Almond Milk vs. Cow's Milk

If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.

"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.

However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.

Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.

disgust for breastfeeding is unnatural and not justification for hating on the traditional diets of many people around the world. Humans have not only evolved the ability to digest other animals' milk, they've evolved it at least twice. Europeans evolved this trait, and the Masai people of Africa also evolved it separately. The common factor is thousands of years of dairy farming/herding, i.e. it was the way of life for these people for long enough for the populations to evolve the ability to digest lactose. And just out of interest, would you feel as comfortable telling a traditional Masai herdsman/woman or a traditional Mongolian herdsman/woman that consuming dairy is disgusting and unnatural, or is this something you reserve for industrialised westerners?

also, anyone who's disgusted by seeing someone breastfeed their baby or small child needs counselling. Using this as a line of argument to say drinking other animals milk is even more disgusting is just silly. Breastfeeding is natural. Drinking other animals milk is a traditional way of life for some people around the world, and it too is natural. People who are not descended from those populations tend to have trouble digesting dairy, and those people should avoid dairy. But that doesn't make dairy consumption unnatural or disgusting.

Umm, I didn't say it was disgusting, you did. I specifically placed the context in the modern U.S. (or did you miss that part?) and said it's BIZARRE given that context. So don't start putting words in my mouth.

Those Masai and Mongolian herdspeople are going to actually give a damn about their animals because their survival is linked to them. That alone makes a huge difference in the argument. They are also not raising their animals in a system that pollutes their environment while also adding non-therapeutic antibiotics to their animals. Again, makes a difference in the argument. So don't start trying to go on about westerners vs tribes people, when that wasn't in my comment.

If you're arguing for compassionate and sustainable use of animal food resources then we're in total agreement...

If you're arguing that milk is bad, then we're not. You said that milk was for baby calves... your whole argument was saying that milk consumption in humans is unnatural, you said people find breastfeeding disgusting and imagine the disgust that adults drinking breastmilk would cause... and used that to argue that adult humans drinking animal milks was worse..... you may not have directly said the words "It's disgusting" but you certainly implied it.... your whole argument was based on the fact that consuming other animals' milk is or should be considered disgusting.

I don't think milk is disgusting at all. I love dairy products and eat them all the time. And they're locally farmed too, as I preferentially buy from Arab dairy companies not western ones (I live in Bahrain) because of food miles and more sustainable farming practices locally. And they taste better and cost about 1/10 of the price of western dairy brands.

ETA: glad you agree with me about people disgusted by breastfeeding needing counselling. I find it totally bizarre anyone would be disgusted by someone feeding a baby.... and if you didn't mean it that milk consumption is disgusting then you need to think about your choice of words and analogies when posting, because people read what you write at face value.

If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.

"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.

However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.

Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.

Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

Almond Milk:
-Good for people with dairy sensitivities/allergies/intolerances
-Vegan
-Lower in calories (30-40 unsweetened)
-Something for everyone since different brands have various tastes and thicknesses
-No risk of growth hormones, antibiotics, etc. being used
-Fairly low in fat (3g/5%dv per serving)
-Less perishable

Cow's Milk:
-Less processing needed
-Higher in protein
-Choose level of fat (2% is recommended as some fat is needed to digest properly)
-Preferable for people with almond allergies/sensitivities/intolerances
-Varieties available without use of growth hormones, antibiotics, etc.

If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.

"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.

However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.

Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.

disgust for breastfeeding is unnatural and not justification for hating on the traditional diets of many people around the world. Humans have not only evolved the ability to digest other animals' milk, they've evolved it at least twice. Europeans evolved this trait, and the Masai people of Africa also evolved it separately. The common factor is thousands of years of dairy farming/herding, i.e. it was the way of life for these people for long enough for the populations to evolve the ability to digest lactose. And just out of interest, would you feel as comfortable telling a traditional Masai herdsman/woman or a traditional Mongolian herdsman/woman that consuming dairy is disgusting and unnatural, or is this something you reserve for industrialised westerners?

also, anyone who's disgusted by seeing someone breastfeed their baby or small child needs counselling. Using this as a line of argument to say drinking other animals milk is even more disgusting is just silly. Breastfeeding is natural. Drinking other animals milk is a traditional way of life for some people around the world, and it too is natural. People who are not descended from those populations tend to have trouble digesting dairy, and those people should avoid dairy. But that doesn't make dairy consumption unnatural or disgusting.

Umm, I didn't say it was disgusting, you did. I specifically placed the context in the modern U.S. (or did you miss that part?) and said it's BIZARRE given that context. So don't start putting words in my mouth.

Those Masai and Mongolian herdspeople are going to actually give a damn about their animals because their survival is linked to them. That alone makes a huge difference in the argument. They are also not raising their animals in a system that pollutes their environment while also adding non-therapeutic antibiotics to their animals. Again, makes a difference in the argument. So don't start trying to go on about westerners vs tribes people, when that wasn't in my comment.

If you're arguing for compassionate and sustainable use of animal food resources then we're in total agreement...

If you're arguing that milk is bad, then we're not. You said that milk was for baby calves... your whole argument was saying that milk consumption in humans is unnatural, you said people find breastfeeding disgusting and imagine the disgust that adults drinking breastmilk would cause... and used that to argue that adult humans drinking animal milks was worse..... you may not have directly said the words "It's disgusting" but you certainly implied it.... your whole argument was based on the fact that consuming other animals' milk is or should be considered disgusting.

I don't think milk is disgusting at all. I love dairy products and eat them all the time. And they're locally farmed too, as I preferentially buy from Arab dairy companies not western ones (I live in Bahrain) because of food miles and more sustainable farming practices locally. And they taste better and cost about 1/10 of the price of western dairy brands.

ETA: glad you agree with me about people disgusted by breastfeeding needing counselling. I find it totally bizarre anyone would be disgusted by someone feeding a baby.... and if you didn't mean it that milk consumption is disgusting then you need to think about your choice of words and analogies when posting, because people read what you write at face value.

Again, I placed it in the context of the modern U.S.

When there are so many people in the U.S. who find breastfeeding gross - and this includes some women with children - but they go home and drink a big ol' glass of cow's milk - you don't find that just plain bizarre?! A human baby drinking milk specifically designed for it is gross, but a human drinking milk specifically designed for baby cows isn't (regardless of whether humans can consume it or not, the point here is the comparison between people who find breastfeeding gross while at the same time drinking the milk of another species)? It's not logical.

Maybe I'm just surrounded by an unusually high number of people who find breastfeeding gross (though I know this has become an issue nationwide).

ETA: As an adult, I associate animal (including human) milk with something that is needed for babies, of any species, to develop healthfully. And since I live in the west, I don't need it for survival or health.

If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.

"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.

However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.

Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.

disgust for breastfeeding is unnatural and not justification for hating on the traditional diets of many people around the world. Humans have not only evolved the ability to digest other animals' milk, they've evolved it at least twice. Europeans evolved this trait, and the Masai people of Africa also evolved it separately. The common factor is thousands of years of dairy farming/herding, i.e. it was the way of life for these people for long enough for the populations to evolve the ability to digest lactose. And just out of interest, would you feel as comfortable telling a traditional Masai herdsman/woman or a traditional Mongolian herdsman/woman that consuming dairy is disgusting and unnatural, or is this something you reserve for industrialised westerners?

also, anyone who's disgusted by seeing someone breastfeed their baby or small child needs counselling. Using this as a line of argument to say drinking other animals milk is even more disgusting is just silly. Breastfeeding is natural. Drinking other animals milk is a traditional way of life for some people around the world, and it too is natural. People who are not descended from those populations tend to have trouble digesting dairy, and those people should avoid dairy. But that doesn't make dairy consumption unnatural or disgusting.

Umm, I didn't say it was disgusting, you did. I specifically placed the context in the modern U.S. (or did you miss that part?) and said it's BIZARRE given that context. So don't start putting words in my mouth.

Those Masai and Mongolian herdspeople are going to actually give a damn about their animals because their survival is linked to them. That alone makes a huge difference in the argument. They are also not raising their animals in a system that pollutes their environment while also adding non-therapeutic antibiotics to their animals. Again, makes a difference in the argument. So don't start trying to go on about westerners vs tribes people, when that wasn't in my comment.

If you're arguing for compassionate and sustainable use of animal food resources then we're in total agreement...

If you're arguing that milk is bad, then we're not. You said that milk was for baby calves... your whole argument was saying that milk consumption in humans is unnatural, you said people find breastfeeding disgusting and imagine the disgust that adults drinking breastmilk would cause... and used that to argue that adult humans drinking animal milks was worse..... you may not have directly said the words "It's disgusting" but you certainly implied it.... your whole argument was based on the fact that consuming other animals' milk is or should be considered disgusting.

I don't think milk is disgusting at all. I love dairy products and eat them all the time. And they're locally farmed too, as I preferentially buy from Arab dairy companies not western ones (I live in Bahrain) because of food miles and more sustainable farming practices locally. And they taste better and cost about 1/10 of the price of western dairy brands.

ETA: glad you agree with me about people disgusted by breastfeeding needing counselling. I find it totally bizarre anyone would be disgusted by someone feeding a baby.... and if you didn't mean it that milk consumption is disgusting then you need to think about your choice of words and analogies when posting, because people read what you write at face value.

Again, I placed it in the context of the modern U.S.

When there are so many people in the U.S. who find breastfeeding gross - and this includes some women with children - but they go home and drink a big ol' glass of cow's milk - you don't find that just plain bizarre?! A human baby drinking milk specifically designed for it is gross, but a human drinking milk specifically designed for baby cows isn't (regardless of whether humans can consume it or not, the point here is the comparison between people who find breastfeeding gross while at the same time drinking the milk of another species)? It's not logical.

Maybe I'm just surrounded by an unusually high number of people who find breastfeeding gross (though I know this has become an issue nationwide).

IMO...people that are opposed to breast feeding don't think it is gross because of the taste or content...they are just uncomfortable with the idea because the breasts are looked at as a sexual part of a females body.

If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.

"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.

However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.

Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.

disgust for breastfeeding is unnatural and not justification for hating on the traditional diets of many people around the world. Humans have not only evolved the ability to digest other animals' milk, they've evolved it at least twice. Europeans evolved this trait, and the Masai people of Africa also evolved it separately. The common factor is thousands of years of dairy farming/herding, i.e. it was the way of life for these people for long enough for the populations to evolve the ability to digest lactose. And just out of interest, would you feel as comfortable telling a traditional Masai herdsman/woman or a traditional Mongolian herdsman/woman that consuming dairy is disgusting and unnatural, or is this something you reserve for industrialised westerners?

also, anyone who's disgusted by seeing someone breastfeed their baby or small child needs counselling. Using this as a line of argument to say drinking other animals milk is even more disgusting is just silly. Breastfeeding is natural. Drinking other animals milk is a traditional way of life for some people around the world, and it too is natural. People who are not descended from those populations tend to have trouble digesting dairy, and those people should avoid dairy. But that doesn't make dairy consumption unnatural or disgusting.

Umm, I didn't say it was disgusting, you did. I specifically placed the context in the modern U.S. (or did you miss that part?) and said it's BIZARRE given that context. So don't start putting words in my mouth.

Those Masai and Mongolian herdspeople are going to actually give a damn about their animals because their survival is linked to them. That alone makes a huge difference in the argument. They are also not raising their animals in a system that pollutes their environment while also adding non-therapeutic antibiotics to their animals. Again, makes a difference in the argument. So don't start trying to go on about westerners vs tribes people, when that wasn't in my comment.

If you're arguing for compassionate and sustainable use of animal food resources then we're in total agreement...

If you're arguing that milk is bad, then we're not. You said that milk was for baby calves... your whole argument was saying that milk consumption in humans is unnatural, you said people find breastfeeding disgusting and imagine the disgust that adults drinking breastmilk would cause... and used that to argue that adult humans drinking animal milks was worse..... you may not have directly said the words "It's disgusting" but you certainly implied it.... your whole argument was based on the fact that consuming other animals' milk is or should be considered disgusting.

I don't think milk is disgusting at all. I love dairy products and eat them all the time. And they're locally farmed too, as I preferentially buy from Arab dairy companies not western ones (I live in Bahrain) because of food miles and more sustainable farming practices locally. And they taste better and cost about 1/10 of the price of western dairy brands.

ETA: glad you agree with me about people disgusted by breastfeeding needing counselling. I find it totally bizarre anyone would be disgusted by someone feeding a baby.... and if you didn't mean it that milk consumption is disgusting then you need to think about your choice of words and analogies when posting, because people read what you write at face value.

Again, I placed it in the context of the modern U.S.

When there are so many people in the U.S. who find breastfeeding gross - and this includes some women with children - but they go home and drink a big ol' glass of cow's milk - you don't find that just plain bizarre?! A human baby drinking milk specifically designed for it is gross, but a human drinking milk specifically designed for baby cows isn't (regardless of whether humans can consume it or not, the point here is the comparison between people who find breastfeeding gross while at the same time drinking the milk of another species)? It's not logical.

Maybe I'm just surrounded by an unusually high number of people who find breastfeeding gross (though I know this has become an issue nationwide).

ETA: As an adult, I associate animal (including human) milk with something that is needed for babies, of any species, to develop healthfully. And since I live in the west, I don't need it for survival or health.

there are about a million things about specific cultures that I find bizarre.... I guess I'm not surprised by bizarre and irrational beliefs in human cultures, due to having studied a lot of anthropology. So yeah I guess it it bizarre that breastfeeding a baby is taboo for some people yet drinking cow's milk isn't, but I gave up on expecting human cultural attitudes to be logical a long time ago. There's also the fact that in the UK it's fine for bare breasted women to be on page 3 of the tabloids, but many people who read the very same tabloids also freak out about breastfeeding. But again I'd say it's the attitude towards breastfeeding that's wrong. and i agree with challenging cultural attitudes (in any culture) that are actually causing harm to people (although campaigns to stop things are more effective when they come from people within that culture). Some cultural practices and cultural taboos do need to be challenged and the anti-breastfeeding taboo in the west is one of them.

However, drinking animal milk isn't harmful if the animals are properly cared for and it's done sustainably, so I don't see anything inherently wrong about milk drinking. Farming practices that are cruel or damaging to the environment or human health should be challenged, but it's the specific practicies, not milk drinking or eating animals that are the issue, at least in my opinion. I understand that there's an ethical argument for not consuming any animal products, but I don't happen to agree with it. I'm not against veganism or vegetarianism, I respect those things as choices (even though it's not my choice), it's the pseudoscience and scaremongering that I object to.

If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.

"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.

However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.

Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.

Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

the problem occurs when people confuse the two issues

the impact on human health caused by specific farming practices is a scientific issue, and can be researched scientifically, hypotheses tested, etc, research published in peer reviewed journals etc.

the impact on the environment of certain specific farming practices is a scientific issue, and can be researched scientifically, hypotheses tested, etc, research published in peer reviewed journals etc.

whether eating animal products is right or wrong is an ethical issue. Ethical issues are valid, but it's not the same kind of question as scientific questions, nor is it handled in the same way. If someone believes that eating animals is wrong, then they should just stop eating animals and they don't need to find any scientific evidence of health problems in humans caused by eating animals to justify their decision. Their decision is an ethical one, their ethical beliefs alone justify their decision.

twisting the facts and inventing "facts" to claim that animal foods are dangerous to humans because you don't agree with people eating animal products is neither scientific nor ethical. When organisations like PETA do this kind of thing they lose all credibility. Even if there is no evidence for any harm coming to humans from eating animal products, this has no bearing on the validity of their ethical choice to not eat animals.

Why does everyone in the mainstream resort to PETA as the only example? As though every single vegetarian and vegan in the world is like PETA? They are a fringe group in terms of their tactics. The fact that they are in the media is a result of those tactics. The rest of us can't help that, as much as we might want to. But that doesn't mean we should all be lumped with them. And it doesn't give everyone else the excuse to always resort to PETA to prove their point.

And you all are proving the point I made in my response to SunOf. Moral arguments are important. But most people don't want to go there. Just because a person has a moral reason for choosing to eat the way they do, doesn't mean they can't also use science to back up their decision (and yes, I mean valid science).

As I said, if your choice is for environmental reasons, it may be based on a combination of the two. Science presents the evidence showing how factory farming is harmful to the environment. A person learns this. They can say "Oh well, what do I care? I'll be dead before it matters anyway," or they can take the science and decide that they have a moral obligation to choose not to eat factory farmed animals because its impact on the environment hurts people now who live near such "farms," and will have an impact on future generations.

You never know why a person has chosen to be veg*n. Some people choose so because they believe eating other animals is wrong, period. Some because they believe eating animals raised a certain way is wrong and they don't have access to humanely raised AND slaughtered animals. Some for personal health reasons. Some for environmental reasons.

So to say someone who believes "eating animals products" is wrong is taking a moral stance is not entirely correct in context of how/where most of us live - which is in industrialized nations, and a high number of users on this site in the U.S. If a person believes "eating animals and animal products is wrong all of the time" because of the sentience of animals, then yes, that's a moral argument (which is what you are referring to). They can still use science to explain to others further reasons for why they believe animals shouldn't be eaten. I know very few people who don't eat animals solely because of sentience, it's usually a combination. While the U.S. in particular seems to have a high number of extremists (I mean, we really only have a two-party political system), there are many people who recognize the grays in life, and do not take one position for only one reason.

Basically, just because someone takes a moral stance, doesn't mean they can't hold equally strong beliefs about other related issues.

But yes, if the science is twisted, it doesn't help anyone.

Here's an interesting read for anyone who might want a little more information about the overall impacts/potential impacts of the U.S.'s method of farming animals.


Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America:

Summary:
http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPSmry.pdf

Link to entire report:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=38442

If organizations like PETA would stick with the moral issues that they care about, rather than manipulating data and fabricating theories to back up their case, their credibility wouldn't be as shot as it is. It's a shame really, because the dishonesty isn't necessary, as the moral debate is a legitimate and interesting one.

"organizations like PETA"? Most educated and reasonable people concerned about animal welfare (or rights) and environmental health ALSO place PETA on the fringe, and take issue with the fact that their extremism is indeed detrimental to the issues overall.

However, let's be realistic. Humans have an amazing capacity to develop in positive ways in nearly every aspect you could think of. Most of us do not do so, for many reasons. We have an infinite capacity to feel compassion and empathy, but again, many/most of us do not do so even for others in our own species, let alone another. To go the moral route in debate is very often a dead end - which is why the veg*n community is trying to go the route of science - be it human health or environmental health. Unfortunately, groups like PETA screw even that up.

Anyway, no comment on the almond milk vs cow's milk other than to say - we're not calves. The U.S. in particular seems to have developed a bizarre disgust of human breastfeeding for human infants. Imagine the disgust most people would feel if an adult human drank human breastmilk regularly. So if we wouldn't drink human breastmilk, designed for human infants, why on earth would we want to drink the milk of another species? Just bizarre. Add in the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the industry, and all that is passed on through consumption of the milk, and most people take no issue with consuming it. Again, just bizarre.

Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

the problem occurs when people confuse the two issues

the impact on human health caused by specific farming practices is a scientific issue, and can be researched scientifically, hypotheses tested, etc, research published in peer reviewed journals etc.

the impact on the environment of certain specific farming practices is a scientific issue, and can be researched scientifically, hypotheses tested, etc, research published in peer reviewed journals etc.

whether eating animal products is right or wrong is an ethical issue. Ethical issues are valid, but it's not the same kind of question as scientific questions, nor is it handled in the same way. If someone believes that eating animals is wrong, then they should just stop eating animals and they don't need to find any scientific evidence of health problems in humans caused by eating animals to justify their decision. Their decision is an ethical one, their ethical beliefs alone justify their decision.

twisting the facts and inventing "facts" to claim that animal foods are dangerous to humans because you don't agree with people eating animal products is neither scientific nor ethical. When organisations like PETA do this kind of thing they lose all credibility. Even if there is no evidence for any harm coming to humans from eating animal products, this has no bearing on the validity of their ethical choice to not eat animals.

Why does everyone in the mainstream resort to PETA as the only example? As though every single vegetarian and vegan in the world is like PETA? They are a fringe group in terms of their tactics. The fact that they are in the media is a result of those tactics. The rest of us can't help that, as much as we might want to. But that doesn't mean we should all be lumped with them. And it doesn't give everyone else the excuse to always resort to PETA to prove their point.

And you all are proving the point I made in my response to SunOf. Moral arguments are important. But most people don't want to go there. Just because a person has a moral reason for choosing to eat the way they do, doesn't mean they can't also use science to back up their decision (and yes, I mean valid science).

As I said, if your choice is for environmental reasons, it may be based on a combination of the two. Science presents the evidence showing how factory farming is harmful to the environment. A person learns this. They can say "Oh well, what do I care? I'll be dead before it matters anyway," or they can take the science and decide that they have a moral obligation to choose not to eat factory farmed animals because its impact on the environment hurts people now who live near such "farms," and will have an impact on future generations.

You never know why a person has chosen to be veg*n. Some people choose so because they believe eating other animals is wrong, period. Some because they believe eating animals raised a certain way is wrong and they don't have access to humanely raised AND slaughtered animals. Some for personal health reasons. Some for environmental reasons.

So to say someone who believes "eating animals products" is wrong is taking a moral stance is not entirely correct in context of how/where most of us live - which is in industrialized nations, and a high number of users on this site in the U.S. If a person believes "eating animals and animal products is wrong all of the time" because of the sentience of animals, then yes, that's a moral argument (which is what you are referring to). They can still use science to explain to others further reasons for why they believe animals shouldn't be eaten. I know very few people who don't eat animals solely because of sentience, it's usually a combination. While the U.S. in particular seems to have a high number of extremists (I mean, we really only have a two-party political system), there are many people who recognize the grays in life, and do not take one position for only one reason.

Basically, just because someone takes a moral stance, doesn't mean they can't hold equally strong beliefs about other related issues.

But yes, if the science is twisted, it doesn't help anyone.

My mum's a vegetarian, I don't liken her or most vegetarians to PETA

the poster on this thread who was likened to PETA was using unscientific reasoning and scaremongering to push his point of view on others, and has a reputation for doing so on this site. One person likened him to PETA, you came in and white knighted him with a more rational perspective, the rest of the references to PETA were based on the reasons why this particular person, and others like him, are considered to be fringe, irrational and harmful to the cause,

I've said repeatedly I have nothing against vegans or vegetarians, only against pseudoscience and scaremongering.

as to why people become vegans... there are a lot of people who post on here about becoming vegan for health reasons, some of them even state outright that it's not about ethics, only health,and when asked what health benefits they think they get from it, they list myths and pseudoscience. The vegans are not the only ones putting out myths and pseudoscience about the alleged health benefits of their diet and how other diets are killing people or whatever, and I challenge all of it. If there's one diet I pick on more than any other, it's the paleo diet. But all of them are using the same tactic, twisting science to promote their diet and demonise others. I don't agree with anyone doing that.

I never said that someone who takes a moral stance can't have opinions about science on related matters, I'm saying they don't need to resort to science to justify their ethical beliefs, because it's not necessary. I said that the two were different questions. And all of this is in response to you white knighting a poster who was promoting pseudoscience and scaremongering. If you don't agree with those tactics then look more carefully at who you're white knighting. The disagreement was with him, not you, but you jumped into it to "correct" statements made to this poster, which you seem to have taken as blanket criticisms of all vegans/vegetarians, when they're not.

Why would no casein be a good thing?

Because if you ate a low protein diet following toxic insult from a large dose of aflatoxin, you would insufficient feed the injured cells, so no liver cancer could develop.

Nevermind that you'd die from acute from liver injury on average before you could live long enough to get cancer or that a diet of equivalent quantity and adequacy of amino acids would lead to cancer developing from the same unrealistic exposure to aflatoxin.

Cow's milk was not meant for human consumption, it was meant for baby calves. Almond milk is RGBH free of growth hormones. It has more calcium in it than milk does too.

Cow's milk was not meant for human consumption, it was meant for baby calves. Almond milk is RGBH free of growth hormones. It has more calcium in it than milk does too.

All mammals will consume milk, regardless of source, if presented with the opportunity.

Also, no food was "meant' for human consumption; that's not how dietary adaptation works.

Trying to use science to justify a moral position isn't science.
And the idea that there are antibiotics in milk is false. That's a big industry no-no and one of the few things commercial milk is tested against.

So, trying to do scientific studies to show that the way industrialized animal farming isn't good for human health or for environmental health isn't a good thing?

Wait.

What?

A person choosing not to eat factory farmed animals because of the effects of factory farming on the environment, and choosing so because they believe they have a moral obligation to do what they can to lessen their impact on the earth, can't use science to explain their choice?

So, you don't want a moral argument, and you don't want a scientific argument. Okay.

You've already come to your conclusion, and are trying to justify it by "research". An approach that considers industrial animal farming and evaluates both the positive and negative aspects is more believable than an agenda driven approach.

You've already lost people like me when, from your high horse, you think I don't want a moral or scientific stand - it's just that the science you are trying to provide isn't very good. A certain amount of industrial scaling is more efficient and less damaging than none, when addressing the need to provide quality agricultural goods at a reasonable price in world markets. What that level is, I'm not quite sure.

Using science to explain a moral choice is just noise. If one is so certain of the moral position, that starting presumption should be sufficient. Clearly, since you need to abuse science to do so means that the moral arguments are either insufficient or poorly communicated.

You actually weaken your case.

I haven't abused any science. I haven't posted anything about milk being dangerous for humans or whatever. Saying human milk is specifically designed for humans and other species' milk for other species isn't abusing science. It's just a fact. I also stated that some humans can consume other animals' milk.

Again, if people want to lump ALL veg*ns into one PETA-like group, and claim all our tactics are the same, well, can't get past that.

You brought up "science" as an argument to support a moral position.
As to you "fact" - it isn't a fact but opinion. Milk, of human source or animal, isn't necessarily "designed" (by whom?) for a specific species. What are you basing this "fact" on, how would you like to show that milk isn't a proper product for human consumption, if not by science, but that fact remains that milk can be consumed not my some humans but by most humans. Lactose intolerance in infants is extremely rare (and also results in intolerance of human milk), as we age, it's onset varies - it's incorrect to assume that because we sometimes stop developing lactase it isn't a good nutrient resource for infants.

Personally, I'm not lumping any veg*ns into one group, nor do I think most people here do.

I do see a lot of stupid people arguing that there is pus in milk. Sigh.

The whole "not meant for human consumption" is a non-sequitur because it is consumed by humans on a massive scale since pre-historic times.

I come from a dairy farming family. I've seen my grandparents, great-grandparents, and older relatives rock and roll into their late 80s to mid-90s like a bunch of badasses. All of them drank milk and buttermilk daily throughout their lives. I don't know about the journal articles either way, but my experience tells me that dairy isn't going to hurt you (barring some genetic intolerance).

That being said, these people also exclusively ate homegrown veggies, wild berries, wild game (mostly deer, but also rabbit, some turtle, and squirrel). They ate very little processed food as it was too expensive. Farm work is hard, so of course they were active.

I'm not sure you could separate all of these variables, but high amounts of dairy sure didn't hurt them.

I have researched a lot - how can you say neither is true?