A horrible thing I heard about chocolate milk

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Apparently, when cows are milked in more larger industrial quarters, they are often milked quite hard by machines, and a good fraction of the milk contains blood from the rupture of the udders against the limbs/hooks/etc against the udders.

The blood milk is separated from the "non-blood" milk, and the latter is what ends up in your friendly supermarket. However the blood milk is what gets used in chocolate milk, since it's easier to disguise.

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:51 (twenty-two years ago)

(holy shit! I SWEAR I had no idea there was a simultaneous chocolate milk thread being spawned as I was typing this....!)

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:51 (twenty-two years ago)

WITH BLOOD IN IT!

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Not very kosher.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha, yeah, serves them right for not looking for the "NVK" symbol on the carton.

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Or not.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:55 (twenty-two years ago)

is it not pasteurised though? a couple of platelets here and there don't worry me. i'm sure there's plenty of blood residue in my steaks and burgers

― the surface noise (electricsound), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:56 (twenty-two years ago)

haha snopes said the same thing

― the surface noise (electricsound), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't want ANY blood in me. ick! Oh, wait... (haha, thanks, N. for the snopes link.)

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Not very lacto-ovo vegetarian, neither, ugh ugh, thank heaven it's just a myth! Oh wait, I don't drink chocolate milk, never mind.

― the river fleet, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:58 (twenty-two years ago)

DB is a PALE BLOODLESS VAMPIRE GOTHBOY.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:58 (twenty-two years ago)

forgive me

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Let me think it over.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:59 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.buddiesinbadtimestheatre.com/images/aboutus/photoalbum/inferno_2002-2003/inf_5.jpg

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Thank you for sharing. I have to hurt you now.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Milk production methods are pretty gross though. It's one of the things I try to buy organic.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:01 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.milksucks.com/fp/milksuckbigfeat2.gif

http://www.milksucks.com !

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Holy shit, N., that's far more frightening than anything I submitted to this thread so far.

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:09 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/staff/dbishop/kenya/masai/40.JPG

"The traditional diet of the Masai (also spelled Maasai) people in Kenya and Tanzania is derived mostly from their cattle, though they do not often eat beef; rather, they eat milk and blood which is harvested by puncturing the loose flesh on the cow's neck with an arrow. The wound is closed after a gourdfull of blood is obtained. This operation can be repeated every month or so with no harm to the cow. The Masai typically drink blood mixed with milk..."

― andy, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:15 (twenty-two years ago)

N's link made me think about nutritionist Michel Montignac, who advises against milk for kids.
The milk lobby associate their product with health then push it to kids in school, wich is particularly bad considering:
"The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases ( NIDDK ) of the NIH estimates that between 30 and 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant. This includes an estimate of lactose intolerance affecting 75% of African-Americans and 90% of Asian and Native Americans.".

When thrirsty, kids should drink water like every other weaned mammals.

http://zone.artizans.com/images/previews/PDEA253.pvw.jpg

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Makes sense. Pre-packaged chocolate milk seems to have more estrogen than regular from my own experience. It reinforces growth of both and boobies!

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 02:17 (twenty-two years ago)

In addition to rBGH, non-organic milk often tests really high with antibiotics & pesticides. yeck. I'm allergic to a lot of antibiotics, and my doctor has told me I'm nuts, but I refuse to drink non-organic milk b/c I'm pretty sure it makes my allergies even worse than they are on their own. Organic milk, in contrast, I can drink just fine- and organic yogurt & cheese don't bother me at all.

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I never heard the blood thing, but someone once told me that chocolate milk was made from the other milk that was somewhat ...off in terms of flavour, possibly because it was starting to go stale and had been reprocessed or something. It's all pretty sordid anyhow.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:56 (twenty-two years ago)

There are no pesticides, antibiotics, or dangerous hormones in supermarket milk.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:16 (twenty-two years ago)

bears do not shit in the woods.

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Got Snake Oil?

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Just find me one paper on the dangers of milk from cows injected with rBGH that I can't tear limb from limb in under a minute and a half. Google is letting me down.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:27 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/geneticEngineering/rBGHintro.htm

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:27 (twenty-two years ago)

broken link lyra

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:29 (twenty-two years ago)

argh. i'll try to fix that link... does this one work meantime?

http://consensus.nih.gov/ta/007/007_statement.htm

NIH report with many Monsanto folks on it- lots of waffling:

What Are the Health Effects On Humans Resulting From Consumption of Meat or Milk From Cows Given Rbst?

Human and bovine milk normally contain small amounts of growth hormone. After ingestion, growth hormone is handled by the gut as any other protein in milk: it is digested into its constituent amino acids and di- and tripeptides. There are no data to suggest that BST present in milk will survive digestion or produce unique peptide fragments that might have biological effects. Even if BST is absorbed intact, the growth hormone receptors in the human do not recognize BST and, therefore, BST cannot produce effects in humans. This conclusion is affirmed by earlier studies that showed that BST administered by injection to growth hormone-deficient children was ineffective in augmenting growth or promoting nitrogen retention, nor are there convincing data that fragments of BST are biologically active in humans. Further, from available animal studies, there is no evidence that rBST administered orally in very high doses to species capable of responding to injected rBST is absorbed or has a biologic effect. IGF-I concentrations in human milk are 1 to 3 ng/ml (parts per billion) while pooled cows' milk contains somewhat higher amounts. This protein will also be digested into its amino acid, di- and tripeptide constituents by gut enzymes. Similarly, there is no evidence that proteolytic fragments of IGF-I are biologically active in man, nor is there evidence of systemic biological effects in man from any IGF-I absorbed intact, because the amounts of IGF-I that might potentially be ingested are orders of magnitude less than those required to produce such effects. A single, unconfirmed, short-term study in rats given high doses of IGF-I orally revealed a significantly greater rate of body growth in male but not female rats.

Milk from rBST-treated cows contains higher concentrations of IGF-I. The importance of the increased amounts of IGF-I in milk from rBST-treated cows is uncertain. The amount of IGF-I ingested in 1 liter of milk approximates the amount of IGF-I in saliva swallowed daily by adults. Young children and infants already ingest IGF-I in commercially available cows' milk or in mother's milk. Whether the small additional amount of IGF-I in milk from rBST-treated cows has a significant local effect on the esophagus, stomach, or intestine is unknown. The gut of the very young infant is an immature organ that can absorb intact proteins, although in relatively small amounts. However, most infants are either breast fed or fed commercially prepared infant formulas that contain no more than trace amounts of IGF-I or growth hormone.

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:31 (twenty-two years ago)

that first one should be .html not .htm...

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/geneticEngineering/rBGHintro.html

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Ehh, that was a long pasting... the bit I wanted to point out:
nor are there convincing data that fragments of BST are biologically active in humans.

Sadly, there are also no convincing studies that prove that they are NOT biologically active in humans. Monsanto did lots of pressuring of the FDA, and in Canada, to get academics/vets/others to voice approval of the rBGH.

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Monsanto isn't the best source for unbiased research--a lot of the stuff on the issue reminds me of the tobacco company-sponsored "research" claiming there is no link between smoking and lung cancer.

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Geesh, and I sound like a raving hippie now. ;-) Monsanto is right by my parent's house in NJ, so growing up I think I got lots of "monsanto = evil" brainwashing.

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:36 (twenty-two years ago)

the only think i like about Monsanto is the giant eyeball.

(you gotta remember Inner Space at Disneyland to really get that one, but it is oh so true)

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I am such a raving hippie that I have never been to any Disney parks- hence I will just imagine the giant eye from the LOTR movies in its place & be happy. :-)

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Sadly, there are also no convincing studies that prove that they are NOT biologically active in humans.

If you can't find a study that shows an effect, and all the studies fail to show an effect, what is it you think you've discovered? If you come up with a hypothesis about ingested rBGH effecting humans through milk consumption, and all the experiments and observations you make show no such effects, then is your hypothesis more or less likely to be correct?

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Is "Monsanto did a lot of pressuring" supposed to be some kind of condemnation? Did they follow legal procedures in applying for approval? Do their applications check out? Are their studies valid? These are all legitimate questions. If you have evidence they tampered with their studies or provided false information, show me. Until then, "they were eager about getting this protein they spent bucketloads of money producing approved for sale" doesn't seem like a very sensible accusation.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:47 (twenty-two years ago)

There are also no studies that show a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:48 (twenty-two years ago)

You're awfully aggressive on these points for a fellow who seems to take a lot of other things in this world on little more than 'wishing it were true so it must be true' faith, Stuart.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:49 (twenty-two years ago)

DUDE, DON'T YOU KNO THE GOP AND THE MILK LOBBY ARE IN BED??!

(teasing)

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Is *that* how the sheets got stained?

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the issue I mostly have with it is how *little* testing was done on it, period. Human bodies are pretty complex; look what happened recently with hormone-replacement therapy with post-menopausal women. They didn't really expect the results that turned up this year, which caused most women on hormone replacement therapy to drop it. Quite a bit of testing had already been done, 1,000s of women were on it, and when a large study was finally run, the results proved kind of shocking. So at the time the rBGH was approved, *no* human studies had been done:

In 1990 the FDA said BGH was "safe for human consumption." Part of its
findings were based on 90-day rat feeding studies in which they reported
"no toxicologically significant changes were noted . . . in rats
administered BGH orally." Based largely on this conclusion, FDA did not
require human
toxicological tests usually required for a veterinary drug.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rBGH/remove.cfm

― lyra (lyra), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Monsanto isn't the best source for unbiased research

You do realize that when a new animal drug is submitted for approval, the company sponsoring it has to submit the clinical research to show that the drug has no adverse effects in people who consume the treated animal, right?

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes. And do you know that when those studies have not been done, waivers are issued in response to corporate pressure?

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:01 (twenty-two years ago)

That didn't happen in the case of rBGH. The studies were done.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:04 (twenty-two years ago)

write me a haiku about it and i will keep talking to you

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm convinced rGBH is the main reason 15 year old girls do not look like 15 year old girls anymore. This cannot be good, from a strictly moral standpoint.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Just ask Seinfeld

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Or R Kelly.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Chocolate Milk Factory

*hides*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Look I'm not a rBGH fan. I don't have any interest in Monsanto or the dairy industry. I just don't see the evidence for concern. Show me the evidence. Don't tell me "Monsanto made Agent Orange" - I don't care. Show me why its dangerous. Don't tell me "we don't know it's dangerous but we don't know its safe" because that's a meaningless statement. If you can't demonstrate the dangers it poses, and no one with a financial interest in demonstrating that rBGH should be banned (like small dairy farms) has funded any studies that show evidence that it should be banned, then what are we talking about here? The EU bans products because there are not 50 year human consumption studies to prove its safe, despite the fact that none of their scientists can conceive of a way in which a 50 year study would indicate anything. They ban something that would improve yields, lower food prices, and feed hungry people because they're fundamentally opposed to increasing consumption and if it means starving people out then that's what they're gonna do. It's bullshit, it's not science, and you're a sucker for believing it and not investigating the issue rationally for yourself.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:16 (twenty-two years ago)

That's not a haiku.

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:19 (twenty-two years ago)

That's talking to me.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:21 (twenty-two years ago)

That is only 5/17 of a haiku.

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Golden waves of grain
Banned by the Europeans
Zimbabwe will starve

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Like *we* do such a great job of feeding them. Thanks, science.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Kenan speaks the truth
and i cannot stop writing
in haiku-help me!

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

When they refuse the grain we donate to them, or lock it up until it rots, because they're afraid of the EU's ban on GE corn, then what more are we supposed to do?

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:47 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not like Mugabe cares more about the people of Zimbabwe than the EU does, but damn.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:54 (twenty-two years ago)

The FDA may say BGH is OK but it banned in Europe because of the potential health effects on Humans.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:12 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.milksucks.com/milksuckers/ethnicenrique.jpg

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I heard that chocolate milk will violate your mom. (Then again, anyone with a quarter and a Tootsie Pop can violate your mom.)

― Playground Comedian (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I always heard that chocolate milk was made from milk past its expiration date, but never this blood thing UNTIL NOW

happily, reassurance is a click away...

Do the English put blood in chocolate to give it a rich color?

...wait, not really

― Pious Twin (abennett), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

It's banned in Europe because of the precautionary principle, aka "We have no fucking clue how the hell consumption of this product could possibly ever produce any negative health effects, but we hate free market capitalism so we're gonna go ahead and ban it because of these bogus 'safety concerns.'"

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

It's the exact same shit the organic foods crowd gets irate about when Bush suggests further studies to "fully understand the implications" of CO2 controls and global warming.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

we hate free market capitalism

like america then, who ban narcotics for the same spurious reasons. and even tried it with alcohol once!

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:09 (twenty-two years ago)

(The belief that cow's blood is to be scrupulously avoided at all costs is suspended in our dealings with meat products. No
one recoils in horror at the thought that a steak or a hamburger contains cow's blood -- our beef with ingesting blood
apparently stops at the fork.)

― Huck Me Gently (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

what the fuck who cares, buy regular milk and put powdered chocolate in it like a NORMAL person, what is this premade stuff?

OFF TOPIC, I tried to find a picture of the Nestle Quick bunny and turned up this! I guess they don't do the inflatable bunny anymore.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:15 (twenty-two years ago)

If you equate the safety and health risks of narcotics with those of pest-resistant corn and rBGh-treated cows' milk, you have no business speaking in public.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:15 (twenty-two years ago)

DB's post made me naseous all morning even though I don't drink chocolate milk, and I wish I had never read it.

― Jordan (Jordan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:16 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.claysmill.fcps.net/images/t.jpg

"Please drink my blood!"

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/5482/homer2.jpg

― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

If you equate the safety and health risks of narcotics with those of pest-resistant corn and rBGh-treated cows' milk, you have no business speaking in public.

what are you, the thought police all of a sudden? Why wouldnt i be able to say that in public?

i just think america should open up its markets to narcotics, even if only as far as holland does. a little less big brother and banning, might go a little way, and encourage a bit of entreprenuralism also, its a bouyant market.

at least here, i got freedom of speech

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.freshdirect.com/media/images/product/dairy/dai_silk_chsoyqt_c.jpg

It tastes so much better than real milk.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

ie, if i can make the decision about whether to have treated to milk, i should also be able to make the decision whether to smoke a joint or do some meth, right? its my life

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think anyone should stop you from saying that except maybe yourself. How about I put it this way: If you equate the health and safety risks of pest-resistant corn and rBGH milk with the risks inherent to narcotics use, no sensible person has any business listening to what you have to say on the issue.

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

< Scratches chin >

Europe - bans things on h&s grounds - free market hatas!
USA - bans narcotics on h&s grounds - sensible policy guys; good job, great shower.

Can you see the flaw here?

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Europeans have been somewhat more precautionary since the BSE thing (told for years there was no evidence that it affects humans and to eat up our burgers, then some suggestion that OK it might after all). You make educated precautionary guesses - hmm.. eating diseased brain tissue or growth hormones looks like it might be a bad idea, so we'll err on the side of caution. Me, I quite like the idea of half the population falling ill with something in 20 years time - it might bind us together as a society.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 29 January 2004 00:18 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.