"Organic Health Food” Giant Whole Foods Caught In Deceptive GMO Marketing Scandal...

Now to take a moment out of Vegan Mofo to bring to your attention a serious and pressing issue.

I’ve been meaning to write a post on GMO’s - Genetically Modified Organisms - for ages, it’s something that I feel very strongly about. It’s something I think all people should be fully informed on, yet it’s something I keep having to put off because honestly I don’t even know where to begin. However the latest news story concerning Whole Foods, GMO’s and Monsanto got my attention last week, and sort of blew my mind. It comes at a particularly timely moment as on November 6th an initiative will be on the ballet in California - PROP 37 - that if passed will legally require all Foods containing GMO’s in the state to be labeled as such. This is huge, it is a huge step. Labeling of GMO foods is already required across the entire European Union, China, Mexico and some other countries as well, the United States is one of the only industrialized countries that does not require the labeling of GMO foods. Probably because the vast majority of the U.S. food supply is genetically modified, and probably because biotech corporations like Monsanto who are responsible for GMOs have plants in the FDA, the USDA, and various other agencies and organizations nationwide. Monsanto who I’ve mentioned before and who you should be well familiar with anyway has spent billions of dollars fighting against Prop 37. Dupont has also spent an exorbitant sum of money to fight against Prop 37 in California. Monsanto claims that GMO foods are safe, and healthy, but if they’re so safe then why is Monsanto fighting so hard against labeling. If they are so safe then labeling the GMO’s shouldn’t make a difference to them. But are we really suppose to take the word of the Corporation who invented DDT and Agent Orange, who after virtually zero testing declared those chemicals ‘safe’? Perhaps this is why they’re fighting so hard.

The truth about GMO’s is that we truly do not know if they are safe or not. They’ve only been in our food system since the 1990's, and no extensive testing or trials have been conducted. No human trials nor human testing. We have no idea what the long term effect of consuming high quantities of GMO’s may be, we have no idea what the consequence will be to our environment. Studies conducted on animals fed GMO diets have shown that GMO’s can cause anything from allergies, infections, discomfort to cancer. A recent study on mice fed a diet of Monsanto’s GMO corn showed that they developed large stomach tumors. GMO’s were approved for use in the human food supply by the USDA and the FDA not because of throughly vetted testing but simply because Monsanto gave them their word. Can we trust that?

Whether you believe GMO’s are safe, or detrimental to human health and the environment. I think the one thing we can agree on is that all of us have a right to know what we are eating, and what we are choosing to put into our bodies. Monsanto doesn’t want us to have that right.

This is where Whole Foods comes in. For thirty years this corporate health food giant has positioned itself as the pioneer in industry organics. It prides itself on its standards and its dedication to selling only the highest quality natural foods. Natural is a big word at Whole Foods and is used as often as Organic, they often make the claim that their products and stores are free of artificial ingredients - meaning colors, flavors, etc. They have publically spoken out against GMO foods, and while I can’t pinpoint an instance in which they actually came out and said they never sell GMO foods in their stores, all of their marketing campaigns imply it. They are all about organic, natural and nothing artificial ever. Yet in a quiet press release issued recently the company disclosed that it does in fact knowingly sell GMO products in it’s stores. While this press release may have gone unnoticed by many it did not go unnoticed by all. An independent news organization picked up the story and actually had the balls to confront Whole Foods Employees and Customers with it. InfoWars and a group known as Organic Spies have made several captivating videos on the topic. One of the Organic Spies videos was even banned from YouTube, but is still viewable on their site, and several articles by similarly independent news organizations have been published over the following weeks. The backlash against Whole Foods has begun. They have been accused of indoctrinating their employees and encouraging them to lie on the subject of Organic’s and GMO’s. They have been called everything from corporate thugs, to “The Green Monsanto.” and now after various protests that occurred Tuesday, October 16th at Whole Foods stores nations wide - the day was labeled “Bring your GMO’s back to Whole Foods Day” Whole Foods has now released a 5 Point GMO Fact Sheet for it’s customers and employees.

In the fact sheet it claims that the only way for a Whole Foods customer to avoid buying GMO products is to by Strictly Organic products or products certified Non-GMO by the Non-GMO Project. It even admits that it’s own 365 brand - something it previously claimed was natural, free of artificial ingredients and GMO free - could not be considered 100% GMO free unless organic. They say “Our 365 Products come from plant sources that are sourced to avoid GMO’s” Note the word Avoid, and register that no where on the ‘fact sheet’ does it say that their non-organic 365 products do not contain any GMO’s.

When confronted by InfoWars reporters Whole Foods executive Libby Letton - who handles investor relations and food safety - if that’s not a conflict of interest I don’t know what is - said “Unless a store is all organic, every store in the country sells unlabeled Genetically Modified Foods.” While this may be true it’s hardly an excuse or a defense. The “Well Everyone Does it” excuse doesn’t fly, particularly when a company has built it’s reputation on being better then ‘the other guy’ People shop at Whole Foods because they think the company has integrity, because they trust them, and because they think Whole Foods is better then everyone else. Well their recent admission about GMO’s and Letton’s ‘defense’ prove otherwise. On the subject of conventional food items Whole Foods is no better then your friendly neighborhood Safeway, Dominick’s, Kroger, or even Wal-Mart etc.  Letton then said on camera “I don’t think Whole Foods does anything to try and make people believe that we don’t have food with GMO’s in them.” Which is a statement she likely now regrets because the reporters at InfoWars were able to find several instances of where this was not the case. From signs posted outside of Whole Foods Stores to statements posted on their website, blog, and even their own Mission Statement, InfoWars with a bit of research and a few hard-hitting questions  has been able to uncover the great Whole Foods Marketing Deception.

For some it comes as no surprise that Whole Foods sells GMO foods. With 90% of the nations Canola, 86% of the nations corn, and 93% of the nations soybean crops being GMO some people seem to think that buying GMO is unavoidable. To others however it came as a big shock, it’s an even bigger shock for people to find out that Whole Foods is selling the very GMO Monsanto Corn they’re supposedly against. The unavoidable defense is certainly the party-line the company is now taking up to excuse itself. They say that “GMO’s in the food supply are unavoidable, particularly when considering high risk crops such as corn, canola, and soy.” However that isn’t exactly true is it? If it were unavoidable or impossible then how could there be so many organic companies? How could their be such a thing as non-organic non-GMO certification? The truth is that it’s simply easier, and cheaper for Whole Foods to sell cheap GMO products at a ridiculous markup to unsuspecting consumers. Letton almost confirms this herself. When asked by an InfoWars reporter if Whole Foods had any plans to take the initiative and test all the non-organic products in their stores for GMO’s themselves she replied “Wouldn’t it just be simpler to pass a law that requires labeling of GMO’s on products?” Um, no. I think that Monsanto pumping billions of dollars into fighting that very law - Prop 37 - in California is proof enough that, that route isn’t easier. My question to Letton and to Whole Foods is “Wouldn’t it be a show of trust to test the products yourself to ensure your customers are provided with the best quality products?” “If you’re genuinely against GMO’s wouldn’t you make a greater effort to ensure they’re not in your stores.” “Could you not contact the non-organic companies whose products you sell and ask them if they would be willing to voluntarily label their products as GMO free even though there is no legal law requiring it?”

If you don’t think Whole Foods has pockets deep enough to pay for the testing of all the non-organic products sold within their stores you’re sorely mistaken. They have more then 300 stores in three countries, and some of those stores make a million dollars or more a week. The co-presidents of Whole Foods John Mackey, and Walter Robb are worth more money then you and I will ever see in our lifetime. If they were serious, if they were genuine, and if they truly cared about their integrity they would label their products voluntarily, or ask their supplies to do this. It is my personal opinion that any company not willing to label their products as GMO free has something to hide.

For me one of the most upsetting and disturbing things about this news is not the fact that Whole Foods is knowingly selling GMO products, it’s their deception about it. They may be admitting to the GMO’s now because they have to but their ‘quality standards’ as seen on their own website remains the same.

1) We carefully evaluate each and every product we sell
2) We feature foods that are free of artificial preservatives, colors, flavors, sweeteners, and hydrogenated fats.
3) We are passionate about great tasting food and sharing it with others
4) We are committed to foods that are fresh, wholesome and safe to eat
5) We seek out and promote organically grown foods
6) We provide food and nutritional products that support health and well-being

If all of those statements are true then Whole foods carefully evaluates products containing GMO’s and then decides to sell them anyway. Thinks that GMO’s are natural. Thinks that GMO foods are wholesome and safe, and thinks that GMO products support health and well-being. They either truly believe that, or their quality standards are a lie. I don’t know how you can list these as your quality standards while you’re simultaneously selling GMO foods. According to information offered by some of Whole Foods own employees - information spoken on camera during one of the undercover videos - Even Whole Foods Vitamin line may contain GMO’s.

This deception leads me to one more point I have to make on the topic of the hypocrisy of Whole Foods. Whole Foods dose not carry Pepsi, Coke, General Mills, Kellogg, Hershey’s, Cadbury, Kraft or Con Agra products because they are not healthy and do not meet their ‘quality standards.’ They demonize these companies and corporations and yet, if you look closely you will see that the shelves of Whole Foods Market are stocked full of products from these very companies. How could this be you ask? Simple.

Pepsi owns Naked Juice, and Izze. Both sold in Whole Foods.
Coke owns Odwalla sold in Whole Foods.
General Mills owns Larabar, Cascadian Farms, and Muir Glen all sold in Whole Foods
Kellogg owns Bare Naked, Kashi, Gardenburger, and Morningstar Farms all sold in Whole Foods
Hershey’s - Which has been accused of sourcing it’s chocolate through slave labor - owns Dagoba which is sold in Whole Foods.
Cadbury owns Black and Green Chocolate sold in Whole Foods
Kraft owns Boca and Back to Nature both sold at Whole Foods
Con Agra owns Lightlife sold in Whole Foods.

It should also be noted that while Whole Foods Market claims to be against factory farming it supports it indirectly as Hain Celestial - who have many products in Whole Foods stores from Imagine - almond, soy and rice dream - to Westsoy, to Garden of Eaten, to Arrowhead Mills and Spectrum Organics -  in particular is affiliated with Cargill, and directly as Whole Foods own grain-fed beef comes courtesy of IBP who is owned by Tyson Foods the biggest beef producer in the Country. IBP is located in South Dakota.

How can a company that demonizes these big corporations turn around and sell products from that very company? Perhaps this is why Whole Foods won’t stand behind Prop 37 and take a definitive and inarguable stand on the topic of GMO’s. Pepsi Corp, Cocoa Cola Corp, General Mills, and Kellogg are all actively fighting against prop 37 and donating to that fight right along with Monsanto.

Through their research InfoWars and Organic Spies have also uncovered some startling information. They say that Co-President Walter Robb has personally donated money to the campaign of Christie Vilsack who is running for congress this year. She is the wife of Tom Vilsack, who some of you may know is the United States Secretary of Agriculture at the USDA, who has been in bed with Monsanto for years, and who publicly advocates large industrialized farms and genetically modified crops. When confronted with this Letton stated that “What a person wants to do with their personal money from their personal bank account is their business.” which is true but you have to ask yourself why a man who is the co-president of the largest Organic and Natural Grocery Chain in the Country would donate money to the campaigns of the very people working against what he and his company - supposedly - are trying to achieve. InfoWars also stated that Robb donated a significant amount of money to the Obama campaign, and Obama appointed Mike Taylor - A Monsanto Cronie going back to the 80's - as the FDA Senior Advisor to the FDA Commission, and the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods. It could very well be a coincidence, and it could not be, that at least is the conclusion that's being drawn. I can’t speak to that, but it is interesting. It has also been reported that Whole Foods Executives have had meetings with Tom Vilsack, Monsanto, Stonyfeild Farms and Organic Valley. About what? Who can say, but why would Whole Foods Executives be meeting with a company they rally against?

And why does a corporation as adamantly opposed to GMO’s as Whole Foods claims to be, refuse to donate money to the Prop 37 initiative in California? They’ve publicly stated that they support prop 37, and the consumers ‘right to know’ but refuse to throw any money behind it. Is that because their top executives are donating money from personal bank accounts that is inevitably ending up in the pockets of Monsanto? To date no corporation has donated money to Prop 37, all donations are coming from small independent and Organic companies or personal donations from concerned doctors and the public. Leading by example is something that Whole Foods could easily do here, and yet they sit back silently watching to see what happens while their higher-ups donate to the opposition.

I think it’s safe to say that Whole Foods Market is no longer your friendly neighborhood hippy-dippy health food store. They’ve failed their customers and sold out to corporate America for the all-mighty dollar.

If this bothers you, if this upsets you, if this infuriates you my advice would be to get into contact with John Mackey, Walter Robb and other Whole Foods Executives via email and tell them in a polite but firm manner what you think of all of this. I would urge you to go to your local Whole Foods Market and talk to the store managers there, tell them how you feel, tell them how disappointed you are in them as a company. I would also urge you to contact your congressman or woman, or your state senator and tell them how you feel about GMO’s and ask them to stand behind a similar prop 37 for whatever your home state might be. If you live in California I urge you to vote yes on Prop 37 this November 6th and show the world that we are not willing to let ourselves become Monsanto’s Science Experiment.

And on the matter of where to buy your groceries. There’s not much sense in boycotting Whole Foods I think, so I would suggest that you only buy their organic products. Purchase from them only what is organic or what you need to suit any special diet you may have whether it’s vegan, gluten-free, sugar-free etc... then do the rest of your shopping at farmers markets or local markets and health food stores that you trust. Independent ones will be sure to have more integrity then chains. When it comes to buying conventional products I’d recommend you get them wherever you can get them cheapest. No sense in buying conventional apples at Whole Foods when you can buy the same apples at Safeway for $2 less right?

Dollars speak louder then words, if you stop buying GMO products from Whole Foods maybe they’ll get the message.

As November 6 grows nearer and these stories continue to circulate I will try to keep you updated. For more information check out the articles and videos linked below. Or simply Google it for yourself.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037467_Whole_Foods_marketing_fraud_GMO.html
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A6D9F56EC3D67EB38801CCAACE10D645
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=484FC93C887B206A895A116C0A3469E3
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23905.cfm
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=E95DBAD3F3CE57D8190A9D39202FBD6B
http://digitaljournal.com/article/334129
http://www.infowars.com/whole-foods-market-and-gmos-the-whole-truth/
http://www.care2.com/news/member/101960828/3383705
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&oldest=1&lname=Robb&fname=Walter&search=Search+Names
http://truthquake.com/2012/10/02/whole-foods-censors-expose-genetically-modified-food-poisoning-video/
http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/tag/food/
http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

2 California Dairy Farms Quarantined In Mad Cow Disease Investigation...

In case you’ve missed the latest information on the Mad Cow Disease (BSE) situation in California, it was announced on May 3rd that the USDA has quarantined two California Dairy Farms. The locations of which have not yet been disclosed. The USDA is also investigating the rendering plant where the cow was discovered and a cattle ranch where the original infected cow was apparently raised. The USDA is also investigating 10 different cow-feed producers, presumably looking for possible contaminants. The USDA has also confirmed that the original infected cow gave birth twice. Once to a stillborn calf, and the second calf was located out of state where it was promptly euthanized. Officials say it did not have BSE.

Over the past couple of weeks the USDA has been working very hard to reassure the public of the safety of U.S. beef. They continue to insist that the most recent case of BSE was a spontaneous isolated case. They point to the fact that the cow developed a very rare form of BSE called Atypical BSE or ‘L-type’ - not contracted from eating infected feed -, as proof that U.S. beef is safe. They say that L-type BSE has never led to human vCJD, but are they just covering their ass?

Peer reviewed findings by a French neuroscientist named Thierry Baron, published in the January issue of ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases’ suggests it’s too soon to say whether or not incidents like the California dairy cow are spontaneous. The studies he conducted on mouse lemurs suggested that they may contract L-type BSE easier then the classical type.

A consumers union scientist named Dr. Michael Hansen, who has long studied BSE also thinks it’s possible that L-type BSE is “not necessarily a spontaneous case.”

Up until recently many prion researchers also thought that L-type BSE posed little threat to humans because it’s so rare that people aren’t typically exposed to it. However a molecular biologist at The University of Edinburgh recently found the L-type prion simply has a harder time infecting normal human brain tissue than the classical type. Not that it can’t.

Even if L-type prions arise spontaneously by some genetic mutation in a cow that doesn’t mean other cows can not become infected. For instance if L-type BSE goes undetected and parts of that infected cow are fed to chickens - as is legal and standard practice in the industry - and then the feces and litter from those chickens are fed back to cows - which again is standard practice - those cows can become infected with L-type BSE.

The USDA has also stated that the Quarantine, and subsequent investigations are entirely routine, and standard procedure. They say there is nothing to suggest either dairy or cattle ranch will yield the discovery of any more infected cattle. I choose to remain skeptical on this point. After all government agencies are not exactly in the habit of informing the public of anything, unless someone within that agency thinks a public health threat is significant. It also seems unlikely that the USDA would spend so much time on a ‘routine’ procedure that nobody within the agency apparently thinks is cause for concern.

I also question the information provided about the original cows age, and offspring. Originally the cow in question was reported to be around five years of age. The cow is now being reported as being eleven. The USDA says the cow In question had only two offspring. Yet this is a dairy cow we are talking about. To produce milk a cow must be pregnant or nursing. Cows do not produce milk spontaneously, like every other human and non-human animal cows must be pregnant or nursing young in order to produce milk. It doesn’t matter what angle you look at it, that’s a fact. Yet if the cow is eleven how has it only had 2 offspring? A cow’s gestation period is roughly the same as a human female, an eleven year old dairy cow should have had many more calves then that. Six to ten I’d think depending on how old it was when it was first impregnated, and how long a time lapses between birthing one calve and becoming pregnant again. I could buy a five year old cow having only two calves, but an eleven year old cow? One that’s presumably in the dairy industry? Unless the cow wasn’t being used to produce milk it seems a little fishy. It makes me wonder if the cow in question did have more offspring that we either weren’t told about, or weren’t found at all. Considering the U.S. doesn’t track it’s cattle it’s conceivable that there could potentially be unaccounted for offspring.

With situations like this I can’t help wondering what information is not being released, and what we’re not being told. As always my advice is to do your own research, think for yourselves, and when the people who have the most to gain from your allegiance give you their assurances take their words with a grain of salt.

For more information on Mad Cow Disease and concerns about vCJD refer to my earlier post on the matter - Here. You can also check out the articles below. If any more information is forthcoming I’ll keep you posted.

Food Safety News

CNN

Huffington Post

Mad Cow Disease - Back or Never Gone? New Case Discovered In California...

I had really been hoping to post this last week, when the story was fresh but I’ve been a bit busy of late. I know this article is a tad long, but it is really, really important information, so I hope you do read it. At the very least please go to the links I’ve provided. Staying informed is always vitally important.

Mad Cow Disease - These three words inspire fear in the hearts of many, and indifference in the minds of others. Mad Cow Disease - or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) - however  is no recent phenomenon, nor is it - as many would like to believe - simply an epidemic of the past. Nor Is it an epidemic limited to the boundaries of only one country or even one continent despite what the ‘powers that be’ would have us believe. No, Mad Cow Disease is alive and well, and possibly living in a burger near you. It is there lurking amongst the shadows, ever omnipresent throughout the cattle industry and wherever ruminants are sold. The question, in my opinion, should not be “Is mad cow a threat?” but rather “Will they tells us when it is?”

If you grew up in the 80's or early 90's as I did then the imposing threat of mad cow should be all to familiar to you. Perhaps you recall the massive outbreak of BSE that started in Britain in the 1980's and completely decimated their cattle herds. Perhaps you recall the hundreds of human deaths from Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) that occurred as a result of the consumption of BSE infected meat. You may even recall the famous  20 million dollar lawsuit filed by the Cattleman’s Beef Association against Oprah Winfrey. After a former cattle rancher named Howard Lyman appeared on her show in the mid-90's explaining that the same livestock-feeding practices responsible for the BSE outbreak in Britain were also being practiced in the United States. Upon hearing this she declared, “It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger.” You may remember the bans on importing British beef and that your mother suddenly started serving up a lot more chicken for dinner.

But why, you may be asking yourself, am I talking about this today? Because as I said in the opening paragraph BSE is alive and well not only in some distant place you may never have been to and may never go, but right here, today, on U.S. soil. In case you haven’t been following the news of late the USDA confirmed last week that a case of Mad Cow (BSE) was found in a California dairy cow. Considering that virtually all ‘spent’ dairy cows in the U.S.  are eventually ground up and made into hamburger meat, this news has naturally caused some alarm. Of course meat industry officials have been quick to point to the rarity of BSE in the U.S., and while it’s true that there have only been 4 official cases confirmed and reported in the U.S. since 2003, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there hasn’t been more. You see 34 million cattle are slaughtered for human consumption in the U.S. each year, and out of those only 40 thousand animals are tested for BSE. That equals out to be only 1 in every 1000. John Robbins makes a good point when he asks “If we tested 80 thousand would we find 2 cases? If we tested them all would we find 1000?”  You have to ask yourself if you think testing 1 in every 1000 animals is effective or adequate. If you were playing the lottery would you take 1 in 1000 odds? I wouldn’t. Add to that the startling fact that 1 cow can ultimately end up in numerous burgers. How many burgers exactly? No one knows. If even one BSE infected cow makes it past this inadequate testing system and enters the food chain it has the potential to cause a disaster of untold magnitude.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the dairy cow in question was discovered at a transfer facility near Hanford. The cow had died on one of the regions hundreds of dairies, and had arrived at the facility on a truck full of other dead cows. Though the cow in question had shown none of the symptoms of BSE - unsteadiness, un-coordination, drastic changes in behavior, or low milk production - it was nevertheless selected for the testing process due to it’s 30 month age. Industry officials claim this is an isolated incident, and point to the fact that the cow never entered the food chain as evidence of the public’s safety, but bigger questions continue to loom. Where did the cow come from? And how did the cow become infected? Until those questions can be answered with absolute certainty we can not really be sure if this is indeed an isolated case. BSE doesn’t just spring up inside of a cow out of nowhere, it isn’t a natural process that occurs as a cow ages, the infection has to come from somewhere or something, so I am of the opinion that where there is one case, there are more. The fact that other cases have not yet been found, only strengthens my opinion that the testing system in place is inadequate. Of course these questions could be answered if the U.S. had a mandatary identification system that tracked animals from birth to the slaughterhouse. Such a system would be able to identify without a doubt where the cow was born, and then the other cows on that farm could be tested for possible BSE contamination. Unfortunately the U.S. is one of the only beef-producing countries in the world that does not have a mandatary identification system put in place to track it’s food animals. Even third world countries such as Botswana have such a system in place. Though there have been attempts in the past to instill such a system nationwide, they have all been obstructed by various segments within the cattle industry. Which leads me to wonder what they have to hide?

Howard Lyman wrote in his book “Mad Cowboy” that cattle ranchers across the nation are all too familiar with occurrences of mysterious cow deaths. He writes that you may go to bed one night with all your cows looking normal and healthy and wake up the next morning to find that one has died from unknown causes during the night. He writes that while these cows show no outward signs of BSE infection, and no one ever says aloud that these deaths are in fact BSE related, ranchers can’t help the suspicion from entering their minds. With the numbers of ‘downed cows’ on the rise and only 1 in every 1000 animals being tested, this is a somewhat unsettling revelation.

An outward display of symptoms is one of the things Industry officials point to in order to reassure the public. They say cows displaying odd behavior would be immediately removed from the human food chain and tested, but what of the cows that do not display symptoms? As this dairy cow did not. BSE is not a suddenly striking disease. It comes on gradually, and has a long incubation period relative to the natural life span of the species in question. A small animal like a mouse ora  rat may display symptoms in a matter of months, a cat or dog maybe a year. A cow doesn’t typically display symptoms until the age of 5, and the incubation period in humans can be anything from 10-40 years. However no cow slaughtered for human consumption is ever aloud to live out it’s natural life span, animals in the beef industry barely make it to 3, and are routinely slaughtered between 18-24 months of age. Dairy cows typically live longer, making detection of BSE in them easier, but if a cow can be infected with BSE at the age of two, and not show any symptoms at the time of slaughter how would we ever know of the infection when only 1 in 1000 animals is tested? If the animal is not considered high-risk why would it ever need be tested? This is what worries me. More worrying still is that an infected cow can transmit BSE to her baby . If these animals aren’t tracked, which they are not in the U.S. how would we ever find the offspring of a cow who was later discovered to have BSE? How would we ever find out whether or not the offspring from that infected cow ever contracted BSE from it’s mother? We couldn’t. In fact we still haven’t been able to locate all of the British cows that were imported into the U.S. for breeding purposes before the 1987 ban. There was a massive effort to track down and destroy all of those cows and their offspring but without an identification system finding each and every one proved impossible.

I’m sorry, but the margin for error is just too large, and I have a very hard time swallowing the assurances made by those who have the most to gain from our continued beef consumption.

And I am not alone in my concern. Last week two major South Korean grocery retailers pulled all U.S. beef from their shelves. South Korea is the 4th largest importer of U.S. beef, but the Korean public aren’t buying the meat industry assurances either. Indonesia also placed an immediate ban on all U.S. beef imports.

Despite the meat industry’s assurances that this particular dairy cow didn’t make it into the food chain there is still a lot to be concerned about when it comes to BSE. According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine “The conditions that led to the emergence of BSE in Britain have also been present in the United States. Although some changes have been made, many U.S. livestock rendering and feeding practices are similar to those that were present in Britain at the onset of the BSE epidemic.” Meaning it’s definitely possible that more cases of BSE are going undetected in the United States.  For example though the FDA placed a ban on feeding most mammalian remnants to ruminants in 1997, a 2001 FDA report showed that of 180 renderers, 16% lacked warning labels on feeds designed to differentiate those intended for rudiments from those intended for nonruminants. Also 28% of renderers had no system set in place to prevent the mixing of these feeds. There is also no restriction on the use of blood, and blood products, gelatin, milk and milk products in feeds, through which BSE prions may be transmitted. (Though there is not yet any evidence to suggest that BSE prions can be transmitted to humans through drinking the milk of cows infected with BSE, there is some suggestion that BSE prions can be transmitted to other animals through the milk of BSE infected animals) There are also no limits on nonruminant use in feeds. Meaning animals such as pigs and horses can and are routinely fed to cows as part of their feed. Unfortunately since BSE prions are very difficult to destroy if the remnants of a BSE infected cow are fed to a pig, and that pig is then in turn fed to another cow, that cow may become infected with BSE. Similarly ruminant remnants can be fed to poultry and poultry feces are routinely used in cattle feed. Not very reassuring huh?

More data from the National Veterinary Science Laboratories BSE Surveillance program from 1990-2000 show that out of 900 million cattle slaughtered only 11,954 brains were examined for BSE. That amounts to only 1 in every 75 thousand. Does 1 in 75 thousand seem like an appropriate number to you? How would you like those odds?

Scarier still is the fact that BSE is not limited to just Britain nor the United States. According the the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine BSE has been found in native cattle in France, Switzerland, Northern Ireland, The Republic of Ireland, The Channel Isles, the Isle of Man, Spain, Germany, Japan, Russia, Denmark, Oman, The Falkland Islands and Canada.  Also according to the PCRM at least 100, 000 cattle who’s BSE status is unknown have been shipped from the UK to other countries. Most of those animals remain unaccounted for.

Mad Cow disease is no joke, and neither is it’s human variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. (vCJD) Like BSE in cows, vCJD in humans robs an individual of their mental faculties, and muscle coordination. There is no treatment for the disease and It eventually leads to coma and death. It is always fatal. The disease essentially eats away at the brain until the infected individual can no longer function. It’s a gruesome disease resulting from contact with the prions in tissues of cattle infected with BSE. Sadly only a minuscule amount of infected tissue is required in order to transmit the disease. These prions concentrate mostly in the brain and spinal tissue, but have also been found in blood and muscle tissue according to the PCRM.  These prions are also very difficult to destroy even by disinfectant, chemical or heating methods. In fact a temperature of 134'C or 273'F does not reduce their ability to infect an animal or individual.

Worse still is that the symptoms of vCJD infection are very similar to that of dementia, or Alzheimer’s, so many people with vCJD are mis-diagnosed as such, making the disease in humans very hard to track. Since it is very hard to determine the difference between vCJD and Alzheimer’s in a living patient, and since most people who die from neurological illness are never autopsied their brains are never examined. Meaning we may never know exactly how many people have or have had vCJD. According to the PCRM death certificates from 1979-1988 show that 4,751 people died of vCJD in the United States.

Interestingly a 1989 study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh found that when 54 patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or some other form of dementia were autopsied after death 3 of them (5%) were actually found to have vCJD.  Another study from 1989 conducted at Yale University discovered that out of 46 people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s 6 (13%) were actually found to have vCJD upon being autopsied. Since there are over 2 million cases of Alzheimer’s in the United States, if even a small percentage of them turned out to be vCJD, we could be faced a vCJD epidemic. Now that’s a scary thought.

So while the meat industry and the USDA continue to assure us that we are safe from this latest incidence of Mad Cow, one can’t help but feel a little unsafe when it comes to the disease on a greater scale. With inadequate testing, shady feeding practices, and an apparent unwillingness by the industry to put in place a national animal identification system, one can’t help but feel a lack of confidence not only in the integrity of the industry itself but also in the products they’re pushing. It’s just one more reason I’m glad to be a vegan. Of course with such a long incubation period there’s no telling whom among us might develop BSE related vCJD. Every time I think about the beef I ate growing up in Canada, and living in the United States, as well as the burger I ate here and there over in Ireland I feel a little sick. However I can at least feel confident in the fact that I am no longer potentially exposing myself to undetected BSE. My made from scratch veggie burgers are safe, as is the rest of the food I prepare on a daily basis. For that I am grateful.

For more information on Mad Cow disease I highly recommend Howard Lyman’s “Mad Cowboy” as well as John Robbins “Food Revolution” the latter is not exclusively about BSE but it is a wonderful book with a section devoted to the disease.

The Huffington Post
The L.A. Times
John Robbins Article for The Huffington Post
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

The Life Of The Modern Domestic Turkey: From Birth, To Death, To Plate...

There’s an old saying that goes "Thanksgiving’s not a good time to be a turkey." It’s pretty commonplace and people usually say it nonchalantly with a good natured chuckle. Unfortunately the vast majority of people haven’t any idea just how much truth lies behind those words.

Between 250-300 million turkeys are slaughtered annually for their flesh in the United States, 20-40 million of those slaughters occurring at Thanksgiving each year. What the average person doesn’t know is that turkeys are beautiful and intelligent creatures with a keen awareness of their surroundings. When afforded the opportunity they are highly social and playful, making fast friends with other animals and humans alike. They love having their feathers and underbellies stroked, and relish in building nests, rearing their young and singing! Personality wise turkeys are as varied as dogs and cats, and just as loyal and loving. Yet despite their admirable qualities, their agility, and their magnificence virtually all turkeys raised in the United States are subjected to living out their lives in unbearable pain and suffering in the most horrendous conditions.

Due to the industrialization of the animal agriculture business (Factory Farming) today’s commercial turkeys bare little resemblance to their wild ancestors. Today’s commercial turkeys have been systematically bred, and genetically manipulated by the industry to grow as large as possible as fast as possible. Turkey breeders are able to (and do) manipulate ever aspect of the animals life literally from the moment of conception to their slaughter. Turkeys are selectively bred for production-related traits like fast growth and fleshier bodies. Turkey farmers after all are paid by the pound not by the bird. The heavier the bird the higher it’s monetary value. Unfortunately this system of breeding has caused significant animal-welfare issues. Since breast meat (white meat) is the most desirable, therefore yields a higher price, turkeys have been anatomically manipulated to be so heavy and large breasted that they are now incapable of reproducing naturally. Meaning virtually all turkeys raised commercially in the United States are the result of artificial insemination, which in this case is really just a ‘nice’ term for rape.

Breeding male turkeys (Toms) are typically kept in dark crowded pens for one year. During which time they are handled twice a week for ‘milking’ sessions to collect their semen. This process has the male turkey’s legs secured in a clamp on a bench, while the bird is held over the lap of a worker who induces the turkey to ejaculate. The semen is then collected in a suction hose and mixed with the semen from other toms.

For each of these breeding Males there are more then 20 breeding female turkeys (hens) who are subjected to overcrowding and abusive treatment. Twice a week these breeding hens are herded into a room and then one after another they are held upside down, "Cracked open" (A term used by the Industry) and inseminated in an assembly line fashion. As with the male turkeys the females legs are clamped in metal forceps while the workers race to inseminate between 1200 to 1400 hens within a two hour period.

Toms and Hens used for breeding are typically slaughtered before their second birthday and then used for low grade processed turkey meat products. The turkeys raised on factory farms are hatched in large incubators and never see their mothers nor feel the warmth and safety of a familial nest. When they are only just a few weeks old the baby turkeys are moved into filthy, windowless sheds with thousands of other turkeys, where they will spend the rest of their lives, never setting foot outside.

The overcrowded and filthy conditions in these sheds is so unbearable, and stressful that often times turkeys will take out their frustrations on one another by pecking or attacking other birds. To prevent the turkeys from killing one another under these horrible conditions parts of the turkeys beaks and toes are cut off in a process called ‘de-beaking’ or ‘de-toeing.’ the males snoods (the flap of skin located under the chin) are also typically removed, and all this is done without numbing or pain relievers. Millions of turkeys don’t even make it past their first few weeks of life as the conditions are so stressful they’ve been known to induce a condition referred to as ‘starve out’ which causes the young birds to simply stop eating, and so they starve to death.

As already mentioned turkeys are systematically bred to grow as large as possible as fast as possible. In 1970 the average turkey weighed 17 pounds, today a male or female can be as much as 28-38 pounds when brought to slaughter. Inability to breed naturally isn’t the only problem related to the birds unnatural growth. Commercially raised turkeys are now so obese that they can not fly, and many can barely walk, while their wild ancestors are capable of flight of up to 55 mph for short distances. Their unnatural size also causes many birds to die of organ failure or heat attack, or worse a turkey’s organs can be crushed internally by it’s own grotesque weight. Often times this happens before the birds are even six months old. They also suffer regularly from collapsed lungs, swollen joints and crippled feet. According to one industry publication, modern turkeys grow so quickly that if a 7 pound human baby grew at the same rat it would weight 1,500 pounds at just 18 weeks of age.

At 14-18 weeks of age turkeys are ready for slaughter, but the transportation conditions are no better then those of the sheds they’ve been forced into for their entire lives. At the time of transport workers will often grab turkeys by their legs and throw them violently into crates. Several turkeys are crammed into each crate, making it almost impossible for them to move. The overcrowded crates are then stacked on the backs of trucks. The turkeys are given no food and no water before or during transport and because of this many turkeys are already dead upon arrival at the slaughterhouse. During winter conditions are so bad that many turkeys freeze to death before reaching the slaughterhouse, or even have their limbs freeze to the crates while in transit. When it’s time to remove the turkeys from the crates, if these partially frozen turkeys are even still alive they are often forcibly removed from the crates, leaving their frozen limbs severed in the crates behind them. During summer transports many turkeys die of heat stress, heat exhaustion or dehydration as it’s legal to transport farm animals for up to 36 hours without food, water or rest.

In fact Turkeys (as all poultry, chickens, ducks, geese etc..) have no legal protection or status. The USDA continually refuses to protect Turkeys and other birds in it’s enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act. So if the life of a turkey wasn’t already bad enough, their death by slaughter isn’t any quicker, easier or painless.

At the slaughterhouse turkeys are routinely shackled upside down by their feet along a moving rail while still fully conscious. On their first stop along the moving rail the turkey’s heads are submerged in an electrified ‘stunning tank’ which immobilizes them, but doesn’t render most of them unconscious. Their throats are then slit by a mechanical blade and they are left to ‘bleed out’ as they continue along the rail. However due to the extreme speed at which the rail moves, the large amount of turkeys that are processed in just one hour let alone a full day, and the inaccuracy of the mechanical blade, many turkeys are missed and continue on from this step fully conscious and alive. The turkeys are then submerges in the scalding tank to remove their feathers. Many of the turkeys are still alive at this point, and so are essentially boiled alive.

If the process of slaughter itself weren’t cruel enough there are numerous undercover videos and investigations that have taken place over the past few years revealing even more unthinkable egregious acts of animal-cruelty that have now become commonplace within the industry. Turkeys with broken wings, legs, bloody open wounds, tumors, and other untreated injuries have been seen slaughtered for human consumption. Workers have been caught punching live shackled turkeys for fun as they move along the assembly line. Employees have been witness forcefully shoving their fists or feet into the vaginal and anal cavities of turkeys and chickens. Employees have been seen throwing live turkeys and chickens across rooms, up in the air, onto the floor, into machinery while still conscious. Workers have been caught ripping the heads off of live turkeys, stomping on turkeys heads, wings, legs, and bodies. Kicking them, stabbing them, and crushing them under the wheels of trucks.

The atrocities committed in Turkey slaughterhouses all across the country are innumerable and horrible. No being, wether human or animal - should ever have to endure such senseless cruelty, and suffering. These are living, breathing creatures with feelings and individual personalities, deserving of our respect, and our compassion. Treating any creature in this way makes us no better then the most awful participants of human genocide, and blindly continuing to support an industry that deems these atrocities as ‘okay’ makes us no better then the monsters committing the acts. Thanksgiving should be a wonderful time of joy and celebration. Celebration for all that you have, and a time to reflect on the good in your life and give thanks for it, yet for so many beings this day and all those leading up to it are nothing but a twisted nightmare. People stupidly offer thanks to the dead turkey carcase that becomes the center piece of their diningroom table on this day. Thanking the turkey for ‘giving it’s life’ so that we may revel in it’s ill-begotten flesh, but no turkey ever willingly gave it’s life so that it could sit on our dinner plate. The reality is that we continue to choose to murder these birds, and to support these acts of cruelty out of our own greed, fear and inability to change. We call it ‘tradition’ but as I discussed in my post  'Thanksgiving - Reexamining Traditions' is absolutely nothing traditional about eating turkey on Thanksgiving. In fact seeing as how we only due so because of the insistence of one woman, it’s really more traditional not to eat turkey. Yet we continue to do so, citing tradition because it’s easy, because it’s what we’ve always done, but if being part of such mindless cruelty is something you consider easy then count me out.

I don’t say these things lightly nor do I say them to be mean, I say them because I know, because I used to be that person too. For years I happily and greedily ate my turkey, offering foolish words of thanks for it’s ‘sacrifice’ and never giving a moments thought about the process that brought that turkey to my plate. Once the reality of the situation made itself clear to me however I realized I had to change. I am at heart a compassionate person, and I believe in the equality of all beings. I don’t believe you can live a fully compassionate life if you continue to engage in practices that contribute to such cruelty. After all there is nothing compassionate about the systematic manipulation and murder of millions of turkeys a year. My inner values don’t align with these practices and so as a vegan I’m happy I no longer have to defend myself against them.

So for yourselves but more importantly for the turkeys make the compassionate choice this year and choose a turkey free Thanksgiving. It’s really not as hard as you think, and it’s oh so worth it, especially with so many great vegan food options out there!

For more information check out -

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/mediacenter/turkey_ai.html
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/thanksgiving-a-time-for-gratitude-celebration-peace-and-reflection/
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hor/

PS: Images found through Google images.

The Realities Behind “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and Why We Should Change...

Today I bring you a post not about food but about film. Friday night I saw the film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" and I must say it exceeded all of my wildest expectations. As a practically lifelong fan of the original 1968 film, both for it’s amazing story and it’s sociopolitical subtext, I wasn’t sure this ‘reboot’ could compare. When I saw the first trailer a few months ago, my initial judgement was that the film would be a glossy, CGI extravaganza, lacking any sort of plot, or intelligent thought, but I was wrong. I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that this film matches the greatness of the original, at least in storytelling capacity, but it does without a doubt surpass the original in presenting it’s message of social justice.

The film is getting a lot of press right now for it’s attempt at tackling issues of animal welfare. An overwhelming majority of the reviews have been positive, and most of those good reviews have praised the film’s anti-animal testing, pro animal-welfare message. As well as it’s decision to use CGI apes rather then real ones. Which of course brings to light the issues of animal-cruelty within the entertainment industry. A problem that still exists today but doesn’t get the amount of attention that it should. The bad reviews on the other hand appear to be coming at the film from two different standpoints. On the right you have those who are annoyed by the films message, labeling it ‘animal-rights propaganda’ and even going so far as to argue why cruel animal-testing is still necessary. On the left you have those who consider themselves animal advocates or activists who are annoyed with the film for not doing enough to promote the pro-animal message.

I can certainly understand why some people may feel the film wasn’t good enough, because I agree that it would be nice for once to see a mainstream film with massive financial backing to dig deep into the issues and present a truly in your face message. However at the same time I don’t feel that being aggressive with people is very helpful to the cause. I find that coming on with a strong attitude turns more people off, and would only enrage viewers and alienate a wider audience. No one, after all, enjoys being preached too.

Considering this is a Hollywood film, and I don’t expect much if anything out of Hollywood I’m surprised the film makers were able to get in as many of the animal welfare issues as they did, to the degree that they did. I don’t think the message of the film is in anyway subtle, and I especially admire the two pronged approach the film takes in tackling issues of animal-welfare and cruelty. This is after all the only film in the series (Including the Tim Burton remake) that portrays the apes as heros rather then villains. On top of that this is arguably the only film (or at least one of very few) that tells a story entirely from a non-human animal point of view, that attempts to explore not only the physical side of animal cruelty but the psychological and emotional sides as well. Considering the constraints the film needs to work with I thought the film makers did a reasonably good job here. You of course get all the images and sound bites you might expect from a film that takes a stance against animal-cruelty. You see despondent apes in cages. You see apes experimented on, and mistreated. You see apes living meaningless lives filled with nothing but pain and suffering. You see them killed, tortured, and brutalized. You see them living in squalor, and you hear the humans all around commenting on it and yet turning a blind eye. These are the things you expect to see, but the film also showcases other issues that I feel are less explored when discussing the cruelty test-animals are subjected to each and every day.

For instance the film opens on a scene in the jungles of what is presumably Africa, with a group of men tracking a group of apes. When thinking about test-animals I think it’s rare for us to have the awareness to realize that in order to acquire these animals they need to be taken from the wild. To rip these animals from their homes in the wild, away from everything they know, away from their mothers to whom they’ve bonded, their families, and their extensive social networks is both devastating and traumatic. Not only for those animals captured, but also for those who are left behind. In many cases during these ‘capture’ missions animals are hurt, brutalized, and even killed, particularly if they show signs of posing any kind of threat to their human captors. It’s clear these animals do not want to be taken, that’s why they run in fear, that’s why they hide, that’s why they scream when they’re locked away, and why they cry out so mournfully as they leave their jungle homes. They have no desire to become our tools, our test subjects, or our entertainment. This is a well thought out scene that proves a point and in my opinion is the perfect beginning to the film.

Of course the film makers don’t stop there. They try to get us thinking about a lot of issues we might not normally consider. They show us very specific scenes in order to get us asking those important questions. For example, what does happens to lab animals once they are no longer needed for the particular experiment or trial they were captured for? In many cases it would be appropriate to think those animals would be exterminated. Having served their purpose killing them is more cost effective then keeping them. However the film chooses to also show us another path that is frequently taken. In a particularly moving scene later in the film we are introduced to an ape who looks as though he’s been through hell and back. Not only does his body show signs of the atrocities committed against him but his spirit is obviously broken, giving him the air of a death row inmate. He is self-aware, knowing and understanding his fate, and accepting it for what other choice does he have? The reality that many animals are used repeatedly in different tests, trials and experiments, shipped all over the country to whatever company requires them might not occur to people, but it should. After all it is cheaper and more cost effective to buy a lab animal off of a company that no longer needs it, rather then fund your own animal ‘snatch and grab’ operation in the jungles of Africa. Quick and cheap is what corporations are always after and so one animal may go through several different excruciating experiments during the course of it’s life. Being forced to endure a barrage of tests in any field from the medical, to the cosmetic, to being the testing surface for household cleaners, and any other number of chemicals. These are just a few of the physical cruelties dealt with In the film, but the exploration doesn’t stop there.

The film makers go on to probe the minds of the apes. Attempting to show us the psychological abuse they are forced to live with, as well as their emotional suffering. It is clear from the expressions on their faces that the apes do not want to be test subjects. They do not want to live out their lives in cages and inadequate man-made zoo like habitats. Through their eyes, the subtle movements of their facial muscles, and their vocal ability they express pain when they are harmed and mistreated. They express pain when injected. They exude grief and mourning when one of their own is killed. They encompass loneliness when they are thrown into their cages. In their solitary cells locked away from one another they are oceans of woe, despondence, devastation, depravation, rejection, and bitter compliance. They are broken of will and hopeless, they hate their lives and yet have grown complacent with them because they haven’t yet realized that they can fight for change. You can see as plain as day the anguish they feel, their powerlessness fills every scene. Then in other scenes they are also shown to feel happiness, love, respect, forgiveness and most importantly compassion. It’s that example of compassion that I was most drawn to, and I applaud the film makers for it. Despite whatever else may be happening in this film, it is at it’s base an action film, depicting a revolution. The apes of course are the heroes of this film, and so humans must indeed die during their uprising, but what I love is that the film makers refrained from falling into the easy cliche of portraying the opposing side (The apes) as blood-thirsty revolutionaries. Never do the apes go on a mad, insanity driven killing spree. Rather their actions are calculated and precise, their mission is to free and enlighten others of their kind. Some humans are killed at the hands of apes, of course, but it’s only those humans guilty of animal-cruelty, or hell-bent on murdering the apes, who perish. Cesar who is the revolution’s leader, you will see, does not allow the killing of just any human. Those who are deemed ‘innocent’ are struck down, or pushed aside but they are not killed. In at least three scenes Cesar stops an ape from murdering an ‘innocent’ human. Sending a message to all of his comrades that innocents should be shown compassion. While the humans in the film proceed unwavering in their attempt to kill the apes for no better reason then it’s what they were told to do. In this situation through their actions it’s the apes who show that they have a deeper sense of compassion, and are more capable of rational thought then their human counterparts. Which in my opinion, with all the trouble facing the world today, isn’t that far off the mark.

Another great idea brought forth by the film is the simple but clear message that humans can often be cruel by being kind. We can become so tightly wrapped in our own lives that it can be hard to look at things objectively. More often then not we are incapable of seeing anything from any perspective other then our own, and we’re endlessly guilty of allowing our own sense of morality, shape how we see everyone and everything else. Too frequently we are guilty of being unaware, which is how we can be cruel to other beings without realizing it, or while thinking that we are in fact being kind. The best example of this in the film is James Franco’s character. He undoubtably loves Cesar, he has given him a good home and takes exceptionally good care of him. He believes it’s his duty to protect Cesar and keep him safe. He even respects Cesar as a unique and intelligent being, and doesn’t think of him as a pet in his mind, and yet his instincts have him inevitably treating him as one in certain situations. The deep love and affection he feels for Cesar has blinded him to the fact that he is in actuality Cesar’s oppressor. No matter how much he may love him, he is incapable of giving to Cesar everything he needs. He is indeed his keeper, his ‘owner’ they are not equals no matter how much love and respect may flow between them, and that’s oppression, but he doesn’t understand that. He’s unaware of how Cesar perceives the situation, and in moments where he might become enlightened he chooses selfishly not to understand. Which is something I think as humans we do far to often.

Now putting aside the actual storyline of the film there is one other significant way in which the film tackles issues of animal-welfare, and it’s why in the beginning I referred to the film as having a ‘two pronged approach’ This is perhaps a much subtler way of addressing animal-welfare issues, then the films plot, however I consider it to be far more significant. The very making of the film itself is a stance against animal-cruelty as not a single ape was used in the film. All apes were generated using high-quality CGI. Now the CGI was my biggest worry with this film as I thought the apes would look horrendous and cheesy, thus taking away from the films overall message. Though as it turns out my worry was all for naught, as the CGI in this film was beyond incredible. It didn’t exactly lend to the film the kind of texture you get with the monkey-costumes, but it is visually impressive. More importantly you get a far greater range of facial expressions, implied emotional intelligence, and motion then you would using humans in monkey costumes. Not only do the apes look like apes but they move and act like apes. Which is important because it shows just how good our technology has become. CGI has improved immensely over the past ten years, and it will only continue to improve. The fact that we are now at a point where we can create entire realistic worlds, as well as develop CGI animals that not only look like the animal they are meant to be but move accurately as well should be enough to stop the industry from ever using another real animal in filming again. It has become completely unnecessary. In this day and age with our advanced technology there is no reason for us to continue to rip animals from the wild and force them into lives of servitude simply for our own enjoyment. It’s cruel and heartless. The animals used in the entertainment industry whether it be for film, a circus act etc... are horribly treated. They’re beaten, mistreated, mishandled, misunderstood. They are living lives very similar to the caged apes in this film. Lives of hopelessness and loneliness. Animals die during filming, due to careless accidents, and mistreatment as we saw with the Giraffe that died during the filming of the movie "Zookeeper" Reports are now surfacing claiming the elephant used in "Water for Elephants" was repeatedly beaten into performance, as are the other elephants owned by that company. Animals are living, breathing beautiful creatures. As capable as we of forming friendships, and bonds with one another. They are not our play things, they are not ours to do with as we will, they are not ours to hold dominion over, and they are certainly not deserving of the horrendous situations we place them into each and every day. It is unfathomably cruel to continue using and exploiting these beings when there is absolutely no reason why we need to, and that’s the point this film has made. By refusing to use a real live ape, using CGI ones instead this film has proved that at this point we are continuing to use animals out of sheer ignorance and selfishness. This film shows us just how speciesist we are, and how we are greatly lacking in compassion, having far less then those ‘animals’ we consider to be less than....

Now I realize that a lot of people will go into this film and come out of it with little to none of the message absorbed. People are very good at compartmentalizing life. They can see something horrible like scenes of animal testing and then not connect that reality to the fact that they contribute to animal-cruelty by buying shampoo that is tested on animals. My hope however is that if you have seen this film your eyes have been opened, at least a little bit. I hope this film makes you think, and if you haven’t seen the film then I hope this article helps you to realize and understand that everything we do has a consequence. You may not support animal-cruelty in your mind or your heart, but you may be unknowingly supporting it with what matters most- your money. Please do what you can to refrain from buying products that are tested on animals. Everything from makeup, to personal care products like shampoo and toothpaste and deodorant, to household cleaners and bug sprays are tested on animals before they go to market, and many companies participate in this horrible practice. Many of the companies you most frequently buy are guilty of this, but the good news is that there are more and more companies everyday who are committed to finding other, cruelty-free methods. Please search out and support those companies because when it comes right down to it, your dollars speak louder then words. If a company sees a profit in searching out another testing method then they will, you just need to speak up, take a stand, and refuse to continue contributing to animal-cruelty through your consumerism.

PS: For those interested I’ll post a list of companies that are known to test on animals, and companies who have committed themselves to producing cruelty-free products. That way you can better navigate your way to a cruelty-free life.

The Dangers of Dairy - Why It’s Bad for Our Health from Heart Disease to Cancer, and Beyond...

 ***Note - Because I’m currently living in the United States facts, figures and statements about the dairy industry or various government agencies will be primarily limited to those operating in the United States, unless otherwise stated. However it’s my understanding that dairy industries in several other countries run similarly, and considering that the arms of the United States dairy industry have begun to reach farther then the boarders of the United States itself, some of these things might be good to keep in mind. It might also be incredibly beneficial for anyone reading outside of the U.S. to do your own research about how the dairy industries in your country influences and dictates both public opinion and government policy.***

The Dangers of Dairy - Why It’s Bad for Our Health from Heart Disease to Cancer, and Beyond...

Since my Post about protein I’ve wanted to do a sort of follow up about dairy, however where to begin in dispelling the myths so heavily perpetrated by the Dairy Industry is a difficult one. Though there are many different aspects to the Dairy industry, and many things that can be said for each, this post will primarily be dealing with the health risks and consequences of consuming dairy products. More and more through my contact and conversations with people, I’ve come to realize just how important addressing these issues is. Most of us don’t understand that consuming dairy is a problem, let alone why it’s a problem or just how big a problem it is. We can understand things like trans fat, saturated fat, and chemical additives even if we choose to ignore them, but few of us deem to dig deeper into the biochemistry of our food. Rather then discern the truth for ourselves we’ve blindly and willingly let our minds become flooded and confused by the cleverly worded ‘information’ of the billion dollar marketing and add campaigns funded by the very same people who have the most to gain off of our laziness and ignorance.

The number of people who unquestioningly believe and repeat the lies generated by the dairy industry astounds me. Especially considering these myths have been debunked time and time again, by various scientists, doctors, educators, authors and activists. What shocks me even more is those same people’s disbelief, and doubt when faced with the cold hard facts presented by these doctors, researchers and scientists on the subject. I’d like to point out here that The Dairy Industry is a business - like any business - it’s a rich and powerful industry, with large lobbies in Washington D.C. and huge influence on the government. The dairy industry has everything to gain when they encourage you to drink more milk, or eat more cheese. Every penny of that carton of milk you buy or that block of cheddar you purchase goes right into The Dairy Industry’s pocket. It is in their best interest to keep you buying, and to encourage you to buy more, even when you don’t need or want it, even at the risk of your own health. However when your doctor, a scientist or a researcher tells you that eating too much cheese, or drinking too much milk has negative and even fatal consequences on your health, they gain nothing. Subsequently I gain nothing from presenting this post for you. I’m not being paid for it, I’m not generating income for it, none of your hard earned pennies are going into my pocket. I’m writing this post simply because it saddens me to see people dying and becoming ill from preventable disease. It also saddens me to see people so mislead, so disastrously duped and lied to, and cheated. Particularly when those who are doing the lying are the very people who are meant to be keeping us safe. As a compassionate person I want to do everything I can to limit the suffering of others. So if these words help you in any minuscule way, then I am grateful.

We as a culture have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that milk is everything from "Natures most natural food" to "A Miracle Health Food" to "A Vital necessity of everyday life" Think back to the commercials of your childhood where happy families sat around a breakfast table drinking full perspiring glasses of glossy white liquid, as they pour more from a bulging jug onto their breakfast cereal. Think of the 1950's aproned mom with curlers in her hair and her "Leave it to Beaver" attitude, chortling to her children that milk will make them strong and healthy. Think of the Got Milk? Adds of the 90's, with beautiful half clothed celebrities wearing foamy frothy milk mustaches, over their enticing smiles. All of these different adds and marketing ploys have two things in common. The first is that they’re bought and paid for by the tremendously rich dairy industry, and second, each one of these adds is selling you a lie. So what, you may ask, exactly is the problem with dairy? Let me tell you.

First we should start at the beginning, with Milk. What is milk? Milk is simply the mammary secretion produced during and after the pregnancy of all lactating female human and non human animals. Most people don’t think of milk in such terms, but that’s the honest truth. Any female mammal capable of reproduction, can and does produce milk. Whether that female is a human female, a Bison female, a Rabbit Female, a Rat Female, a Panda Female or a Gorilla Female, all female mammals produce lactation fluid (milk). However, considering that this post is primarily about the dairy industry, and the dairy industry consists mainly of cows, (Though goats, and now sheep are certainly becoming a bit more common here in the west) I will be using the term ‘milk’ to specifically relate to cow’s milk.

So now that we know what milk is, what is the problem? There are many, but I think I’d be doing you a great disservice if I didn’t start with the most serious and most troubling.

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. rBGH is a powerful genetically engineered drug produced by Monsanto. (A company entirely deserving of it’s own post, perhaps in the near future.) This drug when injected into dairy cows forces them to produce up to 25% more milk then they would naturally. Unfortunately not only does rBGH provoke this reaction in cows, but several studies have shown accelerated tumor and cancer growth in lab animals that were fed diets high in rBGH milk and other dairy products. In fact in 1998 Canadian Government Scientists revealed that Monsanto’s own research and data (Carefully concealed by both the company and the FDA) on feeding rBGH to rats indicated cancer danger to humans. Since 1994 every industrialized country in the World, except for the U.S. has banned the use of rBGH. In addition to this researchers from the Cancer Prevention Coalition have found that milk from rBGH cows contains substantially higher amounts of a powerful cancer tumor promoter IGI-1 (more about this hormone below) It was also discovered that rBGH milk contained higher levels of pus, bacteria, and antibiotics. If that weren’t enough it’s also been shown that neither rBGH or IGI-1 are destroyed during the pasteurization process. Yet despite the vast warnings and overwhelming disapproval expressed by the health community the FDA voted not only to approve the drug without any further testing but vetoed any bill that would force companies to include rBGH on their product labels. You may be asking yourselves how could, or why would the FDA approve a drug that was found to have such negative consequences? The simple answer is corruption and an extreme conflict of interest. As several key FDA decision makers had either previously worked for or currently worked for Monsanto at the time.

As if that weren’t enough, right? A survey conducted in 1998 by Family Farm Defenders found that rBGH injected cows living on factory dairy farms in Wisconsin had a life span of only two and a half years, when A cows natural life span can be as much as 25 years. Personally I feel that this in itself is enough proof of the negative consequences of the drug. I mean think about it, if rBGH can shorten a cows natural life span by 22 and a half years, what’s it doing to us?

Currently more then a quarter of U.S. Factory Farmed dairy cows are routinely injected with rBGH. Unfortunately rBGH contamination is more widespread then that because most of the nations 1500 dairy companies are allowing the co-mingling of rBGH milk with non-rBGH milk. Thereby contaminating up to 80-90% of the nations dairy supply with rBGH. (Including all major infant formula brands) Meanwhile cows treated with rBGH have a 25% increase in painful Udder infections (Mastitis) and a 50% increase in Lameness. To counter these health problems the cows are routinely injected with more and more antibiotics, at higher and higher doses. Which means 80-90% of the milk on the market is contaminated with a combination of rBGH, higher levels of IGI-1, higher levels of various antibiotics, bacteria, pus, blood, and feces. It sure sounds delicious, nutritious and natural to me!

So that’s rBGH, and there are tons of studies you can look up for yourself, if you’re interested in more information. Numerous research has been conducted, and I highly recommend that you consult the data compiled specifically by those countries that have banned the use of rBGH. (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, All countries belonging to the European Union etc..) As much of the research compiled in the United States was bought and paid for by Monsanto (the company that developed the drug, also known as the people with the most to gain off of your ignorance.)

Now you may read all that about rBGH and think, okay well it doesn’t apply to me because I live in one of the countries that has banned rBGH. Or if you are in the U.S. you’ll think to yourself, okay I’ll just buy Organic milk from now on. It’s true that Organic Milk (as of this moment) does not contain rBGH, and some companies have even gone to great lengths to label their products rBGH free. (Despite being handed heavy lawsuits from Monsanto) but even organic milk, as well as non-rBGH milk in other countries contains IGI-1. In fact all milk, everywhere, from every lactating female mammal contains IGI-1. Including the breast milk ofhuman females. So now a little bit about it.

IGI-1 stands for Insulin-Like Growth Factor, and as the name suggests it stimulates growth. It’s sole purpose is to stimulate the growth in an infants (human or non human) body. The amount of IGI-1 produced by any lactating female depends entirely on what stage of pregnancy or breast feeding she is in. How much is produced is also determined by the species that female belongs to. Human breast milk contains significantly less IGI-1 then cows milk. Some studies have shown that Cow’s milk (those not injected with rBGH) can produce more then 4 times the amount of IGI-1 then that of a human females milk. While rBGH cows can produce more then 10 times the amount of IGI-1 then non rBGH injected cows. (To put things into a little bit of perspective) So again, a rBGH cow can produce 10x as much IGI-1 then a human female, while a non rBGH cow can produce as much as 4x the amount of IGI-1 then a human female.

The problem with IGI-1 is that not only does it encourage the growth of normal cell tissue which is necessary in infants consuming their mothers breast milk, but with prolonged consumption, especially at those high quantities found in cows milk it also stimulates the growth of many cancers. Particularly breast cancer. Researchers have found that mixing IGI-1 with cancer cells in a test tube, caused the cancer cells to multiply. Studies have also shown that men with the highest levels of IGI-1 in their bodies had more then 4 times the risk of prostate cancer then men with the lowest levels of IGI-1. As stated above IGI-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. It’s also not broken down by the digestion process as it was once thought. Research suggests that IGI-1 may be carried intact, passing from the digestive tract into the blood stream and even directly into the breast tissue of woman.

Human exposure to IGI-1 through human breast milk is at a smaller dosage and further limited by the fact that most humans are weaned from their mothers breast milk anywhere between the age of 1and 4. If after being weaned from your own mothers milk, you continue to supplement your diet with cow’s milk you are not only prolonging your consumption of IGI-1 but you’re also consuming more of it then you would from naturally drinking human milk. As stated above, non rBGH cows produce more then 4 times the amount of IGI-1 that human females produce, and rBGH injected cows can produce more then 10 times the amount of IGI-1 than non rBGH cows.

Humans, in fact all creatures are not designed by nature to continue consuming their species or any other species milk after weaning. Our own physiology supports this as fact. By the age of five our bodies stop producing the enzyme lactase, which is responsible for breaking down the lactose. (Milk sugar) found in milk. It’s because of this that the majority of the world is lactose intolerant. Lactose intolerance is more common then most people think, effecting 95% of Asians, 74% of Native Americans/First Nations (Canada), 70% of Africans, 53% of Hispanics, and 15% of Caucasians (Although many people don’t even realize they are lactose intolerant so this number may actually be higher) Such widespread lactose intolerance in my opinion is just another poignant example of nature telling us we shouldn’t continue to drink milk after weaning. Humans in fact are the only species on the planet that continue to consume milk into adulthood. Humans are also the only species on the planet who seek out the milk of other species. There isn’t another species of animal alive or dead that continues to seek out it’s mothers milk once being weaned, or for that matter the milk of any other creature. Think about it, have you ever seen an adult cow sucking on the teat of another cow? Have you ever seen an adult cat sucking on the teat of a dog? No! It doesn’t happen, because after an infant is weaned, lactation fluid (milk) becomes an un-necessary, un-important substance for every creature on earth.

Now that we’ve covered both rBGH and IGI-1 lets move onto Casein. Casein is a protein found in all milk and milk products regardless of weather or not they are conventional or Organic. It’s a naturally occurring substance in cow’s milk, the problem is that this animal protein has been extensively linked with cancer. Casein makes up 80-85% of the protein found in cows milk, (Whey makes up the other 15-20%) and has been shown to promote cancer growth in all stages of it’s development. The link between casein and cancer is well documented, particularly in the book "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell. It’s so profound in fact that scientists can literally turn cancer growth on and off like a light switch in laboratory animals by altering the levels of casein in their diet. It was also found that feeding laboratory animals the same levels of gluten and soy did not promote any cancer growth at all.

Casein has been labeled a carcinogen, and is the number 1 carcinogen that people come into contact with on a daily or semi-daily basis. Every time you ingest milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, milk based chocolate, butter, or any other foods containing milk, or milk protein you are ingesting casein. Again it makes no difference if you are eating or drinking organic or non organic dairy products, casein is in both. Also just as an FYI here, cheese holds the highest concentration of casein then any other dairy product. This has a lot to do with how cheese is produced. To understand this better I’ll give a brief explanation. Cheese is made by curdling milk. Once the milk is curdled you have two separate substances solid and liquid. The solid is the curd, or rather the casein. The liquid is the whey. Cheese is made by using the curd. Therefore cheese no matter how you slice it, is made up of about 90% casein. That delicious cheddar you’re munching on right now is 90% carcinogenic. That combined with the fact that cheese is high in fat and is known to raise cholesterol, blood pressure, contribute to heart disease and clogged arteries, as well as be a contributing factor in obesity, you’d probably be better off sucking back on your car’s exhaust pipe.

Estrogen is yet another concern, especially for woman. Particularly those who have had breast cancer in the past, currently have it or who have a family history of it. As Cows have to be pregnant in order to produce milk. -Contrary to the popular belief that cows continually produce milk year round for no apparent reason. Cows like humans, and indeed any female mammal need to be pregnant in order to produce milk. A cow who is not pregnant, as a human who is not pregnant will not produce milk. Also contrary to popular belief cows never need to be milked, just as a human female does not need to be milked. - Pregnancy in any human or non-human animal produces more estrogen. High levels of estrogen are then found in the milk, and this is problematic for woman because it’s been well documented that excess estrogen causes breast cancer cells to multiply. This is why doctors avoid prescribing estrogen supplements to cancer patients while drugs that counter estrogen’s actions such as tamoxifen remain hugely important in breast cancer treatment. Another FYI here but fat in milk, just like the fat in any food rapidly causes excess estrogen to be produced in a woman’s body.

I consider these factors to be the most severe when considering dairy, but there are many other health risks associated with high consumption of dairy and other animal based fats and proteins. Type 1 Diabetes, obesity and Cardiovascular Disease being chief amongst them. Dairy products also contain significant amounts of saturated fat, and cholesterol, both of which are major factors in development of cardiovascular disease. Limiting or excluding intake of dairy products can not only prevent cardiovascular disease but may actually reverse it, as some studies have suggested. Milk is also surprisingly rather high in sugar, whether that is natural, or it’s added in afterwards I’m not 100% sure on. But if you read the labels on milk products vs. non-dairy milk products you’ll see a massive difference between them. For example there are 12g of sugar per one cup of my mother-in-law’s 2% milk compared to the 1g of sugar per one cup of my unsweetened almond milk, or 7g of sugar per one cup of my ‘original’ flavored soy milk.

Milk is also touted as preventing osteoporosis, but recent research shows otherwise. The Harvard Nurses health Study which fallowed 75 000 woman for 12 years showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk. In fact higher consumption of calcium from dairy products was associated with higher fracture risk. A separate Australian study also came to the same conclusion. The reason for this is because all animal protein leaches calcium away from our bones. Milk, like all animal proteins acidifies the bodies PH level, and this rise in acidity triggers the body to correct the problem. Calcium interestingly is an excellent acid neutralizer, and the biggest storage of calcium of course can be found in the bones, so when we eat animal based products, including consuming cow’s milk, the calcium is pulled out of our bones to counter the acidity that, that consumption brings to our bodies. Once the acidity has been neutralized, the calcium that’s been sucked out of our bones to do the job is then excreted through our urine. Leaving us with a calcium deficit, rather then a calcium storage. That’s why you see statistics showing that the countries with the lowest amount of dairy milk consumption have the lowest risk of osteoporosis, and bone fracture, while countries with the highest consumption of dairy milk, have the highest levels of osteoporosis and bone fracture.

Now I know a lot of people who say they could never give up dairy, they could never give up cheese. I know how that feels, because I felt like that once myself, and I’d like to point out that there’s a very real and valid reason for that. Recent research shows that there is indeed such a thing as cheese or dairy addiction. The reason why people find cheese so addictive, or the reason why people have difficulty letting go of milk, is because of the casomorphins that are found in dairy products. Casomorphins are opiates found in cows milk (or rather the milk of any lactating human or non human female, in differing degrees) Speaking in evolutionary terms these opiates present in milk, are there to provide a positive association between the calf and it’s mother. (Or the human baby and it’s human mother) this positive association strengthens the mother/child bond, and also these opiates make the calf or the child in question docile while feeding. Another aspect of the opiates is that the calf or child becomes slightly addicted to it’s mothers milk. This is very important because one of the largest growth spurts any human or non human animal goes through is during the time of breast feeding. You may start with a 6 pound baby, who by the time they’re weaned can be up to 25-40 pounds. The same goes for the growth spurt of a calf during it’s breast feeding. You start with a 100 pound calf and by the time it’s weaned it can have grown to 8 times that size. This is important historically not only in animal evolution but human evolution as well. As a larger, stronger, more sturdy child or mammal has a better chance of survival, particularly before the advent of modern medicine. Unfortunately what this also means for humans who continue to consume milk, cheese and other dairy products after weaning is that we can very seriously become addict to these foods. The opiates present in cheese may not be as strong as those present in a shot of heroine, or a line of cocaine, and the side effects might not be as severe, but if you’ve ever been or known a cheese addict then you know what I’m talking about. Addiction to cheese, as funny as it sounds, is real, and scientifically founded. Subsequently as already noted here as well as many, many other places, high intake of dairy can be just as devastating to one’s health as any other addictive substance.

Those are the facts about dairy, and I strongly encourage you to do your own research. Dairy is not a health food, it’s a commodity that’s been marketed and sold by the dairy industry for decades. The dairy industry is rich and powerful, and it’s arms spread far and wide. Their influence on us (The consumer) starts at a very early age, we’re indoctrinated from birth to believe in the goodness of dairy. To the point where the dairy industry even provides ‘educational material’ on diary products to public schools. We are taught very early on that we’re ‘suppose’ to consume cow’s milk, and despite everything in nature that points to the contrary, this has become a very powerfully ingrained habit, but habits can be broken, and bad ones most certainly should be. This idea that dairy is good for us is so powerful that most of us don’t ever question it or give it a second thought, but I urge you to do so. Consider for a moment all that is gained by the industry when you buy that carton of milk or that block of cheese, and consider also all that you have to loose by purchasing that same item.

After reading all of this, you may be wondering, So what do I do? Where do I get my nutrients? Where do I get my calcium? How do I protect my bones? Etc.... Because the dairy industry has been so successful in it’s use of propaganda, that many people have little to no idea where their nutrients really come from, or how they can attain them without the aid of cows milk.

So to help you, let’s break it down simply. What is Calcium? It’s a mineral, and all minerals are found in the ground. Historically cows milk was found to have such high calcium content because cows eat grass, and grass has tons of calcium. Therefore because of the cow’s diet, the cow’s milk was rich in this mineral. However due to the introduction of factory farming, (both meat and dairy factory farming) 3 out of 4 cows don’t even graze on grass. The majority of cows kept as dairy cows are kept in barns or dirt lots and never see a blade of grass in their lives. These cows are fed grain, and because that grain is lacking in essential nutrients and minerals their feed has to be supplemented and fortified with calcium and other important nutrients. Personally I find the idea of supplementing a cow’s diet with calcium so that we can get that calcium through drinking milk is beyond ridiculous. What’s the point of this? I can easily supplement my own diet with calcium by eating calcium rich foods like leafy greens or drinking soy milk that’s high in calcium. We don’t need the middle man. Of course Grass-Fed Dairy will contain calcium that isn’t supplemented, but then I’ve already mentioned the dangers of dairy products above.

If you want to give up dairy but are worried about calcium, your absolute best source of it is sesame seeds and leafy greens. Think spinach, think kale, chard, collards, broccoli, Brussel’s Sprouts. You can also find calcium in white beans, and almonds. You can even buy calcium fortified tofu and soy, rice, almond, hemp, hazelnut, and oat milks that have been fortified with calcium if you’re really worried and these same non-dairy milks have the added bonus of usually coming fortified with vitamin D. Or you can simply take a daily multi-vitamin. However I strongly recommend you get your calcium from whole plant foods like leafy greens, as we were meant to do, but a daily multi-vitamin is certainly good insurance in addition to that.

Something else I find fascinating that I thought relevant to add here is that our culture considers things like Soy, Rice and Nut milks to be the ‘alternatives’ to cow’s milk, when in fact cow’s milk is actually the alternative to these non-dairy milks. Though cattle were domesticated sometime between 8000-10 000 years ago, milk production was not a common practice. (Due to cost, access, ability, and quick spoilage) Where as Soy milk was discovered in China in 164 B.C. and then transplanted to Japan. Almond milk was used extensively and almost exclusively throughout the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa and West Asia for thousands of years. Mainly because almond trees grow in abundance in that region but also because almond milk keeps for much longer then cow’s milk, and it’s entirely plant composition made it suitable for consumption during lent and other fasting days. Almond milk was a staple in every kitchen in the middle ages. While Rice Milk, or more accurately Horchata (Rice milk blended with vanilla and cinnamon) was developed in Spain in the 13th century, and was then transplanted to Mexico through colonization. Cow’s milk really did not increase in popularity until the early 1900's, and it’s use did not become widespread until the age of household refrigeration in the 30's and 40's.

In addition to non-dairy milks being delicious it should be noted that they’re packed full of healthful benefits and have no saturated fat or cholesterol. (Except coconut milk which is high in both, but that’s another story) they also contain fiber which dairy milk does not, and as already stated they can be fortified with calcium, if that’s a concern for you.

So in closing I would like to remind you that Cow’s milk as well as other dairy products are not a necessary part of a healthy human diet. It’s historically, biologically, and scientifically proven. Dairy is a business, a big business that means a lot of money for corporations and conglomerates. They have everything to loose if you stop buying into their hype, and everything to gain if you continue to blindly digest their propaganda. For you on the other hand it’s the opposite, you have everything to loose if you continue to believe in them, and everything to gain if you decide to open your eyes to the truth. Keep in mind that companies care about profits not people, and the dairy industry is no different. So for your own health as well as the health of your children I urge you to do what you can to limit or eliminate dairy from your diets. Your lives will be the better for it I promise you, and there’s nothing like expanding the horizons of your palate, or the possibilities of your plate.

PS: There are many other reasons why not to support the dairy industry, mainly those related to the cruelty dairy cows face on a day to day basis. However that is a subject for another post, one I hope to write in the coming months so if that topic interests you stay tuned.

P.P.S: For more information on this topic I highly suggest checking out the books "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins, "Vegan Freak"by Bob and Jenna Torres, "Skinny Bitch" by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin (Ignore the ridiculous title because this book is full of good information) "Whitewash: The Truth About Cow’s Milk and Your Health" Joseph Keon PH.D Also check out the websites connected with these authors for further information, as well as vegetarian podcasts such as "Vegan Freak Podcast" by Bob and Jenna Torres, and "The Vegetarian Food for Thought Podcast" by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau. Any Vegan cookbook generally contains a section on this topic as well such as Alicia Silverstone’s "The Kind Diet"
***Disclaimer - I realize that cancer may not be 100% preventable no matter what you do, but my philosophy is that we should do as much as possible to prevent it. Therefore if you know for a fact that something causes cancer, eliminate it from your life.***