Slashdot Mirror

What concerns me a lot more than GM grains is the crap they're putting into meat. It's enough of a concern that countries have taken to
banning American-raised beef.

The body's amazing ability to heal itself has failed him.

Utter horseshit. You speak out of your ass about that which you clearly know nothing about. There's overwelming evidence that we've failed our bodies, inundating them with cancerous-causing synthetic substances, providing them with entirely incorrect foods for primates and simply abusing them in a variety of ways that are completely incompatible with what they were designed/evolved for.

Shut your impulsive, ignorant mouth and perhaps even educate yourself a little...

but I don't think there is some big conspiracy to block it or actual cures. I think the much simpler solution is that curing most diseases is much harder than curing it. And drug companies do come out with things like antibiotics that do in fact cure disease.

With all due respect, like most people inside and outside the medical community, you've been fed a line of complete bullshit.

I've got karma to burn so here goes (this is just scratching the surface):

Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Harvard Medical Students Rebel Against Big Pharma Ties

"More Marketing Than Science" - An Anonymous Confession About Deceptive Marketing Published in the British Medical Journal

Big pharma loves the (non-stop) war on cancer

The Nature of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Big Pharmaâ(TM)s War on Health

The drugs donâ(TM)t work: a modern medical scandal ~ Ben Goldacre

Money, Politics, and Health Care: A Disease-Creation Economy â" Part I by Mark Hyman, MD

Corruption in Drug Research and in Medicine

A.M.A. and the Drug Cartel

The Disease Economy

25 Shocking Facts That Prove That The Entire U.S. Health Care Industry Has Become One Giant Money Making Scam

Scientific Sleight of Hand: Two Ways Big Pharma Lies to You

People & Power - Drug Money

The 6 Types of Pills Big Pharma Wants You Hooked On for Life

Should We Stop Trying To Cure Cancer?

Top Ten Reasons To Avoid Your Doctor

Doctored - The Movie

The Cure For Cancer Suppressed

Well done, you have bought into a PETA scare tactic. no logic, no science, but man, it sure helps you feel righteous, doesn't it?

At which point did I mention Peta or cite them as a source?

You do know that American beef has been banned by the European Economic Community since 1998. A ban that was contested by the USA but it was upheld after the ban was analysed and then supported by the World Trade Organisation.

Perhaps if you could provide some sources to back up the alleged saftey of the unregulated use of growth hormones in beef and dairy products?

Then there is the issues with milk from cows given bovine somatotropin, something which is banned in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27). You can eat and drink that shit all you want, but I'll happily have nothing to do with it.

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/hormones_meat.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

According to the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health, the use of six natural and artificial growth hormones in beef production poses a potential risk to human health.iii These six hormones include three which are naturally occurring—Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone—and three which are synthetic—Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol. The Committee also questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer.iv

Hormone imbalances are also a problem:

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was one of the first hormones used to fatten feedlots. It was banned in 1979 after forty years of evidence that DES was cancer-causing. In its place, sex hormones, such as estradiol and progestins (synthetic forms of the naturally occurring hormone progesterone) have been implanted to virtually all feedlot cattle. The least hazardous way to administer hormones to animals is through an implant near the animals ear. Unfortunately, many farmers inject hormones directly into the muscle tissue that will be later used to make meat products. The only USDA-imposed requirement is that residue levels in meat must be less than one percent of the daily hormone production of children. This requirement is unenforceable because there is no USDA testing for hormone residues in meat. Furthermore, hormonal residues are not practically differentiable from natural hormones created by the cow's body. As a result, the use of hormones to boost meat production is completely unregulated.

Moreso, the impact of all this extra estrogen is having on people (especially men) is particularly worrying. Maybe meat is making today's boys a little soft.

The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, based on conservative assumptions, because young children have very low natural hormone levels. In real life, the situation may be much worse. An unpublicized random USDA survey of 32 large feedlots found that as many as half the cattle had visible illegal "misplaced implants" in muscle, rather than under ear skin. This would result in very high local concentrations of hormones, and also elevated levels in muscle meat at distant sites. Such abuse is very hard to detect.

Given that a tiny proportion of cows actually slaughtered for sale of their parts have actually eaten grass in their lives, they are also full of all sorts of pesticides, dioxins in the fatty tissue being one particularly nasty result. These mutants don't eat eat grass, as their ancestors have, but corn, soya beans and oats. 70% of all grains grown in the U.S are fed to animals to turn into tissue which is then eaten. A highly inefficient and environmentally costly source of proteins.

Like it or not, any non-grass-grown meat is pretty much poisonous. Sadly grass grown meat is such a tiny proportion of meat eaten as it's just not a market-competitive means of production. It's all hormones, antibiotics and a high protein diet for the animals that are eaten these days. Any vet will tell you we're eating very sick beasts.

Even we Europeans are not safe - most of the meat eaten here is raised on imported grains. Farmers have a practice of putting a f

According to the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health, the use of six natural and artificial growth hormones in beef production poses a potential risk to human health.iii These six hormones include three which are naturally occurring—Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone—and three which are synthetic—Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol. The Committee also questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer.iv

Hormone imbalances are also a problem:

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was one of the first hormones used to fatten feedlots. It was banned in 1979 after forty years of evidence that DES was cancer-causing. In its place, sex hormones, such as estradiol and progestins (synthetic forms of the naturally occurring hormone progesterone) have been implanted to virtually all feedlot cattle. The least hazardous way to administer hormones to animals is through an implant near the animals ear. Unfortunately, many farmers inject hormones directly into the muscle tissue that will be later used to make meat products. The only USDA-imposed requirement is that residue levels in meat must be less than one percent of the daily hormone production of children. This requirement is unenforceable because there is no USDA testing for hormone residues in meat. Furthermore, hormonal residues are not practically differentiable from natural hormones created by the cow's body. As a result, the use of hormones to boost meat production is completely unregulated.

Moreso, the impact of all this extra estrogen is having on people (especially men) is particularly worrying. Maybe meat is making today's boys a little soft.

The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, based on conservative assumptions, because young children have very low natural hormone levels. In real life, the situation may be much worse. An unpublicized random USDA survey of 32 large feedlots found that as many as half the cattle had visible illegal "misplaced implants" in muscle, rather than under ear skin. This would result in very high local concentrations of hormones, and also elevated levels in muscle meat at distant sites. Such abuse is very hard to detect.

Given that a tiny proportion of cows actually slaughtered for sale of their parts have actually eaten grass in their lives, they are also full of all sorts of pesticides, dioxins in the fatty tissue being one particularly nasty result. These mutants don't eat eat grass, as their ancestors have, but corn, soya beans and oats. 70% of all grains grown in the U.S are fed to animals to turn into tissue which is then eaten. A highly inefficient and environmentally costly source of proteins.

Like it or not, any non-grass-grown meat is pretty much poisonous. Sadly grass grown meat is such a tiny proportion of meat eaten as it's just not a market-competitive means of production. It's all hormones, antibiotics and a high protein diet for the animals that are eaten these days. Any vet will tell you we're eating very sick beasts.

Even we Europeans are not safe - most of the meat eaten here is raised on imported grains. Farmers have a practice of putting a f

>> It also raises the question of where all the money donated to Canadian and other cancer societies, and especially the billions spent buying merchandise with little pink ribbons on it goes, if not to actual cancer research like this."

Answer:
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

The Canadian Cancer Society publishes financial statements, which can be found here:

http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20us/CW-Financial%20statements.aspx?sc_lang=en

I'll skip the analysis, but if you take a look, they break down their revenue by sources and their expenditures by type. They also show what assets they have and so on. In other words, they show all the typical stuff required for financial statements. It'd be interesting to do an full analysis, but even though I'm a business major I am not an accountant.

That article is a bit sketchy, and way out of date. Take a look at this instead: Charity Navigator on the American Cancer Society

I trust Charity Navigator a lot more than thus guy. His site looks like a non-profit organization, but it seems to be just one guy looking for a way to sell his own books. All the publications on the site are written by this one guy, Samuel Epstein. He criticizes the ACS, but his nonprofit isn't even listed on Charity Navigator.

in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million...Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs

That was 22 years ago! Based on Charity Navigator, they spent 6.9% on administrative expenses, and 72.8% on programs. The names he mentions in his article aren't current.

It was probably a good criticism in it's time, and it appears that the ACS has reformed -- perhaps as a result of the article.

That article is a bit sketchy, and way out of date. Take a look at this instead: Charity Navigator on the American Cancer Society

I trust Charity Navigator a lot more than thus guy. His site looks like a non-profit organization, but it seems to be just one guy looking for a way to sell his own books. All the publications on the site are written by this one guy, Samuel Epstein. He criticizes the ACS, but his nonprofit isn't even listed on Charity Navigator.

in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million...Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs

That was 22 years ago! Based on Charity Navigator, they spent 6.9% on administrative expenses, and 72.8% on programs. The names he mentions in his article aren't current.

It was probably a good criticism in it's time, and it appears that the ACS has reformed -- perhaps as a result of the article.

>> It also raises the question of where all the money donated to Canadian and other cancer societies, and especially the billions spent buying merchandise with little pink ribbons on it goes, if not to actual cancer research like this."

Answer:
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

Well, in some places in the "West," girls hit puberty at 9-10 and start having babies at 11-12. Many are so fat that they have big floppy fatty boobs by the time they're 13.

Having bovine growth hormones in the milk you drink will do that. No big surprises there.

Ohhh the temptation to let you fall is so great... http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

This stuff turns into dust. It's absorbed into the body.

I still don't trust industry. They own the ACS(american cancer society),which doesn't teach prevention because of all the chemical companies on the board.

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/household/c arcinogens_home.htm

  "Methylene chloride, the propellant used in many aerosol products, is carcinogenic. Some products containing methylene chloride have been pulled from the market, but the carcinogen continues to be found in many consumer products such as spray paint and stripper.

Not a single cosmetic company warns consumers of the presence of carcinogens in its products - despite the fact that a number of common cosmetic ingredients are carcinogenic or carcinogenic precursors."

If you want to see the biggest coverup in science it has to be the rising incidence of cancer and noone knows why.

Maybe this article would shed some light on how the plastics and pesticide industry owns the media and covers it up. They actually control the American Cancer Society which they use skillfully use to control anything that might hurt business.

We know the cause of cancer. More here on cause of breast cancer and organochlorides. We just can't stop the industry that owns our government.

One more link on the frontline investigation that industry tried to stop on pestcide effects on children.

If you want to see the biggest coverup in science it has to be the rising incidence of cancer and noone knows why.

Maybe this article would shed some light on how the plastics and pesticide industry owns the media and covers it up. They actually control the American Cancer Society which they use skillfully use to control anything that might hurt business.

We know the cause of cancer. More here on cause of breast cancer and organochlorides. We just can't stop the industry that owns our government.

One more link on the frontline investigation that industry tried to stop on pestcide effects on children.

Nader was the only one who actually answered the question... but a hot dog? Why should I care what he thinks about hot dogs?

I think Nader is being self-centered more than ducking the question - he assumes the audience is aware of his role in exposing toxic ingredients used in hotdogs.