number one diet pil.? I am interested in taking a diet pill that will help me with my metabolism and suppressing my appetite. I exercise every other day and do a basic Pilates workout. I just want something to help me along my journey to get rid of this weight.

Does anyone know the top rated cell phones by Consumer's Reports Magazine/Digest for 2006? I would like to have some information on which cellular phones are higest rated by 2006 Consumer's Reports Magazine/Digest. Then, are any of those top mobiles are on the Verizonwireless network.

Buying new Goodman central heating and air-conditioning units? I have a 2700 square-foot house in Southern California, and I am replacing the builder supplied AC and furnace units. The top brands Lennox and Trane are beyond my budget, so the contractor is recommending Goodman, which is one of the largest manufacturers of this equipment. Consumer Digest rates them a best buy for the "budget minded" consumer. Could someone knowledgeable on this subject comment on the quality of Goodman.

Beauty products that really work? consumers digest has a magazine that tests and rates cars and appliances and so on. the funds for the research and the printing of the magazine comes from the consumers purchasing it. all this has nothing to do w/ the companies paying them to pick there own product by bribes, advertisements and etc. My question is this: are there any such magazines, webs etc. that offer the same honest tests and results on beauty products such as wrinkle creams, shampoos, conditioners, etc. and the ingredients that really are the best? I absolutely 100% know and believe that NAME BRAND PRODUCTS are simply that, JUST A NAME YOU ARE PAYING FOR. Even the "testimonies" from so called dermatologists are B.S. They are paid to say what they say. If you're going to answer this, please notice what i am asking for IS NOT personal opinions of particular products such as Mary Kay (total over priced junk, I used to be a "consultant") etc. etc. but rather documentation of comparisons and results of products

Vizio Plasma are rated number #1 by Consumer Digest. I just bought one from Costco.? This is the best plasma I have seen and only $1,899.00. Does anybody know of any better plasma TV's?

Whats to think of the Federal's cutting the interest rate again? What to think of that? More confusing for us the consumer? More digesting over home loan and mortgage rates? Or in the long haul something positive for us?

What is the best detergent? I am looking for a new detergent that will keep my clothes smelling nice. Any suggestions? I currently use Gain Apple Tango Mango; however, it smells great in the bottle, but I can't smell it on my clothes at all. Tide is really overpriced also, according to magazines and consumer's digest. I could probably find a comparable brand for a little less. Any ideas on great smelling ones?

In the mid 1990s, which consumer media "brands" (e.g. MTV, Readers Digest, Disney, etc) were global? When I say global, I mean operating (i.e. publishing, broadcasting, etc) in most, if not all, of the major global markets. Extra points to those of you who can name one or more media brands that started outside of the US before making it big there. MTV, I know, is a stretch - as much of its global reach developed over the past 10 years. It's just an example. Thanks for playing :-)

beauty products? consumers digest has a magazine that tests and rates cars and appliances and so on. the funds for the research and the printing of the magazine comes from the consumers purchasing it. all this has nothing to do w/ the companies paying them to pick there own product by bribes, advertisements and etc. My question is this: are there any such magazines, webs etc. that offer the same honest tests and results on beauty products such as wrinkle creams, shampoos, conditioners, etc. and the ingredients that really are the best? I absolutely 100% know and believe that NAME BRAND PRODUCTS are simply that, JUST A NAME YOU ARE PAYING FOR. Even the "testimonies" from so called dermatologists are B.S. They are paid to say what they say. Also, if alcohol is the worst thing for your hair, why is it the second ingredient, after water, in every conditioner on the shelf? Even the $40.00 ones? Go look at yours.

Will you please help me understand the short article inside about the Atkins diet? The liver stores glucose by converting it to glycogen. It holds perhaps a 12-hour supply of glucose in its glycogen. Once you finish digesting all of the carbohydrates that you last ate, the liver starts converting its stored glycogen back into glucose and releases it to maintain glucose in the blood. Lipolysis also starts breaking down fat in the fat cells and releasing fatty acids into the bloodstream. Tissues that do not need to use glucose for energy (for example, muscle cells) start burning the fatty acids. This reduces the glucose demand so that nerve cells get the glucose. Once the liver runs out of glycogen, the liver converts to a process called gluconeogenesis. Gluconeogenesis turns amino acids into glucose. The liver then begins producing ketone bodies from fatty acids being made available in the blood by lipolysis. Brain and nerve cells convert over from being pure consumers of glucose to partial consumers of ketone bodies for energy. This process is called ketosis -- which is why the Atkins plan is also known as a ketogenic diet.

BEEF vs ANGUS BEEF and the lies we digest-WHY? hamburgers where just that, you added cheese to it and whaaalaaa!--now, everybody IE: burger king and bob evans and many others are featuring or bragging about having ANGUS beef and to be honest -it really is the same ole beef(I asked them and they admitted it---MARKETING PLOY of course)----so, all this being stated---what is it?, why do they lie? and how would we as consumers know the difference?

How to stop unwanted mail from Readers Digest? Has anyone else been pestered by the Readers Digest with supposedly "free" things and competitions and if so, how did you get rid of them? I have already asked them not to send me any offers, as I am not interested, but I have had a few "free" things sent - two books and even an Orchid! I wouldnt mind, as they dont have my bank details and i certainly dont intend on sending them any money. I thought it all seemed quite harmless until recently they enclosed a "bill" for £17.99 . . . with no explantion of what it was for. I am waiting to hear back from Consumer Direct, but just wonder if anyone here has had a similar experience. I would obviously like to ignore the "bill", but am I somehow legally bound to pay it somehow? Any advice greatly appreciated guys, many thanks xx

Can you answers these cell question for background research on my science project? Why do some parts of a plant don't have chloroplast? What is a semipermeable cell membrane? what is the cell wall of a plant made of what does it do for a plant or a consumer? Why do baby chickens die if there is a tiny pinhole on the cell membrane? what part of the cell digests damaged cells? what is the difference between cheek cells and onion cells? what in celery helps you loose weight and not gain? thanx alot to who ever answers!

Do you honestly believe that raising the minimum wage is going to be beneficial? This morning I watched a segment by Good Morning America outlining the economic effects of a minimum wage hike. Consumer prices are going to increase, Americans' buying power will decrease, and possibly 1.1 million jobs could be destroyed as businesses try to digest the financial loss that a minimum wage increase will entail. The jobs politicians are trying to improve are going to be lost as companies compensate by cutting positions. I realize it sounds counterintuitive, but raising minimum wage isn't going to help, but hurt. Please tell me if you agree or not and defend your answer. Thanks

Would a Venus Flytrap be considerd a producer or a Composer? Thoose little plants that grow in the Carolinas, they ear bugs in there mouth life leaves, then digest them. They do eat the bugs but they make oxygen and food for other animals.... Would it be considerd a 1st order consumer or a producer?

what windows are better:1) Alside Excalibur, 2) Alside Ultramaxx,3)Silverline 8500 byAndersen,4)Simonton 5500? Trying to choose between the following: 1) Harvey Classic .30 U $5800, 2) Ultramaxx R10 .21 U $5255, 3) Alside Excalibur .30 U $4955, 4) Silverline 8500 .30 U $5531, and 5) Simonton 5500 and .30U. $4955, Ultramaxx has triple pane with Krypton gas. The other windows are double pane with Argon. The lightest window appeared to be the Silverline. The Alsides were the heaviest then Simonton and Harvey. Not sure how long I will keep the house. I understand that the Simonton is rated well. The Excalibur has the Consumer Digest award. Alside's include glass breakage warranty as does the Silverline. The house is small ranch house. Any opinions are to what windows are best? If the R10 is after the Ultramaxx name, does that mean it's warrantied through the retailer and not Alsides? THe Alside's site doesn't have a R10 after the name. The prices are for 15 windows. 11 double hung and 4 hopper. Pella came in at 6800 for their windows so they were eliminated from the top three prices. One company gave me the same price for the Excalbur as the Simonton. They told me to choose either window for the same price.

Where do I find out who and where an item is manufactured? E.g. Where are Silvertone Flutes made? My child is a second year band student. So far we have been renting instruments, but are concerned about purchasing a decent but not too expensive musical instrument. Is there a consumers' report or digest out there? Make and model, what to look for and watch out? Then where do I go to buy 'it'?

How much privacy are Americans willing to give up? Print E-mail story Most e-mailed Change text size Is Google's data grinder dangerous? It wants to know more about us than we know ourselves. By Andrew Keen, ANDREW KEEN is the author of "The Cult of the Amateur." ak@aftertv.com. July 12, 2007 WHAT DOES Google want? Having successfully become our personal librarian, Google now wants to be our personal oracle. It wants to learn all about us, know us better than we know ourselves, to transform itself from a search engine into a psychoanalyst's couch or a priest's confessional. Google's search engine is the best place to learn what Google wants. Type "Eric Schmidt London May 22" into Google, and you can read about a May interview the Google chief executive gave to journalists in London. Here is how he described what he hoped the search engine would look like in five years: "The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' And 'What job shall I take?' " Schmidt's goal is not inconsiderable: By 2012, he wants Google to be able to tell all of us what we want. This technology, what Google co-founder Larry Page calls the "perfect search engine," might not only replace our shrinks but also all those marketing professionals whose livelihoods are based on predicting — or guessing — consumer desires. Schmidt acknowledges that Google is still far from this goal. As he told the London journalists: "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don't know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google's expansion." So where is Google expanding? How is it planning to know more about us? Many — if not most — users don't read the user agreement and thus aren't aware that Google already stores every query we type in. The next stage is a personalized Web service called iGoogle. Schmidt, who perhaps not coincidentally sits on the board of Apple, regards its success as the key to knowing us better than we know ourselves. iGoogle is growing into a tightly-knit suite of services — personalized homepage, search engine, blog, e-mail system, mini-program gadgets, Web-browsing history, etc. — that together will create the world's most intimate information database. On iGoogle, we all get to aggregate our lives, consciously or not, so artificially intelligent software can sort out our desires. It will piece together our recent blog posts, where we've been online, our e-commerce history and cultural interests. It will amass so much information about each of us that eventually it will be able to logically determine what we want to do tomorrow and what job we want. The real question, of course, is whether what Google wants is what we want too. Do we really want Google digesting so much intimate data about us? Could iGoogle actually be a remix of "1984's" Room 101 — that Orwellian dystopia in which our most secret desires and most repressed fears are revealed? Any comparison with 20th century, top-down totalitarianism is, perhaps, a little fanciful. After all, nobody can force us to use iGoogle. And — in contrast to Yahoo and Microsoft (which have no limits on how long they hang on to our personal data) — Google has committed to retaining data for only 18 months. Still, if iGoogle turns out to be half as wise about each of us as Schmidt predicts, then this artificial intelligence will challenge traditional privacy rights as well as provide us with an excuse to deny responsibility for our own actions. What happens, for example, when the government demands access to our iGoogle records? And will we be able to sue iGoogle if it advises us to make an unwise career decision? Schmidt, I suspect, would like us to imagine Google as a public service, thereby affirming the company's "do no evil" credo. But Google is not our friend. Schmidt's iGoogle vision of the future is not altruistic, and his company is not a nonprofit group dedicated to the realization of human self-understanding. Worth more than $150 billion on the public market, Google is by far the dominant Internet advertising outlet — according to Nielsen ratings, it reaches about 70% of the global Internet audience. Just in the first quarter of 2007, Google's revenue from its online properties was up 76% from the previous year. Personal data are Google's most valuable currency, its crown jewels. The more Google knows our desires, the more targeted advertising it can serve up to us and the more revenue it can extract from these advertisers. What does Google really want? Google wants to dominate. Its proposed $3.1-billion acquisition of DoubleClick threatens to make the company utterly dominant in the online advertising business. The $1.65-billion acquisition of YouTube last year made it by far the dominant player in the online video market. And, with a personalized service like iGoogle, the company is seeking to become the algorithmic monopolist of our online behavior. So when Eric Schmidt says Google wants to know us better than we know ourselves, he is talking to his shareholders rather than us. As a Silicon Valley old-timer, trust me on this one. I know Google better than it knows itself.

Legally under Maine Law, do I need to install a oil tank when I have a new boiler installed? ? After consulting with a heating tech, I purchased a boiler and indirect hot water heater online from Pex Supply Co. It was a highly rated unit by consumer reports and digest etc. The heating tech has been in the business for years but after receiving the unit now wants to sub the install job out to another heating tech. This other tech showed up and immediately couldn't understand why I purchased this unit and just put me on the defense the entire time. He thought I should have purchased it through a local tech. why I just didn't go through a local tech (guess he couldn't understand that I wanted to save money-which is the reason for getting the effecient boiler in the first place) So this guys becomes a little pushy in that regard and starts saying that since he is replacing the boiler, he need to replace the oil tank. I asked him if it was a law, and he said yes. He said also it is a good idea anyway where there is sludge at the bottom of the tank. He tells me that he can install the 275 gallon tank for $1700. (Keeping in mind that I can purchase this tank myself from the local hardware store for less then $300..I am having some problems with all of this). I understand the theroy of re[placing the tank, but I doubt it is a law. I also thought that is why there are 2 filters and a screen on the tank and fuel lines to prevent the sludge from getting into the new boiler anyway. So instead of an expected install price of $2-3K, he is now pushing $5k or more.

Need help really bad Math.? 1.) Visa Card USA studied how frequently young consumers, ages 18 to 24, use plastic (debit and credit) cards in making purchases (Associated Press, January 16, 2006). The results of the study provided the following probabilities. The probability that a consumer uses a plastic card when making a purchase is .37. Given that the consumer uses a plastic card, there is a .19 probability that the consumer is 18 to 24 years old. Given that the consumer uses a plastic card, there is a .81 probability that the consumer is more than 24 years old. U.S. Census Bureau data show that 14% of the consumer population is 18 to 24 years old. a.)Given the consumer is 18 to 24 years old, what is the probability that the consumer uses a plastic card (to 4 decimals)? b.)Given the consumer is over 24 years old, what is the probability that the consumer uses a plastic card (to 4 decimals)? 2.) The prior probabilities for events A1 and A2 are P(A1) = .40 and P(A2) = .60. It is also known that P(A1 (intersects the upside down U) A2) = 0. Suppose P(B | A1) = .20 and P(B | A2) = .05. a.)Compute P(B). 3.)Small cars get better gas mileage, but they are not as safe as bigger cars. Small cars accounted for 18% of the vehicles on the road, but accidents involving small cars led to 11,898 fatalities during a recent year (Reader's Digest, May 2000). Assume the probability a small car is involved in an accident is .18. The probability of a fatality in an accident involving a small car is .128 and the probability of a fatality in an accident involving a bigger car is .05. Suppose you learn about an accident involving a fatality. a.) What is the probability a small car was involved in the accident (to 2 decimals)? 4.)In an article about investment growth, Money magazine reported that drug stocks show powerful long-term trends and offer investors unparalleled potential for strong and steady gains. The federal Health Care Financing Administration supports this conclusion through its forecast that annual prescription drug expenditures will reach $366 billion by 2010, up from $117 billion in 2000. Many individuals age 65 and older rely heavily on prescription drugs. For this group, 82% take prescription drugs regularly, 55% take three or more prescriptions regularly, and 40% currently use five or more prescriptions. In contrast, 49% of people under age 65 take prescriptions regularly, with 37% taking three or more prescriptions regularly and 28% using five or more prescriptions (Money, September 2001). The U.S. Census Bureau reports that of the 281,421,906 people in the United States, 34,991,753 are age 65 years and older (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000). a.)Given a person uses five or more prescriptions, compute the probability that the person is age 65 or older (to 2 decimals). 5.)A study of 31,000 hospital admissions in New York State found that 4% of the admissions led to treatment-caused injuries. One-seventh of these treatment-caused injuries resulted in death, and one-fourth were caused by negligence. Malpractice claims were filed in one out of 7.5 cases involving negligence, and payments were made in one out of every two claims. a.)What is the probability a person admitted to the hospital will die from a treatment caused injury (to 3 decimals)? 6.)An oil company purchased an option on land in Alaska. Preliminary geologic studies assigned the following prior probabilities. P(high-quality oil)= .50 P(medium-quality oil)= .20 P(No oil)= .30 a.) After 200 feet of drilling on the first well, a soil test is taken. The probabilities of finding the particular type of soil identified by the test follow. P(soil | high-quality oil) =.20 P(soil | medium-quality oil) =.80 P(soil | no oil) =.20 Given the soil found in the test, use Bayes' theorem to compute the following revised probabilities (to 2 decimals). P(high-quality oil | soil) = P(medium-quality oil | soil) = P(no oil | soil) = b.) What is the new probability of finding oil (to 2 decimals)? c.) What quality oil is most likely to be found, according to the revised probabilities? any help on any problem would be greatly appreciated PLEASE and think you even if it's only half of an answer.

Food pairing for easy digestion? Does anyone out there know of any key food pairings or healthy orders of eating different types of foods? Example: Eating fruit on it's own is good since fruit is digested quickly vs. eating fruit with something like meat which can take days to breakdown in your stomach while the fruit you've consumed starts to rot before even being digested. I've heard to not mix meats and starches also (I'm a vegan so this is sort if irrelevaent but good to tell my friends who are meat consumers). Is there anybody familiar with this(ese) sorts of concepts and can give me any other examples of pairing which help food to digest easier and more quickly?

i need help on a research paper !!!!? i have this paper due on drivers ed and i have no idea how to get started on this , i am going to copy and paste the instructions for the paper below , if you guys could help in any way possible that would be great :) Your Aunt Crazy has just hit the lottery and has decided to give you money to purchase a car.  She has decided to give you $500.00 a month towards your purchase.  This money needs to be used to purchase a car and pay for insurance (“Your Fault” is not an insurance company).  You now have the opportunity to buy any car that will fit into your budget.  Before you begin, you are asked to trade in any car in your family to help with your finances.  Enjoy the shopping experience!!   Task Your cover will consist of a title.  You may use any title you wish.  This page must also include your name, class period and date.  Be creative and design a cover that is colorful and interesting. Your second page will be the specifics of your new car.  This will include all of the options and the price that were quoted by the dealer.  You may add a picture of this car if you can find one. The third page will be specifics on the vehicle that you traded in, including the price that was suggested by Kelley Blue Book or Edmunds. The fourth page will explain the payment for your new car including the insurance that you will purchase for the car and the monthly breakdown for both payments. The fifth page will be economy information on your car such as mileage in city and open roads.  Also included on this page will be a safety rating for your trade-in vehicle and the new car that you are purchasing.  You must provide two examples of cars that have the safest rating and two that have the poorest ratings.  Give a brief explanation on why two cars you chose have a poor rating.  Also on this page, you are to explain the "Lemon Law" and provide information on this law that protects consumers. The sixth page will be dedicated to scams.  You are to search the resources to find 4 dealer scams and 4 insurance scams that you should be aware of when purchasing a car and insurance. The seventh and final page will consist of a detailed explanation on how to jump start your car.  You can also find this information in the resources provided for you.  Lastly, you must give credit for information that you borrowed from a source.  Always give credit where credit is due!! Resources Remember to use the sites search option if you are unable to find the information that you are looking for. Trade In Sites HYPERLINK "http://www.edmunds.com/" Edmunds HYPERLINK "http://www.kbb.com/" Kelley' Blue Book             HYPERLINK "http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/" National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Automobile Safety Ratings/Crash Tests HYPERLINK "http://carbuyingtips.com/" Car Buying Tips - Lemon Law Information/Dealer Scams/Jump Start/Loan Spreadsheets HYPERLINK "http://www.calcbuilder.com/cgi-bin/calcs/AUT5.cgi/aol_auto" Calculate Financing - Gives monthly payment for a car being financed HYPERLINK "http://rd.com" Reader's Digest HYPERLINK "http://rd.com" - Safety ratings and other important car information   FAQ's - Frequently Asked Questions 1.  Must I use the recommended resources to complete this assignment?         You may use any web resources that you would like to use.  Just keep in mind that the sites that you choose must be within the guidelines. 2.  Do I have to credit my resources?         Yes you must!!  It is very important to give credit where credit is due....Make sure you copy and paste the web sites address of all sites that you use on the last page of your assignment.  This includes any pictures or text that you borrowed from another source. 3.  Can I use a digital camera or scanner for parts of my project?         You most certainly can!!  Use anything that you want to put pictures in your project.  The more creative you are, the better your grade will be.

What is the problem with drinking cows milk? Okay, I would love to hear the answer from a nutritionist or doctor. Personally, I enjoy drinking milk (skim, please) and find it very confusing when I hear things like "Humans aren't meant to drink milk." I've been consuming milk my whole life. My family has, as well as my friends. I know milk is a very common beverage, but all of a sudden I'm getting this information that I shouldn't be drinking it. Apparently we lack the enzymes to digest is or whatever, and since milk is acidic our body regulates that by removing calcium from our bones causing osteoperosis... blah, blah, blah. I know that it's better to get calcium from leafy greens like spinach, but is it really so bad to drink milk? I like the taste. I like it in my cereal and tea. Should I be drinking something else? And what about soy milk (I also like to drink Silk Light). Apparently soy is bad for you now too! So I can't drink cow's milk or soy milk. Almond milk and rice milk is so darned expensive... should I just put water in my cereal then? Does anybody have some real scientific evidence that something is wrong here? Or is this just the dairy industry and soy industry throwing things in our faces to confuse us consumers? I think what I'm asking is more of a... why do people get so upset when talking about drinking cows milk. As in, I've been on food blogs where people say that it's wrong because only baby cows should drink cows milk. And that we are only fed human milk for about a year. Has anybody been told this? And does anyone have any evidence that these "medical" situations I've described above are true.

Ok creative types, help me out. Name for my website? I want to try to come up with something that represents my goals and beliefs on my website. I am a techie person who believes that "You shouldn't have to be an expert to be safe on a computer" (my slogan). My site is about consumer issues (issues like rebates, extended warranties, store policies) and citizen issues (laws, potentially dangerous (to privacy anyway) technologies) etc. The goal of my blog is to bring people snippets of news and current data so they don't have to read all the industry sources to get the major points. My site is designed to summarize issues and provide information in easy to digest ways. Most of all, my site is (and will always be) totally ad-service free. Anything you see that looks like an ad is a personal recommendation, not random. Anyway, some names and ideas I've run through include: Techbits - Computer tech compressed for regular people Uhh... I guess that's all I could think of so far...

Help me please, biology? I will post an article, then below a paraghaph written based on the article and information it provided. I need you to see if I got the science on my paragraph correct, and yes I know the grammar is bad, its mu rough draft. The liver stores glucose by converting it to glycogen. It holds perhaps a 12-hour supply of glucose in its glycogen. Once you finish digesting all of the carbohydrates that you last ate, the liver starts converting its stored glycogen back into glucose and releases it to maintain glucose in the blood. Lipolysis also starts breaking down fat in the fat cells and releasing fatty acids into the bloodstream. Tissues that do not need to use glucose for energy (for example, muscle cells) start burning the fatty acids. This reduces the glucose demand so that nerve cells get the glucose. Once the liver runs out of glycogen, the liver converts to a process called gluconeogenesis. Gluconeogenesis turns amino acids into glucose. The liver then begins producing ketone bodies from fatty acids being made available in the blood by lipolysis. Brain and nerve cells convert over from being pure consumers of glucose to partial consumers of ketone bodies for energy. This process is called ketosis -- which is why the Atkins plan is also known as a ketogenic diet. The theory that the Atkins diet is flawed and it has unpleasant side affects. Science behind the theory is as such; when someone consumes carbohydrates, it is broken done into simple sugars called glucose. The liver absorbs these simple sugars, and regulates some to be released in to the blood stream to “maintain glucose in the blood” (health.howstuffworks.com). Fat is then broken down into fatty acids and released “into the bloodstream”( health.howstuffworks.com). Muscle tissue then proceeds to burn the fatty acids. This is the point when the Atkins diet theory steps in. If more carbohydrates are not consumed and the liver runs out of glucose to burn, it instead turns amino acid (the building blocks of muscle) “into glucose” (health.howstuffworks.com). This allows the liver to begin turning fatty acids, the broken down version of fat, into “ketone bodies” (health.howstuffworks.com). blood stream to “maintain glucose in the blood” (health.howstuffworks.com). Fat is then broken down into fatty acids and released “into the bloodstream”( health.howstuffworks.com). Muscle tissue then proceeds to burn the fatty acids. This is the point when the Atkins diet theory steps in. If more carbohydrates are not consumed and the liver runs out of glucose to burn, it instead turns amino acid (the building blocks of muscle) “into glucose” (health.howstuffworks.com). This allows the liver to begin turning fatty acids, the broken down version of fat, into “ketone bodies” (health.howstuffworks.com). The brain, which before was only able to use the energy from gluclose is then able to use the “ketone bodies for energy” (health.howstuffworks.com). However, there are several undesirable effects of this process that is not mentioned. For one, amino acids are not available to build muscle once they are converted to glucose. As a result, he growth of, and performance of muscles is hinderd, which is not only unpleasant but hindering for weight loss as the greater amount of muscle one has the more fat they can burn.

Citations in text help? I wrote a paper over animal experimentation and have my bibliography done, but don't quite understand how to cite my sources in the text. All of my sources are online with no authors except for one. And i use the sources multiple times. There are no page numbers obviously, so how would i cite the sources in the text. THANKS! "/Companies That Do Test on Animals // A-Z." Caring Consumer // Search for Cruelty-Free Companies and Products. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <http://search.caringconsumer.com/search_list_icons.aspx?Donottest=-1&Product=0&Dotest=8>. "Cosmetics Q&A: Animal Testing." U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/CosmeticsQA/ucm167216.htm>. "Facts: Cosmetic Testing." In Defense of Animals. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <http://www.idausa.org/facts/costesting.html>. Hurley, Jennifer A. Opposing Viewpoints Digests - Animal Rights (paperback edition) (Opposing Viewpoints Digests). New York: Greenhaven, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Pasadena Memorial HS 30 Sept. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/>.

Biology lab question: observing cells. Need someone really good at Biology.? Today I have a lab, we discover about dry cork cells, as you know, they are dead, and dry, I have some labs question that i like you to check it out. 1/ What specific cell part was all that was left on the cork? cell wall. 2/ In 1665, Robert Hooke, an English scientist, reported an interesting observation while looking through a microscope at corrk. " I took a good clear piece of cork, and with a penknife sharpened as keen as razor, i cut a piece of it off, then examining it with a microscope, me thought I could perceive it to appear a little porous, much like a honeycomb, but that the pores were not regular."" A/ What were the honeycomb units at which Hooke was looking? the death plant cell. B/ What specific cell part was all that was left of the cork? cell wall. 3/ What carbonhydrate makes up this part? I think that would be "carbon". (I don't know this answer to this question i am just guessing, my teacher give me the hint that, something that can (or can't) digest, start with a C). Are cork cells part of a producer or a consumer? consumer. PLZ PLZ GUYS HELP ME CHECK IT. I NEED HELP THE MOST WITH NUMBER 3, HELP.

MLA in text citation? I wrote a paper over animal experimentation and have my bibliography done, but don't quite understand how to cite my sources in the text. All of my sources are online with no authors except for one. And i use the sources multiple times. There are no page numbers obviously, so how would i cite the sources in the text. THANKS! "/Companies That Do Test on Animals // A-Z." Caring Consumer // Search for Cruelty-Free Companies and Products. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <>.http://search.caringconsumer.com/search_list_icons.aspx?Donottest=-1&Product=0&Dotest=8>. "Cosmetics Q&A: Animal Testing." U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <>.http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/CosmeticsQA/ucm167216.htm>. "Facts: Cosmetic Testing." In Defense of Animals. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <>.http://www.idausa.org/facts/costesting.html>. Hurley, Jennifer A. Opposing Viewpoints Digests - Animal Rights (paperback edition) (Opposing Viewpoints Digests). New York: Greenhaven, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Pasadena Memorial HS 30 Sept. 2009. <>.http://find.galegroup.com/>.

Rate the first paragraph of this essay...let me know what you think? This is a rough draft of the first paragraph of my college essay. It is an opener... soon the essay gets into how therapeutic and inspirational singing is for me. if you get bored and think its too long...let me know what should be cut. And if you take your time to read this... thank you so very much! People are born as impressionable blocks of clay. Figuratively they are handed down on a sort of assembly line. This assembly line is never terminating; switching trajectory and gear at a moment’s notice, and often stalling throughout a lifetime. This conveyor belt is fueled by our home life, race, nationality, neighborhood, language, and society. When I hear someone boasting about being self-defined, I can’t help but to be contrary. No matter who you are, I tell them “you are what you eat”. Every organism that has ever sprung from this earth is a consumer, whether literally consuming nutriment or something much more. We are conditioned by our family; we digest our mother’s affability or our father’s secular path, but these are just superficial examples. The ones closest to us taught us not only how to walk and talk, but how to think and when to feel what. Long before we are conscience of our wants and needs, living parameters were established and we are confined to a thought process. In my opinion, options for the way we live our lives are almost infinite because we have been subject to so many ideologies, but ultimately we will choose what we feel is most comfortable; expression of free will is to work between intangible walls. The point being, people are built to be broken then built up and broken once more, and this is a cycle of growing. Over time we accumulate layer upon layer of emotional scarring. And, I believe we are mostly defined by inhibition and the struggle to overcome it. We almost always lose the battle against ourselves, but doesn’t it feel terrific when a blue moon rises and we win. We need an indiscriminate outlet to vent into, let ourselves melt into. It wouldn’t matter if we preferred socializing as a form of therapy, or mastering the art of glassblowing; without a sense of liberation from our day to day lives, we might lose it. Thanks guys !!!!!!!! so !!! much!!!!! Now ...ill scrap most of that ! and simplify ! i gotcha !

What could be the cause of this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071104/hl_nm/heart_arteries_dc It could very well be what they are eating, like a lot of foods and drinks containing crystalline glucose and high fructose corn syrup. Read about it! These artificial sweeteners are only digested in the liver (and contains arsenic), whereas natural sugar metabolizes throughout the bodies cells. And people are devouring this poison daily. http://www.sugar.org/consumers/sweet_by_nature.asp?id=277 Check out the ingredients in that stuff! http://www.fructose.org/facts.asp They've only been using this stuff heavily in the last 15 or so years, so there's no way of knowing what it's long term effects are, or what it could have already done to the generations ahead.

should we make all milk into Yogurt in the US? Pasteurized milk isn't good for anyone. There were tests long ago, but the milk industry is so powerful they have managed to quell any governmental analysis of milk as food, and what there is out there suggests strongly that milk is a health detriment to anyone who drinks it. There is nothing but conjecture and cherry picked results from other studies and statistics to the contrary, and those are put together as half truths. The exception is Yogurt, as it is processed by bacteria and broken down so that the human one stomach (as opposed to the cows 4 stomach system which can make good food from grass, while we can't) which can't digest milk, and nothing gets benefits of milk after pasteurization, studies on cats have been done long ago, and the results were conclusive that pasteurization destroys the nutritional properties of milk, though they did quite well on raw milk, which seems to contradict the information that people can't get much out of milk anyway, but we do get some fat proteins. Now I know that food policing is reprehensible, but so it allowing an industry to pay off the government for favorable treatment which misleads the consumer. People should at least KNOW that pasteurized milk and cheese is detrimental to their health, as is processed sugar, Any good, points of view on this question? I mean the kind not from brain washed idiots who believe everything everyone else in the dumbed down crowds accept without thinking, and what they see on the idiot box?

Why do you need more money? Here we go again. Maybe we should let a major bank "fail". After all they really don't need the money. And nobody knows what they did with the first 350 billion.-CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Bank of America is asking for a second dip into the $700 billion in bailout money Congress set aside for banks, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Sources tell the paper that B of A needs help to digest Merrill Lynch, and that the Treasury is willing to help. That acquisition went through January 1. Merrill Lynch lost far more money than was anticipated in its final independent quarter. It comes at a time when Bank of America is weakened by the economic climate. “They have two major integrations to accomplish, they are laying off 42,500 people across the entire franchise at the same time they are dealing with consumer credit quality issues and the deepest recession since the Great Depression,” UNCC Finance Professor Tony Plath said. “The bank is not at risk for failure, but boy, do they have a lot of work to do.” a link to the article and it's commentshttp://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-011409-mrn-bofabailouts.3ab838e.html?npc

What kind of dry cat food should I feed my Persian cat? He was on Nutro... I don't trust them since they took the recall info off their website when i needed to check on a new bag of food i bought... So I took the Nutro back... and at the moment he is eating the old Nutro mixed with Meow Mix Wholesome Goodness. Before I switch him to the Meow Mix completely I wanted to figure out if I should feed him something better. Can cats digest corn? I know whole grain corn is the #1 ingredient in the meow mix.... but it wasnt much better if at all better with Nutro. I was going to see about Blue Spa cat food but noticed on Consumer Affairs website that a few cats have died. It seems like a bunch of the premium brands have been recalled and that scares me. I just want to find my cat Harvie a really good food that he deserves without by-products. Please help!! I am adding another persian cat to our family soon and would like to have the food situation taken care of before I get her. Thanks in advance, Teresa

Do you agree that beer and porn are healthy for you ? Someone just gave me this answer in response to my Q..why not tax beer and porn and not soda and cigs...DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS ANSWER SHE GAVE ME.... lmao.. I DO NOT Because both porn and beer are healthy. Smoking and soda aren't. (Curse my cigarettes!). The tax isn't stupid, even if I don't agree with people taxing my vices. People should have a right to their own bodies. Vice taxes are just a way of constraining people, so they can get healthier and work more... I believe this is why weed is still illegal too (not because of health issues, but, if you smoke you won't be able to concentrate at anything anymore the next day, unlike hangovers that still allow you to think, with all the discomfort...) Health+energy+frustration=more work... Unlike soda, beer is a healthy drink. Brewer's yeast is known to be a rich source of nutrients; therefore, as expected, beer can contain significant amounts of nutrients, including magnesium, selenium, potassium, phosphorus, biotin, and B vitamins. In fact, beer is sometimes referred to as "liquid bread". A 2005 Japanese study found that low alcohol beer may possess strong anti-cancer properties. Another study found nonalcoholic beer to mirror the cardiovascular benefits associated with moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages. Pornography has long been considered to be one of the main motivators of major technological inventions, from the camera to the worldwide Web. Its effects on human health and sexuality have also been, and likely will always be, hotly debated. But new research out of the University of Montreal suggests that pornography is so widely digested, and with such a seemingly low correlation to "pathological" behavior, that it is grossly over-demonized. The research is funded by the Interdisciplinary Research Center on Family Violence and Violence Against Women. Simon Louis Lajeunesse, a postdoctoral student and professor at the School of Social Work, set out to examine the effects of pornography on men, which would involve studying men in their 20s who've never consumed pornography. "We couldn't find any," he says. Still at an early stage of the study, Lajeunesse has so far recruited 20 heterosexual male university students who, as consumers of pornography, are representative of, well, heterosexual male university students. The objective of the study, he says, "is to observe the impact of pornography on the sexuality of men, and how it shapes their perception of men and women." Subjects shared their sexual history, beginning with their first experience with pornography, which for most boys happens by the age of 10. The research so far shows that 90 percent of pornography is consumed online and 10 percent through video stores. On average, men who are single watch porn about three times a week for about 40 minutes, while men who are in relationships watch about 1.7 times a week for about 20 minutes. All test subjects report that they support gender equality, and that they feel victimized by rhetoric that demonizes pornography. "Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible," Lajeunesse says. "Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star." (Naomi Wolf has famously argued the opposite.) Also of note is that this study only sets out to investigate the effects of porn on men. The effect on women, their sexuality, and how they view their own bodies and the desires of their partners is another story altogether. Source(s):

Need fast help on some biology questions please?????? 13. Which structures allow oxygen to move from the lungs into the bloodstream? (Points: 5) veins bronchi alveoli arteries 14. Which of the following is a type of muscle tissue in the human body? (Points: 5) humoral digestive cardiac pulmonary 15. Which activity occurs when a flowering plant reproduces? (Points: 5) Egg cells move near the petals to catch the pollen. Sperm cells swim through the plant stem to reach the egg cells. A fertilized egg forms an embryo that is stored inside a seed. Pollen grains travel into the fruit to fertilize the embryo. 16. When something touches you, neurons in your nervous system carry the information to your brain. In what form is information carried through the nervous system? (Points: 5) in the form of myosin and actin as carrier proteins as enzymes as electrical and chemical signals 17. Two muscles are required to move a bone. What happens inside muscles when they contract? (Points: 5) Myosin heads attach to actin-binding sites and pull on actin filaments. Calcium combines with ATP to produce sarcomeres. Actin produces myosin and ATP. Calcium produces contractions. 18. Which statement best describes the difference between the life cycles of plants and animals? (Points: 5) Plants have a two-part life cycle, spending part of their life in a diploid phase and part in a haploid phase; humans spend their lives in a diploid phase and produce gametes that are haploid. Plants have a one-part life cycle and are entirely diploid; humans spend their lives in a haploid phase. Different plants have a different number of phases in their life cycle; humans always have two phases in their life cycle. Plants have a one-part life cycle and are entirely haploid; humans have a two-part life cycle, spending part of their life in a diploid phase and part in a haploid phase. 19. What is the function of the human immune system? (Points: 5) to regulate enzymes involved in growth and development to produce red blood cells within bone marrow to defend the body from invading pathogens to regulate the production of hormones within the body 20. Which of the following is an abiotic factor you might find in a desert? (Points: 5) a primary consumer sand a top predator a snake 21. Plants and animals require energy to live. Which statement best describes the difference between the way plants and animals obtain energy? (Points: 5) Producers such as plants do not require a source of energy; animals must consume food for energy. Plants produce ATP during photosynthesis; animals produce ATP during digestion. Both plants and animals absorb food from their surroundings. Plants produce glucose that can be broken down by cellular respiration; animals digest foods to obtain glucose for use in cellular respiration. 22. Which two factors would a biologist need to know to identify an ecosystem? (Points: 5) the biotic and abiotic factors in the area the populations and individuals that live in the area the weather and climate in the area the plants and animals in the area 23. A biologist is studying a food chain in an ecosystem. In the food chain, wolves eat foxes, the foxes eat rabbits, and the rabbits eat grasses. Which of those four groups of organisms is on the trophic level that holds the least amount of energy? (Points: 5) the foxes the wolves the rabbits the grasses 24. Which statement describes part of the water cycle? (Points: 5) Water from outer space evaporates and falls to the earth as precipitation. Water from the atmosphere is transpired by clouds. Once water enters the ocean it remains there as saltwater. Plants give off water through transpiration. 25. Which organisms hold the largest amount of energy in most ecosystems? (Points: 5) producers secondary consumers tertiary consumers decomposers

If your good at science... Please help!? Energy can be neither created or destroyed. Every organism needs energy to perform life processes. How does the energy stored in a consumer get released back into the environment? This is the question I have to answer for my 7th grade science review and I am stuck. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with animals eating and digesting but... thats all I know, if that's even right, so please, help me with this question.

concern with high fructrose syrup in products? This is the answer Gatoraid has on their web site on the use of High Fructrose corn syrup in their basic gatorade product. Do you agree? Does Gatorade include High Fructose Corn Syrup? Why or Why not? The High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is in Gatorade as a source of two of the three carbohydrates. HFCS contributes glucose and fructose. Sucrose is the third sugar. All are present in specific amounts that research has shown assures rapid fluid absorption, optimal energy delivery and great taste. High Fructose Corn Syrup and sucrose provide the ideal level of sweetness, fast absorption, and carbohydrate for energy burning that Gatorade has always delivered. This formula provides the most efficacious product for the cost to the consumer. We could use other sources of the same sugars – glucose and fructose – but it would cost dramatically more and have no additional benefit. Scientific experts believe there is no scientific proof to show that there is any difference between the effects on the body of HFCS and sucrose. Research shows that your body digests and uses carbohydrates from high fructose corn syrup the same way it digests other sweeteners like table sugar.1 1 American Medical Association. Report 3 of the Council on Science and Public Health, 2008.

Beauty products that really work? consumers digest has a magazine that tests and rates cars and appliances and so on. the funds for the research and the printing of the magazine comes from the consumers purchasing it. all this has nothing to do w/ the companies paying them to pick there own product by bribes, advertisements and etc. My question is this: are there any such magazines, webs etc. that offer the same honest tests and results on beauty products such as wrinkle creams, shampoos, conditioners, etc. and the ingredients that really are the best? I absolutely 100% know and believe that NAME BRAND PRODUCTS are simply that, JUST A NAME YOU ARE PAYING FOR. Even the "testimonies" from so called dermatologists are B.S. They are paid to say what they say. If you're going to answer this, please notice what i am asking for IS NOT personal opinions of particular products such as Mary Kay (total over priced junk, I used to be a "consultant") etc. etc. but rather documentation of comparisons and results of products

Beauty products that really work? consumers digest has a magazine that tests and rates cars and appliances and so on. the funds for the research and the printing of the magazine comes from the consumers purchasing it. all this has nothing to do w/ the companies paying them to pick there own product by bribes, advertisements and etc. My question is this: are there any such magazines, webs etc. that offer the same honest tests and results on beauty products such as wrinkle creams, shampoos, conditioners, etc. and the ingredients that really are the best? I absolutely 100% know and believe that NAME BRAND PRODUCTS are simply that, JUST A NAME YOU ARE PAYING FOR. Even the "testimonies" from so called dermatologists are B.S. They are paid to say what they say. If you're going to answer this, please notice what i am asking for IS NOT personal opinions of particular products such as Mary Kay (total over priced junk, I used to be a "consultant") etc. etc. but rather documentation of comparisons and results of products

Beauty products that really work? consumers digest has a magazine that tests and rates cars and appliances and so on. the funds for the research and the printing of the magazine comes from the consumers purchasing it. all this has nothing to do w/ the companies paying them to pick there own product by bribes, advertisements and etc. My question is this: are there any such magazines, webs etc. that offer the same honest tests and results on beauty products such as wrinkle creams, shampoos, conditioners, etc. and the ingredients that really are the best? I absolutely 100% know and believe that NAME BRAND PRODUCTS are simply that, JUST A NAME YOU ARE PAYING FOR. Even the "testimonies" from so called dermatologists are B.S. They are paid to say what they say. If you're going to answer this, please notice what i am asking for IS NOT personal opinions of particular products such as Mary Kay (total over priced junk, I used to be a "consultant") etc. etc. but rather documentation of comparisons and results of products

Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....? "MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated their effort. The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk. Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese, butter, and yogurt. Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools. Cow's milk became "normal." You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it makes them ill. There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader: If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood. Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution? I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject of milk. Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies. How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer. I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'. Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. WHAT IS MILK? Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning. IS ALL MILK THE SAME? Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal? Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one. Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans. Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations. Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves. Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect? In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared. In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding. In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk. WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that's how. The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32). Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows. As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the safest product we have." Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990). What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces. Let's focus in on this because it’s critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per billion. One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, it’s in the study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc. IT GETS WORSE Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it-- dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half the levels of contamination). A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems. Just scan these titles: 1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906 3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15 There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are transmitted to the infant. A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk- borne infections and contaminants, and said: Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end? In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented: It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases. In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his quotation: I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved. OTHER PROBLEMS Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions. All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and diabetes risk.". Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies to cows’ milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study: We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than normal. The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to do with the disease. The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: "It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein" that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association in the past? LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF! I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation-- if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014). This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public Health. As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern California. What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles? If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall. An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great. You're on you own. What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one: 1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985 In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990. One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)! An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930. Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his article follow: The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane. This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause disease. Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma. There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob- Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote." The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However, there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows." The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929- 30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must. The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993. A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in the animal kingdom. OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE? Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators. Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine. Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk. For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference. There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects: Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality. WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk? It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins). Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H egsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below. Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk. For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don’t look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet. To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis. If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone health. THE PROTEIN MYTH Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in. As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein- -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein. For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco. First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary! Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals. IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE? Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new- borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years. What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose. Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it? Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people. How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.) What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s). One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders. The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy. LOW FAT One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it?" The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water! "Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same calcium concentration as milk. SUMMARY To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described "to die for". I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s. So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and safety. Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows' milk. You can too. It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food." I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won't cost anything. What can you lose? es esta pagina link http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html The most important information dissemination my. Not that, but I can make your text too long jajaja. If I write bad is that I am leading a translator jaja

Can you name some reasons to go vegetarian? ONE HUNDRED & ONE REASONS TO GO VEGETARIAN People Land Air Water Efficiency Animals Health PEOPLE Every year in the UK we feed our livestock enough food to feed 250,000,000 people while in the world 30,000,000 people die of starvation 20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater Every 3 seconds a child dies of starvation somewhere in the world If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain) If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India) Intensification in animal farming has displaced 1,000,000's of people from their traditional lands - eg. indigenous people in south & central america, native americans in north america & crofters in Great Britain - this is continuing today People displaced from their lands into cities succumb to dietary deficiency, diseases, parasites & opportunistic diseases In third world countries 1 in 10 babies die before their first birthday The UK imports £46,000,000 worth of grain from third world countries to feed our livestock Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation 1,000,000,000 people in the west gorging on meat & dairy leave 1,000,000,000 to waste away & 3,500,000,000 teeter on the brink LAND If they continue to clear American forests to raise cattle at the present rate, in 50 years there will be none left 1 acre yields 165 lbs of beef or 20,000 lbs of potatoes 8/10 of cultivated land in the UK is used to grow food for animals (14,732,000 hectares) It takes 16lbs of high protein soya to produce 1 lb of beef Since 1945 in the UK we have lost 95% of flower meadows, 50% of ancient woodlands, 40% of heathlands, 50% of wet lands & 224,000 km of hedgerows all due to animal farming Pressure on land due to meat farming leads to soil erosion 6billion tons/year in the USA If everyone went vegetarian upto 90% of land used for animal farming could be taken out of production & used to replant woodlands, leisure activities etc. 25% of Central america's forests have been destroyed for cattle grazing since 1960 Between 1966-1983 38% of the Amazon rain forest was destroyed for cattle grazing 90% of cattle ranches established on cleared forest land go bankrupt in less than 8 years as the land becomes barren due to nutrient loss & overgrazing Overgrazing by cattle is destroying the land & increasing desertification, nearly 430 million acres in the USA alone has suffered a 25-50% reduction in yield since first grazed An inch of topsoil takes 200-1000 years to develop - yet in the USA they have lost around 1/3 of their prime topsoil in 200 years (around 7 inches) due to animal farming Land will be lost due to rises in sea level due to global warming due to animal farming AIR The destruction of the rainforest by cattle farmers is destroying the lungs of the planet & reducing the worlds capacity to replenish our oxygen supply The 1,300,000,000 cattle in the world emit 60,000,000 tons of methane per year (methane is a greenhouse gas & leads to global warming) Burning of forests, grasslands & agricultural waste associated with animal farming releases 50-100,000,000 tons of methane per year Combining these figures, 25% of methane emissions are due to animal farming (not including the billions of sheep, pigs & poultry so the real figure is much higher) Fertilizer used to grow crops to feed to animals releases nitrous oxide - thought to account for 6% of the greenhouse effect Fertilizer, weedkiller & pesticides sprayed on crops enter the atmosphere creating a noxious carcinogenic cocktail CFCs are released into the air from refrigeration units used to store decomposing flesh (meat), milk & butter - CFCs are destroy the ozone layer Ammonia from animal urine also pollutes the atmosphere CO2 is released by burning oil & petrol in lorries, ships, abattoirs, dairies, factories etc. associated with meat & dairy production Emissions from large chemical plants which produce fertilizer, weedkiller & other agricultural chemicals are also poisoning our air WATER 25 gallons of water to produce 1lb of wheat & 2500 gallons to produce 1lb of meat UK farm animals produce 200,000,000 tonnes of slurry (liquid excrement) every year, the majority of which ends up in our rivers Bloody waste water from abattoirs ends up in our rivers In the USA every second humans produce 12,000 lbs of effluent while farmed animals produce 250,000 lbs Nitrates & pesticides used on crops grown to feed livestock end up in our rivers Meat & dairy farming uses 70 litres of water per day per animal in the UK or 159,250,000,000 litres per year in total The water used to produce 10 lbs of steak is equivalent to the average consumption of water for an entire household for an entire year Depletion of groundwater reserves to grow crops for animals & to supply abattoirs will lead to greater water shortages Aquafers (stores of underground water) in the San Joaquin valley in the USA are being drained at the rate of 500,000,000,000 gallons/year to produce meat 18% of all agricultural land in the world is irrigated & as global warming increases (partly due to animal farming) it will cost $200,000,000 to keep these systems going The water used to produce a 1000 lb beef steer is enough to float a Destroyer battleship The liquid waste from the various parts of the meat & dairy industry flow into the rivers & from there into the seas polluting them & encouraging huge algal blooms to grow EFFICIENCY To produce 1calorie of energy from meat takes 60 calories of petrol, whereas growing grains & legumes to directly feed people produces 20 calories for each calorie of fuel used ( thats 1200 times more efficient) Meat & dairy farming uses billions of gallons of oil to run tractors, fuel ships & lorries (to move animal feed & animals), pump billions of gallons of water to irrigate fields & run slaughterhouses, power refrigeration units to prevent the corpses from decomposing & to power sewage plants to clean up some of the pollution produced Cattle convert only 6% of their energy intake (mainly grains & soya) into flesh, the remaining 94% is wasted as heat, movement (which is why they keep many animals in very close confinement), hair, bones, faeces etc 1lb of beef takes 1 gallon of petrol to produce A family of four eating beef for a year uses enough petrol to run a car for 6 months (obviously depending on how far you drive!) If the full ecological cost of meat was passed onto the consumer - the price would be quadrupled (at least) The EC spends œ100,000,000's to subsidise animal production resulting in lakes of unwanted milk & mountains of unwanted meat & butter. This money could be better spent encouraging organic fruit, vegetable & grain production In the USA in 1979 145,000,000 tons of crops were fed to cattle resulting in only 21million tons of animal bodies - the cost of the wasted crops was $20,000,000,000 Between 1950 & 1985 grain production in Europe & the USA increased massively but 2/3 was fed to animals 70% of all grain is fed to animals Eating vast quantities of animal flesh, eggs, milk & butter is a luxury that most of the planet can not afford ANIMALS Fishing with drift (and other modern) nets weakens & destroys ecosystems by indiscriminately killing billions of sea creatures & disrupting the sea bed Fishermen's nets kill 10 times as many other animals as the fish they are hoping to catch Fish caught in nets die an agonising slow death of suffocation Each year 15,000,000,000 land animals are slaughtered for food & an unknown but much larger number of sea creatures (including 1000's of dolphins caught accidentally) Chickens are crammed into battery cages with upto 3 other birds, they are unable to even spread their wings & many can not even stand up Unwanted male chicks (because they can't lay eggs) are gassed or pulped while their sisters go to the battery sheds Chicks are debeaked without anaesthetic to prevent them injuring each other in the unnaturally confined conditions they are kept in - this is equivalent to having your fingernails pulled out without anaesthetic Modern farming methods using growth hormones & artificial lighting mean that many chickens out grow their bones, resulting in fractured & broken legs Sows are kept tethered in stalls 1.3 x 1 metre on concrete or slatted floors - they can not even turn around Poultry raised for meat are kept in windowless broiler sheds, with around 20-30,000 in each shed, they live in an area of 10-20 cm square - fighting due to overcrowding is common & like battery hens they commonly suffer from supperating bed sores Broilersheds are artificially lit 23 hours a day to produce rapid growth Animals travel between farms & to slaughter in overcrowded transporters with no food or water - resulting in stress, injuries & deaths - legal requirements are widely ignored 95% of poultry suffer injuries before being killed & 30% suffer broken bones Problems with stunning practices mean that many animals have their throats slit while still conscious (around 6% of cattle or 200,000 per year) & are then dipped in tanks of scalding water (to loosen feathers, bristles etc.) again while fully conscious 4000 animals die spurting their blood out every minute in a British slaughterhouse Calf leather comes from animals killed at just 2 weeks old Cows were fed on the ground up remains of other cows & sheep - the result is thought to be BSE (mad cow disease) in the USA cattle are fed partly on recycled plastic pellets Cows only give milk for 10 months after they have a calf - so they are routinely artificially inseminated (ie. mechanically raped) to keep them pregnant & milking - their calves are taken away (usually at 12 hours old) for meat or export to veal crates Cows would naturally live upto 20 years but are slaughtered after 5-7 years when their milk production begins to fall In the UK animals are killed by first being stunned with electricity or a captive bolt gun (ie. a bolt is fired into their heads) before having their throats slit & being plunged into boiling water - all this happens on a production line with the animals being hung upside down from a moving conveyor belt - this is factory farming "Animals are those unfortunate slaves & victims of the most brutal part of mankind" - John Stewart Mill (philosopher) Veal calves are confined in stalls in the dark, unable to move & are fed on pigs blood , chocolate & dried milk (we are drinking the rich fresh milk of their mothers) Cows naturally produce 5 litres of milk per day for their calves - under the intensified systems of modern farming they produce 25-40 litres per day - resulting in swollen & inflamed udders - at this rate they are soon worn out Large areas of land are under monoculture to grow crops to feed to animals - these areas are wildlife deserts supporting fewer & fewer species. HEALTH Vegetarians have a 20% lower rate of mortality from all causes (ie. they live longer & don't get sick as often) Meat is full of traces of antibiotics, hormones, toxins produced by stress & pesticide residues that become concentrated from all the crops they have eaten Fish contain heavy metals & other pollutants -many of which originated on farms The world health organisation recommends a diet low in saturated fat, sugar, salt & with plenty of fibre - exactly what you get on a vegan/vegetarian diet Farmed animals contain upto 50% saturated fat in their bodies Vegetarians have 24% reduced risk of getting heart disease & Vegans a 57% reduction (heart disease is the biggest killer in the UK accounting for 50% of deaths) Obesity is rare in vegetarians, obesity is related to many diseases Vegans & vegetarians have lower blood pressure & cholesterol levels - high levels are associated with heart disease, strokes & kidney failure Vegetarians have a 50% reduced risk of dying of diabetes Vegetarians have a 40% reduced level of cancer than the general population thought to be because they have a higher intake of vitamins A,C & E Vegetarians have a reduced risk of developing gall & kidney stones 80% of food poisoning is due to infected meat (faeces, bacteria etc.) after all meat is decomposing flesh - most of the rest is due to salmonella in eggs Osteoporosis due to calcium loss from bones is mainly due to the sulphur content in meat & casein protein in milk that cause calcium to be lost in the urine - the countries with the highest meat & dairy consumption are those with the highest levels of brittle bones 50% of people do not have the enzyme to digest milk properly & milk allergy is related to asthma & eczema Meat eaters have double the rate of Alzheimers disease as Vegans & Vegetarians - some people also think that Parkinsons disease is also linked to meat eating Egg yolk is a dense concentration of saturated fat & the white is high in albumin protein associated with leaching calcium into your urine. Butter is 80% saturated fat, cream is 40% saturated fat & cheese is 25-40% saturated fat Meat eaters are two and a half times more likely to get bowel cancer than Vegetarians The cling film used to wrap meat in supermarkets & butchers contains chemicals linked to falling sperm counts in men Chinese people (living mainly on a vegetarian diet) consume 20% more calories than Americans but Americans are 20% fatter Of 2,100,000 deaths in the USA in 1987, 1,500,000 were related to diet (ie. meat & dairy) AND I COULD GO ON ! If you've read this far, I hope that you are beginning to see that the Meat & Dairy industry is a major contributor to misery on this planet. It is destroying the health of people in rich countries, starving those in poor countries, it is torturing & killing billions of animals every year and in the meantime it is one of the major factors in the destruction of the environment - so what does the meat & dairy industry have to say in it's defence? Well their only real point is usually "Meat is tasty" - fair enough a lot of people enjoy the taste of meat - but there are plenty of delicious alternatives (just consider the huge range of vegetarian dishes in Indian cooking - one of the oldest & most sophisticated cuisines in the world) and if you really crave meat & dairy, nowadays there are plenty of healthy non animal alternatives - just look in the supermarket & health food shop. So I hope you will agree it's pretty pathetic to consider all the evidence & then say "well I know you're right about the environment & health & the animals - but I just love my meat" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: ARC is @nti-copyright throughout - Copy and distribute any part as you wish. Problems with links or suggestions to improve ARC's site - Let us know about them. Om Shanti [Main Page] [Top] [More Articles on Health] PICK ONLY ONE OF THE REASONS YOU LIKE BEST!

With all the recalls I thought I would share:? this is an actual research page I found when working for a home vet and she loved it so much that she put it on her page..read it with an open mind...and think...here is her page also if you are interested..http://www.carinrennings.com (Don't read if you have a weak stomach) What's Really for Dinner? The Truth About Commercial Pet Food, by Tina Perry Cow brains. Sheep guts. Chicken heads. Road kill. Rancid grain. These are a few of the so-called nutritionally balanced ingredients found in the commercial pet food served to companion animals every day. More than 95 percent of US companion animals derive their nutritional needs from a single source: processed pet food. When people think of pet food, many envision whole chickens, choice cuts of beef, fresh grains, and all the nutrition that a dog or cat may ever need -- images that pet food manufacturers promote in their advertisements. What these companies do not reveal is that instead of whole chickens they have substituted chicken heads, feet, and intestines. Those choice cuts of beef are really cow brains, tongues, esophagi, fetal tissue dangerously high in hormones, and possibly diseased and even cancerous meat. Those whole grains have had the starch removed for corn starch powder and the oil extracted for corn oil, or they are hulls and other remnants from the milling process. Grains used that are truly whole have usually been deemed unfit for human consumption because of mold, contaminants, poor quality, or poor handling practices. Pet food is one of the world’s most synthetic edible products, containing virtually no whole ingredients. Pet food manufacturers have become masters at inducing companion animals to eat things cat and dogs would normally spurn. Pet food scientists have learned that it's possible to take a mixture of inedible scraps, fortify it with artificial vitamins and minerals, preserve it so that it can sit on the shelf for more than a year, add dyes to make it attractive, and then extrude it into whimsical shapes that appeal to the human consumer. For this, pet food companies can expect to earn $9 billion in sales in 1996. Scraps and Byproducts For years, many care givers have tried to avoid feeding their companion animals people food leftovers, having been warned by veterinarians about the heath problems they can cause. Yet much scrap material from the human food industry is ending up in dogs and cat’s dinner bowls. What the consumer purchases and what the manufacturer advertises are often two entirely different products, and this difference threatens the animals healthy, especially as they age. Learning to read ingredient labels and taking the time to read them carefully is crucial to making an educated choice when purchasing pet food. Ingredients are listed in descending order of weight (heaviest first) under standards established by the Center for Veterinary Medicine for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The name of the product (in most states) is dictated by the regulations of the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). The trouble is, AAFCO standards can lead to deceptive product names due to the weight and volume variations between wet and dry ingredients. Also, the average consumer has no idea what the definitions for the listed ingredients mean. Preservatives, vitamins, minerals, flavorings, and cereal make up most of what the companion animal eats. It is not happenstance that four of the top five major pet food companies in the United States are subsidiaries of major multinational food production companies: Colgate Palmolive (which produces Hills Science Diet), Heinz, Nestle, and Mars )see The Corporate Connection). From a business standpoint, multi-national food companies owning pet food manufacturers is an ideal relationship. The multinationals have captive market in which to dump their waste products, and the pet food manufacturers have a direct source of bulk materials. Both make a profit from selling scraps that originate from places far worse than the dinner table. In his 1986 book Pet Allergies veterinarian Al Plechner sums up what goes into companion animals food: Condemned parts and animals rejected for human consumption are routinely rerouted for commercial pet foods. A similar fate applies to so-called 4-D animals. These are food animals picked up dead, or that are dying, diseased, or disabled, and do not meet human-food qualifications. They are processed straightaway for companion animal consumption. Little goes to waste. Says Plechner, Food processing refuse of all sorts winds up in your animals dinner bowls. Moldy grains. Rancid foods. Meat meal. The latter is ground-up slaughterhouse discards often containing disease-ridden tissue and high levels of hormones and pesticides, the very things that may have contributed to the death of the steer or hog. A decade later, his words still apply. When cattle, swine, chickens, lambs, or other animals meet their ends at a slaughterhouse, the choice cuts -- lean muscle tissue and organs prized by humans -- are trimmed away from the carcass for human consumption. Whatever remains of the carcass (bones, blood, pus, intestines, ligaments, subcutaneous fat, hooves, horns, beaks, and any other parts not normally consumed by humans) is, according to the pet food industry, perfectly fit as a protein source for cat and dog food. The Pet Food Institute, the trade association of pet food manufacturers, acknowledges in its 1994 Fact Sheet the importance of using byproducts in pet foods as additional income for processors and farmers. The purchase and use of these ingredients by the pet food industry not only provides nutritional foods for pets at reasonable costs, but provides an important source of income to American farmers and processors of meat, poultry, and seafood products for human consumption. Many of these remnants are indigestible and provide a questionable source of nutrition. The amount of nutrition provided by meat byproducts, meals, and digests varies from vat to vat of this animal protein soup. A vat filled with chicken feet, beaks, and viscera is going to make available a lower amount of protein than a vat of breast meat. James Morris and Quinton Rogers, professors with Department of Molecular Biosciences at the University of California at Davis Veterinary School of Medicine, assert that there is virtually no information on the bio-availability of nutrients for companion animals in many of the common dietary ingredients used in pet foods. These ingredients are generally byproducts of the meat, poultry and fishing industries, with the potential for wide variation in nutrient composition. Claims of nutritional adequacy of pet foods based on the current AAFCO nutrient allowances (profiles) do not give assurances of nutritional adequacy and will not until ingredients are analyzed and bioavailability values are incorporated. Meat byproducts, the catch-all term of the pet food industry, is a misnomer because these byproducts contain little if any meat. Byproducts contain little if any meat. Byproduct are animal parts leftover after the meat has been stripped from the bone. Chicken byproducts include heads, feet, entrails, lungs, spleens, kidneys, brains, livers, stomachs, noses, blood, and intestines free of their contents. What the pet food manufactures fail to mention is that most byproducts, digests and meals are also filled with other substances, such as cancerous tissue cut from the carcass, plastic foam packaging containing spoiled meat from supermarkets, ear tags, spoiled slaughterhouse meat, road kill, and pieces of downer animals. Canned Cannibalism Another source of meat that isn't mentioned on pet food labels is pet byproducts, the bodies of dogs and cats. In 1990 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that euthanized companion animals were found in pet foods. Although pet food company executives and the National Renderers Association vehemently denied the report, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the FDA confirmed the story. The pets serve a viable purpose by providing foodstuff for the animal feed chain, said Lea McGovern, chief of the FDA's animal feed safety branch. Because of the sheer volume of animals rendered and the similarity in protein content between poultry byproducts and processed dogs and cats, rendering plant workers say it would be impossible for purchasers to know the exact contents of what they buy. In fact, Sacramento Rendering cited by inspectors five times in the past two years for product-labeling violations. Grease and Grain The most nutritious dry pet food is no better than the worst if animals will not eat it. Pet food scientists have discovered that spraying the kibble or pellets with a combination of refined animal fat, lard, kitchen grease, and other oils too rancid or deemed inedible for humans makes an otherwise bland or distasteful product palatable. Animal fat is mainly packing house waste or supermarket trimmings from the packaging of meats. Animals love the taste of this sprayed fat, which also acts as a binding agent to which manufacturers may add other flavor enhancers. The pungent odor wafting from an open bag of pet food is created by this concoction. Restaurant grease has become a major component of feed-grade animal fat over the last 15 years. Often held in 50-gallon drums for weeks or months in extreme temperatures, this grease is usually kelp outside with no regard for its safety or further use. The rancid grease is then picked up by fat blenders who mix the animal and vegetable fats together, stabilize them with powerful antioxidants to prevent further spoilage, and then sell the blended products to pet food companies. Rancid, heavily preserved fats are extremely difficult to digest and can lead to a host of animal health problems, including digestive upsets, diarrhea, gas, and bad breath. Once considered filler by the pet food industry, the amount of grain products included in pet food has risen over the last decade as the American population has focused its attention away from consuming beef and toward a healthier diet of grains and vegetables. Commonly two of the top three pet food ingredients are some form of grain products. For instance, Alpo's Beef Flavored Dinner lists ground yellow corn, soybean meal, and poultry byproduct meal as its top three ingredients. 9 Lives Crunchy Meals lists ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, and poultry byproduct meal as its top three ingredients. Of the top four ingredients of Purina's O.N.E. Dog Formula -- chicken, ground yellow corn, ground wheat, and corn gluten meal -- two are corn-based products from the same source. This is an industry practice known as splitting. When components of the same whole ingredient are listed separately (ground yellow corn and corn gluten meal) it appears that there is less corn than chicken, even when the whole ingredient may weigh more than the chicken. Soy is another common ingredient in many pet foods. It is used by the manufacturers to boost the claimed protein content and add bulk so that when animals eat a product containing soy they will fell more sated. Tofu is suitable for humans, but most forms of soybean do not agree with a dog or cat's digestive system. Like many other pet food ingredients, soy is virtually unusable by an animal's body. Being obligate carnivores, cats have little ability to digest any nutrients from soy. The problem is worse for dogs because they lack the essential amino acid to digest soy products. Soy has also been linked to bloat and gas in many dogs. Additives and Processing Pet food industry critics note that many of the ingredients (such as corn syrup and corn gluten meal) used as humectants to prevent oxidation also bind water molecules in such a way that the food actually sticks to the animal's colon and may cause blockage. Blockage of the colon may cause an increased risk of cancer of the colon or rectum. Two-thirds of the pet food manufactured in the United States contains synthetic preservatives added by the manufacturer. Of the remaining third, 90 percent includes ingredients already stabilized by synthetic preservatives. Because most pet food contains large percentages of added fat, a stabilizer is needed to maintain the quality of the food. Sodium nitrite, often used as a coloring agent, fixative, and preservative, has the ability to combine with natural stomach and food chemicals (secondary amends) to create nitrosamines, powerful cancer-causing agents, according to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives. Many pet foods advertised as preservative-free do not contain preservatives. Almost all rendered meats have synthetic preservatives added as stabilizer, but manufacturers aren't required to list preservatives they themselves haven't added. Premixed vitamin additives can also contain preservatives. In the 1003 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, veterinarian Philip Roudebush reported finding low concentrations of synthetic antioxidant preservatives in all analyzed samples of products labeled as chemical free or all-natural. Other types of additives depend on whether the pet food is semi-moist, dry or canned. Because semi-moist food contains 25-50 percent water, antimicrobial preservatives must be used. Propylene glycol was frequently used in cat food until it was pulled in 1992 for causing a variety of health problems. Processing greatly alters the nutritional value of the food ingredients. Veterinarian R. L. Wysong states in Rationale for Animal Nutrition: Processing is the wild card in nutritional value that is, by and large, simply ignored. Heating, freezing, dehydrating, canning, extruding, pelleting, baking and so forth, are so commonplace that they are simply thought of as synonymous with food itself. Because the ingredients that pet food companies use are not wholesome, and harsh manufacturing practices destroy what little nutritional value the food may have had in the first place, the final product must be fortified with vitamins and minerals. Questionable Nutrition How, then, can any pet food be guaranteed to be 100 percent complete or nutritionally adequate? As long as it meets the AAFCO minimum standards, such a guarantee can be on the label. Yet in 1994, feed tests conducted by the New York State Agriculture Department showed 7 percent of all pet foods analyzed failed chemical analyses for guaranteed nutrients. Other states report similar findings, with failure of analyzed feed ranging from to 12 percent. Even if a pet food meets AAFCO standards, certain nutritional requirements (for example, lysine) can vary between species by as much as seven-fold. Although manufacturers clam that millions of companion animals can thrive on a diet consisting of nothing by commercial pet food, research and an increasing number of veterinarians implicate processed pet food as a source of disease or as an exacerbating agent for a number of degenerative diseases. For example, kidney disease is on of the top three killers of companion animals. According to Plechner, the extra protein and harsh ingredients of many pet foods place an overload on the kidneys. Left untreated, the toxic buildup leads to vomiting, loss of appetite, uremic poisoning, and death. Wysong adds, In the last few years, large statistical studies have shown the link between the diet (of processed foods) and a variety of degenerative diseases, including cancer, heart disease, allergies, arthritis, obesity, dental disease, etc. After extensive research, the Animal Protection Institute (API) published a Pet Food Investigative Report to educate companion animal care givers about pet food ingredients, ingredient definitions, labeling, and dietary ailments resulting from processed commercial pet food, including the most commonly know brands. Yet, whether such food is purchased at the supermarket, pet store, or from a veterinarian, it makes little difference in terms of the quality -- only in the cost. Since the report was published earlier this year, API has conducted more research on holistic pet care and pet food alternatives, but still claims that the vast majority of pet foods available on the market today provide less that optimum nutrition for companion animals. It is sad to think that the food provided by animal care givers to their four-legged friends could be hazardous to the animals'; health and longevity. Care givers should assume responsibility for providing as healthful a diet as possible for the animals in the care. Consumers should be informed: speak with a holistic practitioner or herbalist, or consult your veterinarian (but be aware that a veterinarian's knowledge of nutrition may be limited to the two weeks of nutrition he or she had veterinary school 20 years ago). Although the ideal solution would be for companion animals to be fed only wholesome homemade and/or vegetarian diets, this is not an optician for everyone -- the cost and time commitment is sometimes prohibitive. By taking more moderate steps, however, care givers can still greatly improve companion animals' diet and quality of life. EDIT: On Carin Rennings page she lists recommended diets... she really researched them and its really helpful....go check it out..smile EDIT EDIT: sorry but it is still happening to the person that said its not... when I did my research I asked around and found out that the people that picked up the dead pets from the vets offices that did not want a private creamation actually had a company come in and pick the bodies up...really sick...valley protien I think was the name of the company... I am not just trying to "SCARE" people ...here is more proof....read this article JUST WRITTEN!! and see for yourself whats in your pet foods!! http://www.petfoodreport.com/aboutpetfood.htm#ingredients Edit: as far as ill timing and such... I think its just the right time!! people need to open their eyes...so sorry you 2 feel that way...smile http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1

what do you think? I live in Rhea County, Tennessee in a small town called Grandview, right on the edge of the Cumberland Plateau. The view looking down from the edge of that plateau is pretty grand, except for the fact that you can see the cooling tower of Watts Bar Nuclear power plant. Now they're trying to get another reactor online at Watts Bar, because they are completely insane. The worst industrial disaster in human history happened at a nuclear power plant, but I guess it's okay to put millions of lives at risk for more electricity. We all know there's only a small chance that all those people will be slaughtered due to the demand for power. Our masters also want us to think it's okay for the plant to use up all that water. Electricity is more important that water right? I love people. I also love plants. I also love animals. I love clean air and clean water. In short, I love life. I love the forests, mountains, rivers and oceans that generate this life and provide a habitat and healthy environment for living things. And last but not least, I love bacteria. Our mouths are full of bacteria. There are more bacteria cells in our bodies than human cells. You could not digest food without the bacteria in your gut. I'm telling you this because it's important to realize that the web of life is connected in ways most of us never think about. It's not just trees producing oxygen for us and us producing carbon dioxide for trees. Though the intellectual and rational part of our beings may understand our connections to the web of life, we have lost our spiritual and emotional connection. Life cannot function and flourish without clean air and water and a healthy landbase full of diverse life. Our air, water and land is currently being polluted and destroyed by people and industries who care more about money and power than respecting life. These people have no right to destroy resources that we all depend on, and we have every right, indeed a responsibility, to stop this destruction by any means necessary if we wish for life to continue. If our spiritual connection to all of life was being realized by us as fully as it should be, it would be too painful for us to allow this destruction to continue. We would vividly feel how this destruction is hurting us and we would feel the pain of our brothers and sisters being killed throughout the planet. Because we do not feel this, we do not do whatever it takes to make the killers stop. The environmental movement has failed to stop this destruction. Anyone who is environmentally aware knows that the destruction is growing at an accelerated rate, it has been at least since the industrial revolution began, and we have failed to stop this acceleration. We have succeeded in slowing the acceleration down a little bit, not nearly enough, but the destruction is still accelerating. We need to seriously re-evaluate our strategies and tactics for fighting this destruction. We are at the point where we must engage in actions that actually stop environmental destruction from happening, as well as actions that improve the environment and help it renew. The government has failed to adequately protect our environment, and has shown that it has no interest in doing so. It is currently illegal to bury our life-giving streams, but the government lets it happen anyway. There is currently a rule known as the "stream buffer zone" that prohibits dumping mining waste within 100 feet of streams. You see, water is important for life's survival, and if we treat our water supplies like waste dumps, life won't go on surviving. Of course the coal mining industry finds ways around this rule so easily that they've already buried over 1,000 miles of our Appalachian streams. Now the Bush administration's Office of Surface Mining wants to remove this rule. This rule change would simply make legal what is already happening. The Office of Surface Mining and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation are appointed government agencies who are letting our environment be destroyed. This rule change would accelerate this destruction further by allowing mountaintop removal coal mining to happen faster, since without the rule in place, citizens have no legal grounds for challenging the dumping of mining waste into their water supplies. This is nothing more than the government removing some red tape so the coal companies can rape the land more quickly. As if that's not enough, now the industry and military are setting the stage to drastically increase the demand for coal by pushing for massive government subsidies towards coal-to-liquids technology. Coal converted to liquid fuel pollutes more than gasoline. The U.S. military is one of the biggest consumers of oil on the planet, and they know the stuff over in the Middle East won't last forever and is in an unstable region. What better to fuel our unstoppable air force than some homegrown Appalachian liquid coal? Know what other military-industrial complex used coal-to-liquids technology? The Nazis. Burning coal is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. It should be clear by now that the question is no longer will global warming hit us, but how fast and how hard. Conservative estimates are saying that we'll get at least a meter of sea level rise even if we start drastically reducing our emissions now. But we're not reducing, we're increasing. A meter of sea level rise will displace millions of people along our country's coast lines. Just think of how much more strained the land that sustains us now will be when those people start moving inland. We weren't even close to being prepared for Katrina, and we're much farther from being prepared for this. I recently became aware of an article in the British paper called The Independent. In this article, Professor Sir David King, the top scientist for the British government, predicts that if we don't do something about global warming, then by the year 2100, the only land on the planet that will be able to sustain human life will be Antarctica. If you think renewables will save us, you should know that according to the Energy Information Administration, only 2.4% of U.S. electricity came from renewables in 2006. They predict that from 2005 to 2030, renewable electricity generation will increase by roughly 100 billion kilowatthours. However, they expect total electricity sales to increase by around 1,500 billion kilowatthours during the same period. Demand for electricity is growing much faster than use of renewable technologies. Unless this situation changes drastically very soon, which it probably won't, renewable energy technologies will not avert a climate crisis. Now they're talking about drilling for oil beneath the Arctic. The Russians submarined down there and stuck a flag in in case you haven't heard. The thirst for fossil fuels will never end until there's nothing left. But the oil beneath the Arctic is the least of our worries. Human caused greenhouse gas emissions pale in comparison to the massive amounts of methane that will be released as the Arctic ice melts. We need to stop this destruction now. The web of life is strong, and it will renew itself, but we must act now if we wish to see this renewal. The more destruction that happens before a climate crisis hits, the more difficult it will be and the longer it will take for life on earth to renew and regenerate afterwards. The longer it takes for the destruction to stop, the worse it will be for all of us. Our government has proven itself unwilling, perhaps unable, to stop this destruction. This government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, and when the government allows the very resources that the people's lives depend on to be destroyed, and appointed government agents change the rules to accelerate this destruction, then the people should not allow the government to exist and do everything they can to stop this destruction themselves. Unless we can all start to prioritize maintaining life above maintaining a certain way of life, we are doomed. It saddens me that even many environmentally-minded people seem to fail to realize this. We don't need TV and the internet and automobiles and cell phones, MP3 players and electricity everywhere. We need clean air, clean water and a healthy landbase. The resources we need are being destroyed so that we can have luxuries and conveniences. Not so that we all can have luxuries, but so that some of us can have luxuries. Over half the people on this planet live on less than two dollars a day. We wouldn't have our luxuries if the lives of many others were not being oppressed and exploited, being driven off their land so it can be exploited too, and made to serve this machine of oppression and destruction. This is happening here in our Appalachian Mountains, and it is happening nearly all over the world. The U.S. military is destroying Iraq to take control of the oil, and coal companies are detonating over four million pounds of explosives every day (that's 27 atomic bombs per year) in Appalachia to take control of the coal. Twenty-five percent of Wise County, Virginia has already been destroyed. Virginia coal plants already cause nearly 1,000 premature deaths every year, and now Dominion Power is trying to build another coal-fired power plant there. Here in Tennessee, the coal industry wants to mine an area in Bledsoe County near Fall Creek Falls that has been declared land unsuitable for mining due to the dangers the acid mine drainage there would pose to the ecosystem: our ecosystem. We can stop this, but we have to make it happen and we have to make it happen now. We cannot rely on the system to stop the destruction. The system is the problem that is causing the destruction. We don't need government. We don't need industry. We need life and love. Government and industry protect and serve the lives of few and destroy the lives of many. But their game cannot and will not last forever. Let's end it now. what you think.