Dairy Alarmism

jim180155

Unless you can substantiate the bolded claim in some way, I'm not buying it. It sounds like another assumption. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.)

I'm not sure why that would be so hard to accept. Laws are generally not passed, especially not all of a sudden after an industry has existed for years, without some reason that makes people think it's needed (even if needed for bad reasons, as one can argue here).

I could accept it, but then both of us would be assuming that it's correct, in which case neither of us would really know, and neither of us would have any interest in looking into it further.

I'd rather keep waiting to see if anyone has anything better than a gut feel.

_John_

Unless you can substantiate the bolded claim in some way, I'm not buying it. It sounds like another assumption. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.)

I'm not sure why that would be so hard to accept. Laws are generally not passed, especially not all of a sudden after an industry has existed for years, without some reason that makes people think it's needed (even if needed for bad reasons, as one can argue here).

All the coverage of it I've seen, including from the anti-gag side, which is the side the press as a whole is on--again unsurprisingly, the press obviously has reason to hate gag laws--says it was a reaction to some high profile exposes by people posing as employees. One example is this Atlantic piece:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-ag-gag-laws-hiding-factory-farm-abuses-from-public-scrutiny/254674/

In Idaho, the law was written after a group (gaining access thru false creditionals) used footage of employees abusing animal and released to the public while the individuals were being prosecuted...which cost the industry a lot (your call on whether they deserved it).

FWIW, I don't really care for the laws as written either. It does seem like uncessary protection and a step too far in the case of actual animal abuse takes place (which most farm owners would probably actual like to know. NONE of the farmers I know personally have anything but the utmost care for their animals).

susannamarie

In Idaho, the law was written after a group (gaining access thru false creditionals) used footage of employees abusing animal and released to the public while the individuals were being prosecuted...which cost the industry a lot (your call on whether they deserved it).

FWIW, I don't really care for the laws as written either. It does seem like uncessary protection and a step too far in the case of actual animal abuse takes place (which most farm owners would probably actual like to know, NONE of the farmers I know personally have anything but the utmost care for their animals).

I agree on both counts.

Frankly, if an individual had been reported for abusing animals and continued to work and abuse animals, then I would consider it justified to post a video of exposure.

However, I know that if any farmer I know (and I know a few) caught someone beating their animals, the person would be fired and possibly given a kick in the *kitten* on the way out.

jim180155

In Idaho, the law was written after a group (gaining access thru false creditionals) used footage of employees abusing animal and released to the public while the individuals were being prosecuted...which cost the industry a lot (your call on whether they deserved it).

FWIW, I don't really care for the laws as written either. It does seem like uncessary protection and a step too far in the case of actual animal abuse takes place (which most farm owners would probably actual like to know. NONE of the farmers I know personally have anything but the utmost care for their animals).

Thanks, John. That's the sort of thing I was trying to get at.

And I agree with your take on it.

QuietBloom

No 'pre-existing opinions', but rather first had information. When I worked in a lab animal facility 20 years ago, we could adopt the animals out after they were done with a study, or if a cat had kittens, we could take them home, etc. Now, thanks to PETA, every lab animal facility has to be a lock down facility or else they would be breaking in, damaging equipment, stealing animals, etc. It's about protecting private property (including animals) and avoiding expensive lawsuits from people who hurt themselves on your property, whether they are there legally or not.

Fair enough, but you're missing my point. I keep asking it over and over again, and you're not the only one who keeps missing it:

What makes the Ag industry so special? Why do they (Ag) have laws on the books regarding photography and fraudulent interviewees when your animal facility does not? Just about every single business in the country has good reasons to restrict access and protect information, and just about every single business addresses those concerns individually, using existing trespassing laws, which local police and court systems will readily enforce.

What makes Ag so special?

It's the high level of security/protection/secrecy that has me wondering. I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but something seems all wrong here.

You're right, I realized after I posted, that we were talking about ag. Sorry about that. It would seem to me that AR activists would be reason enough to have those laws in place for agricultural facilities and for much the same reasons.

lemurcat12

I'd rather keep waiting to see if anyone has anything better than a gut feel.

?? I didn't offer a "gut feel." I cited an Atlantic article that discusses the background of the laws. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the article I'm happy to discuss it, but claiming I cited my gut is inaccurate and unfair.

jim180155

I'd rather keep waiting to see if anyone has anything better than a gut feel.

?? I didn't offer a "gut feel." I cited an Atlantic article that discusses the background of the laws. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the article I'm happy to discuss it, but claiming I cited my gut is inaccurate and unfair.

My apologies. With the way you presented it, asking why it would be so hard to accept, I thought you were going more from intuition. The Atlantic piece (which I did not read) looked more like additional info, unrelated to your opening sentence.

No offense intended.

tigersword

I read what it's about and it mentions you can't go there and video tape/take pictures. No where did I see that people aren't allowed in.

I didn't realize it was contagious, but it looks like you caught my quoting problem.

I didn't see anything against going in either. I read just one of the articles, an article from Forbes, thinking they'd be the most Ag-friendly, but they weren't in this case.

Whether or not you can legally visit one of the sites may be beside the point, since I'm pretty sure you'd still need explicit permission from the owner or face jail time for trespassing. But laws prohibiting photography is alarming, IMO. Even a pro-Ag person should be wondering what they're trying to hide.

Why is no photography alarming? Farms are businesses, and all businesses have trade secrets. No business will allow you to wander into their private facilities and photograph or video tape, with express permission. That has more to do with corporate espionage, than trying to cover up mistreatment of animals. It's pretty much a standard for every business. I can't think of any business that would allow me to just walk in and snap pictures, unless I'm on a specific guided tour.

kelly_e_montana

I love dairy. I stopped drinking milk and noticed no difference in my weight, energy, or digestion. It works for me and I enjoy it as a part of an overall healthy diet, so I'm going to keep using it. Right now I primarily do Greek yogurt and cheese and have switched to mostly coconut milk. If it's not bothersome to me, fits my macros, and I enjoy it, why quit?

Our bodies weren't designed to eat most of the crud we eat these days. I'm not sure why dairy is so unfairly demonized. If you have an issue with tolerating it, then just don't eat it. :happy:

RGv2

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

Taking a crazy guess here.... You've never been on a dairy farm, have you?

Yeah, you do know that every farm operates like the one they feature on an agenda pushing documentary right? Visiting a real farm to get actual facts is out of the question, I mean how the hell would that support a failing argument?

=D

Visiting a real dairy farm IS out of the question. Big business is in bed with the g-ment, and has created many laws disallowing you from knowing what is going on behind closed doors. In many states, ag-gag laws make it a crime to use surreptitious means to get onto a farm, make it crime to whistleblow about bad conditions for both the workers and the animals, and good luck getting an invite.

Go ahead and call up a large farm and say "I'd like to visit your farm to see what conditions the animals/workers are experiencing" and see how quickly you get hung up on.

Some smaller farms might let you on, and if you continue to eat dairy, those would be the farms to patronize. Like Joel Salatin's farm.

Have you even tried, I have? Large farms, small farms, in between farms get toured here all the time. Good effort though.

gkwatra

Dairy is fine if your body produces the enzyme lactase. The very recent evolution of the ability to digest dairy products in adulthood is fascinating... this trait has evolved in populations with a long history of dairy farming/herding, e.g. Europeans, Masai (in Africa)... what's most interesting is that this trait evolved at least twice, i.e. separately in both those populations, and it may be the case that it's evolved separately in other dairy/herding populations (the alternative is that gene flow between populations resulted in the trait spreading from one population to another,but it's been demonstrated in scientific studies that the European mutation and Masai mutation for digesting dairy as adults are different and arose separately).

Anyway, whether you find that kind of thing interesting or not, the ability to digest lactose is quite closely tied to ethnic origin (although it's not 100% because of gene flow and archaic genes sticking around) so if your ancestors over the last few thousand years were dairy farmers or herders, chances are you can digest dairy just fine, and there's no reason to avoid it. If your ancestors from this time period didn't have anything to do with dairy, then there's a high probability that you can't digest dairy and in that case you should avoid it. But usually people who are lactose intolerant know about it without being told this information due to getting sick when they eat dairy.

Dairy allergy is separate to lactose intolerance and while I'd love to know the evolutionary history of allergy (which is probably a defence against parasitic infection) I don't know much about it or examples of any particular populations it evolved in. But if you're allergic to milk that's another reason not to drink it.

Unfortunately there's a lot of pseudoscience against milk because both the vegan crowd and the paleo crowd hate on it. There are few things that these two groups agree on, but hatred of dairy products is one. And both groups will tell you "milk is for baby cows not for humans" they also both tend to ignore or be unaware of the fact that humans are highly adaptable in terms of diet, and the ability to digest dairy products has evolved in populations with a long enough history of dairy farming/herding.

I, personally, am from the British Isles and the Britain a history of dairy farming going back at least 5000 years; I can digest dairy just fine and will continue to consume dairy products

:drinker: @ dairy products and the lactase persistence gene






tl;dr: if dairy makes you sick don't eat/drink it, if it doesn't and you like it then eat/drink it

I guess my German & Swedish ancestry would explain why I can digest dairy. But - none of the males in my family can. Hmm..

H4rpy

I read the topic title as "Daily Alarmism" and thought MFP had created a new board. It would be nice to have all the fear-mongering threads in one nicely labeled spot.

Strokingdiction

I read the topic title as "Daily Alarmism" and thought MFP had created a new board. It would be nice to have all the fear-mongering threads in one nicely labeled spot.

You... you complete me.

jim180155

I'd rather keep waiting to see if anyone has anything better than a gut feel.

?? I didn't offer a "gut feel." I cited an Atlantic article that discusses the background of the laws. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the article I'm happy to discuss it, but claiming I cited my gut is inaccurate and unfair.

My apologies. With the way you presented it, asking why it would be so hard to accept, I thought you were going more from intuition. The Atlantic piece (which I did not read) looked more like additional info, unrelated to your opening sentence.

No offense intended.

And now I've read it.

Lemurcat, that's a good article. I hope others will take a look at it too. The first two paragraphs:

"Earlier this month, politicians in Iowa bowed to corporate pressure when they passed a law designed to stifle public debate and keep consumers in the dark. Instead of confronting animal cruelty on factory farms, the top egg- and pork-producing state is now in the business of covering it up. As one of the people this new law is designed to silence, I'm concerned that Iowa is shooting the messenger while letting the real criminals go unpunished.

HF 589 (PDF), better known as the "Ag Gag" law, criminalizes investigative journalists and animal protection advocates who take entry-level jobs at factory farms in order to document the rampant food safety and animal welfare abuses within. In recent years, these undercover videos have spurred changes in our food system by showing consumers the disturbing truth about where most of today's meat, eggs, and dairy is produced. Undercover investigations have directly led to America's largest meat recalls, as well as to the closure of several slaughterhouses that had egregiously cruel animal handling practices. Iowa's Ag Gag law -- along with similar bills pending in other states -- illustrates just how desperate these industries are to keep this information from getting out."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-ag-gag-laws-hiding-factory-farm-abuses-from-public-scrutiny/254674/


So now we know why some of these laws are being written. It doesn't make it any better, though. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Strokingdiction

Unless you can substantiate the bolded claim in some way, I'm not buying it. It sounds like another assumption. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.)

I'm not sure why that would be so hard to accept. Laws are generally not passed, especially not all of a sudden after an industry has existed for years, without some reason that makes people think it's needed (even if needed for bad reasons, as one can argue here).

I could accept it, but then both of us would be assuming that it's correct, in which case neither of us would really know, and neither of us would have any interest in looking into it further.

I'd rather keep waiting to see if anyone has anything better than a gut feel.

Why don't you have anything better. Why not provide a reason instead of asking people that didn't originally pose the question to answer it for you? In light of what the OP was, this just seems like a red herring.

WendyTerry420

I got more or less the same response from QuietBloom:
"Probably nothing. But some organizations (*cough* PETA *cough*) would just love to get some footage they could snip and paste together to suit their agenda. Heck, they can take a dog training video and make it look like abuse. In fact, they think owning animals as pets should be outlawed. "

It seems you two assume that any controversial industry or organization will have specific laws guarding their secrets. Is that true? Do we have laws preventing access to and photography of abortion clinics? Churches? Oil wells? Gun manufacturers? National borders? The list could go on forever.

I know that in some cases access is restricted, and for good reason, but it's done by individual owners. But I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting photography, nor any laws beyond general trespassing/ consent of owner regarding access.

Are there any such laws that you're aware of, or are we just going to assume that there aren't because it suits your pre-existing opinions?

If you get to speculate reasons as to why they would have these laws because "they might need to hide something", then I think it's only fair to speculate as to why the laws might be "needed". Neither one of us sat in on the drafting or signing into law of those.

I would guess gaining access for photos/videos by people faking credentials was a problem in the industry necessitating an actual law on the books. I think that's a fair speculation.

I've been waiting for someone to come along and point out the error in my thinking, someone who will point to other legislation that mirrors the special protections afforded the Ag industry. But the longer I wait, the more I'm thinking there are no such laws.

Stringing a set of assumptions together until they fit your opinion may work for you, John, but they're not making a very convincing argument.

So far there hasn't even been a good argument as to why the Ag industry should be treated so differently.

But if somebody more knowledgeable than me comes up with something, I'll be glad to hear it.

They shouldn't be. "Winners and losers" are chosen by the winning congress critter. Why are some industries completely banned unless the goods are imported from another country? Why are some imports completely banned? Why do some get subsidies and not others? I think the answer is as simple as ... because congress critters...or because "politicians"

lemurcat12

So now we know why some of these laws are being written. It doesn't make it any better, though. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Yep. That's why I thought it was odd (no offense, however) that you called me out on the reason given--it's the opponents who have been saying that's why, and I think it's generally not disputed.

I think the public should oppose the laws, but I guess I'm just cynical in that the reaction here to me seems to suggest that BigAg/Dairy is acting unlike other businesses or that people assume politics in other ways is beyond the influence of money. It's sadly not--insert evidence of unfortunate political/business/interest group bedfellow of your choice--although there's also lots of other evidence of problematic political influence of agricultural interests, IMO.

_John_

I'm just speculating again, but I think the hypothesis for support of the laws is that a damaging video (that may have been edited or obtained illegally) could cause an overnight crippling effect on the industry which would cost the jobs of many overnight. And this crippling affect would be judged in the court of public opinion before any chance to right wrongs or even verify the evidence.

The media is in pretty much uniform disapproval of all such laws so finding anything in support is tough.

jim180155

I think the public should oppose the laws, but I guess I'm just cynical in that the reaction here to me seems to suggest that BigAg/Dairy is acting unlike other businesses or that people assume politics in other ways is beyond the influence of money. It's sadly not--insert evidence of unfortunate political/business/interest group bedfellow of your choice--although there's also lots of other evidence of problematic political influence of agricultural interests, IMO.

I couldn't agree more.

jim180155

I'm just speculating again, but I think the hypothesis for support of the laws is that a damaging video (that may have been edited or obtained illegally) could cause an overnight crippling effect on the industry which would cost the jobs of many overnight. And this crippling affect would be judged in the court of public opinion before any chance to right wrongs or even verify the evidence.

The media is in pretty much uniform disapproval of all such laws so finding anything in support is tough.

I think you're probably right in that the Ag industry and lobbyists used that argument. It's just strange that the legislature in Idaho went along with it. It seems to me that the concerns on the other side are just as important, if not more so.

_John_

I'm just speculating again, but I think the hypothesis for support of the laws is that a damaging video (that may have been edited or obtained illegally) could cause an overnight crippling effect on the industry which would cost the jobs of many overnight. And this crippling affect would be judged in the court of public opinion before any chance to right wrongs or even verify the evidence.

The media is in pretty much uniform disapproval of all such laws so finding anything in support is tough.

I think you're probably right in that the Ag industry and lobbyists used that argument. It's just strange that the legislature in Idaho went along with it. It seems to me that the concerns on the other side are just as important, if not more so.

IIRC it passed something like 65-14 in the state house, and 25-10 the state senate (in Idaho), so I would presume it has decent support from lawmakers all sides.

A handful of other states have passed similar laws.

On the surface, and applied to other industries equally, the wording sounds sketchy as hell...but to at least take it from the side of dairy farms, crippling evidence, obtained illegally, that wasn't even from your farm, widespread, or even factual, that you had no time to refute because that doesn't make news headlines, could cripple your cash flow and your business overnight. That could potentially cost states with a lot of ag business a lot of money and tax dollars.

Strokingdiction

I'm just speculating again, but I think the hypothesis for support of the laws is that a damaging video (that may have been edited or obtained illegally) could cause an overnight crippling effect on the industry which would cost the jobs of many overnight. And this crippling affect would be judged in the court of public opinion before any chance to right wrongs or even verify the evidence.

The media is in pretty much uniform disapproval of all such laws so finding anything in support is tough.

I think you're probably right in that the Ag industry and lobbyists used that argument. It's just strange that the legislature in Idaho went along with it. It seems to me that the concerns on the other side are just as important, if not more so.

IIRC it passed something like 65-14 in the state house, and 25-10 the state senate (in Idaho), so I would presume it has decent support from lawmakers all sides.

A handful of other states have passed similar laws.

On the surface, and applied to other industries equally, the wording sounds sketchy as hell...but to at least take it from the side of dairy farms, crippling evidence, obtained illegally, that wasn't even from your farm, widespread, or even factual, that you had no time to refute because that doesn't make news headlines, could cripple your cash flow and your business overnight. That could potentially cost states with a lot of ag business a lot of money and tax dollars.

Get out of here with your logical speculation. It doesn't belong in this thread.

jim180155

Get out of here with your logical speculation. It doesn't belong in this thread.

Whereas snark is like butter on toast, greasing the wheels of civil discourse (and mixing metaphors).

QuietBloom

I read what it's about and it mentions you can't go there and video tape/take pictures. No where did I see that people aren't allowed in.

I didn't realize it was contagious, but it looks like you caught my quoting problem.

I didn't see anything against going in either. I read just one of the articles, an article from Forbes, thinking they'd be the most Ag-friendly, but they weren't in this case.

Whether or not you can legally visit one of the sites may be beside the point, since I'm pretty sure you'd still need explicit permission from the owner or face jail time for trespassing. But laws prohibiting photography is alarming, IMO. Even a pro-Ag person should be wondering what they're trying to hide.

Why is no photography alarming? Farms are businesses, and all businesses have trade secrets. No business will allow you to wander into their private facilities and photograph or video tape, with express permission. That has more to do with corporate espionage, than trying to cover up mistreatment of animals. It's pretty much a standard for every business. I can't think of any business that would allow me to just walk in and snap pictures, unless I'm on a specific guided tour.

Yes, this is very true! I work in BioTech now (no animals) and photography has always been prohibited within the buildings. But they likely just don't want the public to see how we are confined to tiny little cubicles and only allowed out for an hour at lunch time.

jim180155

You get a whole hour?

Aross83

Happy Friday people! this has kept me well entertained today!

WendyTerry420

I read what it's about and it mentions you can't go there and video tape/take pictures. No where did I see that people aren't allowed in.

I didn't realize it was contagious, but it looks like you caught my quoting problem.

I didn't see anything against going in either. I read just one of the articles, an article from Forbes, thinking they'd be the most Ag-friendly, but they weren't in this case.

Whether or not you can legally visit one of the sites may be beside the point, since I'm pretty sure you'd still need explicit permission from the owner or face jail time for trespassing. But laws prohibiting photography is alarming, IMO. Even a pro-Ag person should be wondering what they're trying to hide.

Why is no photography alarming? Farms are businesses, and all businesses have trade secrets. No business will allow you to wander into their private facilities and photograph or video tape, with express permission. That has more to do with corporate espionage, than trying to cover up mistreatment of animals. It's pretty much a standard for every business. I can't think of any business that would allow me to just walk in and snap pictures, unless I'm on a specific guided tour.

Yes, this is very true! I work in BioTech now (no animals) and photography has always been prohibited within the buildings. But they likely just don't want the public to see how we are confined to tiny little cubicles and only allowed out for an hour at lunch time.

Photography has also been banned in many public institutions, especially federal ones.

WendyTerry420

So now we know why some of these laws are being written. It doesn't make it any better, though. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Yep. That's why I thought it was odd (no offense, however) that you called me out on the reason given--it's the opponents who have been saying that's why, and I think it's generally not disputed.

I think the public should oppose the laws, but I guess I'm just cynical in that the reaction here to me seems to suggest that BigAg/Dairy is acting unlike other businesses or that people assume politics in other ways is beyond the influence of money. It's sadly not--insert evidence of unfortunate political/business/interest group bedfellow of your choice--although there's also lots of other evidence of problematic political influence of agricultural interests, IMO.

The phrase "Follow the money" was popularized when I was small. It seems to be making a comeback, but like the 70s, it also seems to be a lot more talk than action. No one really wants to "follow the money" or they might find themselves hiding out as a refugee in Russia... :ohwell:

Ramen237

I've cut back on dairy recently. Just because I was way over-doing it on the dairy food (I can consume about 2 litres of milk in a day and I could also have cheese and yoghurt on top of that) and I've found that from cutting back, I feel less bloated than I used to. But that's just me, and like I said above, I was really over-doing it. So if you feel like you're having too much dairy, maybe cut back? Otherwise, I wouldn't worry!

^^^This. Unless you experience discomfort of some sort, proceed with dairy consumption as per usual.

J72FIT

“NHANES 1999–2000 and CSFII 1994–1996 analyses of food sources of calcium, vitamin D, protein, phosphorus, and potassium reveal milk to be the number 1 single food contributor of each of these bone-related nutrients with the exception of protein in all age groups of both sexes…”