All Things MILK

A collection of videos & articles 
about milk

This is a pretty comprehensive indictment of the dairy industry, as to how a persistent lie, year after year, for decades, can become a truth in the mind, even after it has been proven to be a lie.

The first section will reference videos. The second will refer to written articles. And the third will consist of excerpts from several books.

#1) Robert Cohen talks abut his book 'Milk: the Deadly Poison' (5min.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYpafipJyDE&NR=1

#2)  Informative lecture worth the time. You can skip the 1st 3min. introduction. (51min.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3wY4_FhBE

#3) John McDougall: 'The Perils of Dairy' (2003). There has never been a case of dietary calcium deficiency reported in the world literature. In 2003 the dairy industry dedicated $165 million dollars to advertise their products. You can start at the 6:25 mark, unless you want to listen to 6 min. of introductions.  (1hr. 17min.)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJvrlwnEqbs

#4) Most interesting video of attempt by Fox News to cover up an investigative report on Monsanto's bovine growth hormone intended to increase cow milk producton. (10 min.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqepg46qtDA&feature=related

#5) Interview in spanish, with english subtitle, about dangers of milk. (15 min.). Gentleman being interviewed has published 3 books on veganism. "The Ethical Diet,"  "You Will Not Drink Milk," and "Vegan Children, Happy and Healthy." In this video he explains why milk products are not a natural part of the human diet. Worth the little extra effort to read subtitles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmTDLBBDo_M&feature=related


#6) German video on milk production (9 min.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXlGr1GpG-0


#7)The Problem with conventional and organic milk. (2:21)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTruEnXhkVA

#8)What you never knew about Dairy: (4min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8kdpcFaNsw


Lengthy article with videos:
Got Brainwashed? 5 things to consider before you pour your next glass of milk               http://www.yourtimetravels.com/blog/animal-advocacy/got-brainwashed-5-things-to-consider-before-pouring-your-next-glass-of-milk/


This is a lengthy article on milk, titled: The Bizarre and Outrageous Cruelty Behind Every “Milk Moustache” http://www.nonhumanslavery.com/behind-the-milk-moustache

The Dangers of Cow's Milk, an article:
No other animal in the animal kingdom drinks milk beyond childhood. No other animal suffers from osteoporosis, except the occasional pet raised on human meals.
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/linda_folden_palmer.html

From:THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS
Robert M. Kradjian, MD
WHAT IS MILK? Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal.
See entire article:  http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html


Obtaining Notmilk Calcium
from Robert Cohen: http://www.notmilk.com/

There was a time in my life when human breast milk
was my primary calcium-rich food. Those who believe in
God or Evolution or Mother Nature are in universal
agreement on one thing: Human breast milk is the
perfect food for baby humans.

I've been weaned. I no longer drink human breast milk.
Nor do I drink dog milk, pig milk, or cow's milk.

My calcium comes from eating or juicing raw
fruits and vegetables.

A 100-gram portion of human breast milk contains
33 milligrams of calcium. Consider that number
(33) when reviewing my favorite calcium-rich foods.

My top two-dozen calcium choices (per 100-gram portion):

1. Almonds 234 mg
2. Apricots (dried) 67 mg
3. Beet greens 99 mg
4. Broccoli 48 mg
5. Carrot 37 mg
6. Cashew nuts 38 mg
7. Swiss Chard 88 mg
8. Collards 250 mg
9. Cress 81 mg
10. Dandelion greens 187 mg
11. Endive 81 mg
12. Escarole 81 mg
13. Figs (dried) 126 mg
14. Filberts (Hazelnuts) 209 mg
15. Kale 249 mg
16. Lettuce (dark green) 68 mg
17. Mustard Green 183 mg
18. Olives 61 mg
19. Orange 43 mg
20. Parsley 203 mg
21. Raisins 62 mg
22. Spinach 93 mg
23. Sunflower seeds 120 mg
24. Water Cress 151 mg

Can it be any clearer to you that there are quite a
number of raw food options containing calcium?


From: http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ed_milk.htm

Here, I offer seven questions that get to the root of the Dairy Council's "Calcium Crisis." These questions raise some serious concerns regarding milk, and I invite the Dairy Council to respond.

1) If cow's milk improves bone health, how is it that the United States is a world leader in dairy consumption yet also has one of the highest rates of osteoporosis?

2) What percentage of studies related to milk and calcium are funded by the Dairy Council and other milk-industry groups? Each year, how many researchers and nutritionists receive grants from the Dairy Council and other milk industry groups?

3) Leafy greens contain no cholesterol or saturated fat, and they are loaded with beneficial phytochemicals that are absent from dairy products. There are some greens like spinach that contain oxalates that inhibit calcium absorption, but a number of other leafy greens have been proven to be better calcium sources than milk (both by weight and by calorie.) If increasing dietary calcium is a goal of the dairy council, why isn't priority given to leafy greens, especially since the calcium in leafy greens is often more plentiful and better absorbed than the calcium in dairy products?

4) During the June 1999 Calcium Summit, no representatives were present from industries or farm collectives that market leafy greens. Nor were representatives invited from other food concerns that market nondairy calcium rich foods and supplements. Given the contribution that these products could make to calcium consumption, why weren't people connected with these industries specifically invited to the summit?

5) Why do many "Got Milk" advertisements feature celebrities of African or Asian descent, while these ads fail to mention that most adults of these ethnicities lack the enzyme to properly digest milk?

6) Why hasn't the National Dairy Council taken a stance to ensure that milk from cows treated with Monsanto's rBGH is labeled, so that consumers can choose to avoid this milk if they so desire?

7) The National Dairy Council and its associated groups consistently put out the message that milk builds strong bones and reduces osteoporosis risk. If milk can reduce the risk of osteoporosis, why has Harvard's Nurses' Health Study, which included over 57,000 women, found women who consumed the most calcium from dairy products had almost double the rate of hip fractures compared to women who got the least calcium from dairy?

                                          
FROM BOOKS

WHITEWASH: Joseph Keon (2010)

I wrote this book to try and explain why Americans, among the top consumers of calcium in the world (largely by way of dairy products), also have one of the world's highest rates of bone fracture.

For over eighty years the milk industry, through relentless advertising and the cooperation of our public school systems and the medical professions, has hammered a myth into the collective American psyche: that cow's milk is a healthy, calcium-rich food essential to building and maintaining strong bones and teeth.

Consider these facts: societies with low-calcium diets and only a fraction of our dairy consumption have less risk and prevalence of bone fracture. Dairy products are not dietary staples in China, Japan, Vietnam, or Thailand, yet the residents of these countries suffer some of the lowest rates of bone fracture.

The world's biggest consumers of cow's milk, dairy products, and calcium--Australia, New Zealand, North America, and Western Europe--also have the highest risk of suffering a bone fracture.

You will learn why cow's milk and products made from it are not only unnecessary in your diet, their inclusion places you and your children at risk of a host of health problems.

You will come to understand why and how the milk myth has been so successfully perpetuated upon us all, and how truly easy it is to leave dairy products behind.

According to the USDA the average American consumes approximately thirty ounces of milk, cheese, and butter a day--or
six hundred pounds of dairy products a year. Seventy-two percent of our calcium is derived from dairy foods. Milk vending-machines stand in high-school corridors across the nation. From our earliest years we receive the pervasive messages promoting cow's milk and dairy foods.

Every source of available information, from health magazines, wellness newsletters, doctors, school coaches, personal trainers, and commercials on television, confirmed the same message: Drink More Milk. To question milk was almost like questioning the American flag.

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) primary job is not to encourage healthful eating, as you might assume, but rather to promote American agricultural products. During the last revision of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, put out by the USDA and HHS (health and human services), six of the eleven advisory board members had intimate ties to dairy industry institutions.

The National Osteoporosis Foundation agressively promotes the milk myth, strongly advocating the consumption of dairy products in its literature, even when the body of scientific evidence fails to support this as a truly affective way to protect bone.

The US government's significant role in supporting and virtually sponsoring the dairy industry also compromises its objectivity in this regard. The gov't subsidizes the milk industry with up to $2.5 billion in tax breaks every year (2009).

Teaching materials provided by the Dairy Council have been the primary sources from which teachers derived nutritional information
for their classes. Today, an estimated 20 million schoolchildren each year receive the dairy industry's promotional literature in the classroom.

Although still high, sales of dairy-related products have been declining since the mid 1960s. Average American milk consumption:
1966       35.5 gallons of milk/yr
1976       31.6     "            "
1986       28.6     "            "
1997       26.2     "            "

In 1999 the Dairy Council held a  'Calcium Summit' in Washington D.C. There is a serious shortage of calcium in the American diet, we were told, and this portends the serious condition of osteoporosis. Funded by the dairy industry, full page ads in the New York Times warned of this major health "emergency".

The obsession with calcium suggests that all bones need to be healthy is calcium, and if we can cram enough calcium into our body through milk, dairy products, and other means....It is simply not that easy. As we will see, this culture of calciumism is sorely misguided.

The reality is that our present approach to preventing bone fracture is an unqualified failure. Why is one industry seemingly so concerned about the health of Americans, while untold numbers of others don't seem to care at all? For exaample, why are there no 'Broccoli Growers Association, or National Kale Council busy holding "calcium summits and filling magazines and billboards with clever ads coaxing consumers to rely on their products?

It cow's milk is essential for human health, how did so many humans survive prior to large-scale dairy farming, packaging, trucking, and refrigeration? And how do hundreds of millions of people around the world continue to maintain excellent bone health without drinking cow's milk? Why are humans the only species that drinks the milk of another species?

Peruse any of the multitude of health magazines published in America, particularly those aimed at women, and you are bound to find an article on the importance of calcium and the virtues of drinking milk.

Jane Brody's well-respected health column in the New York Times, advised readers, "The best, and best absorbed sources of these nutrients (calcium & vitamin D) are low-fat and nonfat dairy products". In another column, this one on dental health, Ms. Brody assures readers that "Milk builds strong bones." As we will see, the first assertion is simply untrue; the second would be correct if it only referred to cow's bones. There is no conclusive evidence that cow's milk builds strong bones in humans; in fact, the data that do exist suggest it plays a far less significant role than we have been led to believe.

There are some 5,400 different species of mammals, including cows, and everyone produces milk for their young. In each case, including humans, the milk is nutritionally unique to meet the exact needs of the species. In other words its nutrient compostion --fat, protein, carbohydrate, sodium, phosphorus, and so forth--varies in proportion to factors such as the growth rate of the various species' offspring, which differ dramatically.

Where did we get the idea that humans should drink cow's milk? Why is it that so many people find it acceptable to drink cow's milk but not cat's milk, giraffe's, dog's milk, or rat's milk for that matter? If I asked you why you don't drink elephant's milk, you would probably reply, "because elephant's milk is for baby elephants!"  Precisely my point.

5% of the calories in human milk is protein         180

11% of the calories in horse milk is protein            60

15% of the calories in cow milk is protein              47

17% of calories in goat milk is protein                   19

The number after protein above, is the number of days required for the offspring to double their their birth weight. The slower-growing the species, the lower the percentage of calories provided as protein.

There is no essential nutritional factor in cow's milk that humans cannot readily obtain from a healthful food that is better suited to our well-being.

The primary justification for promoting cow's milk is the abundance of calcium it contains. But cow's milk does not have a corner on the calcium market. As we will see in chapter 9, there are a multitude of healthful foods from which we can derive the calcium our bodies need.

Few people are aware that humans can absorb a greater portion of the calcium found in a cup of kale, broccoli, or fortified orange juice, than that in a cup of cow's milk.

As we shall see in chapter 7, excess dietary protein (more later)

*******************************************************************

This comes from World Animal Foundation:  http://www.worldanimalfoundation.net/home.html

The Dairy Industry

How has milk production changed since the 1950s? Intensive dairy practices and modified feeds have enabled U.S. dairy cows to produce 2.5 times as much milk today as they did in the 1950s. These intensive practices place dairy cattle under enormous stress to produce an abnormally large amount of milk, 10-20 times the amount of milk they need to suckle their calves. As a result, dairy cattle "burn out" at a much younger age than their normal life span or even the life span of a milk-producing dairy cow in the 1950s and consequently are culled and slaughtered at an early age.

Up to 33% of dairy cows develop mastitis, a very painful udder infection that can become systemic, and is a common reason for early slaughtering. Abnormally large udders produce problems walking, so a cow's legs are usually spread apart, distorting the normal configurations of her pelvis and spine. Her back problems are aggravated when she must walk on hard ground and concrete.

The dairy farms of today are quite different than the picturesque sunshine-filled meadows of contented cows we imagined as children. Today, most dairy cattle are confined to a barren fenced lot with a packed dirt floor, where they must endure all types of weather, including rain and extreme temperatures 24 hours a day. Factory farming systems (sometimes known as dry-lot) seldom provide shade, shelter or clean comfortable resting areas. Dairy cattle are often covered with their own filth because they cannot escape the dirty dry lot conditions. In colder climates dairy cattle may be provided shelter in winter, but most dairy practices remain the same.

To boost their milk production, the cattle are fed high intensity feeds and grains that often cause digestive upset. They are also injected with Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) to increase by up to 25% the already exorbitant amount of milk they produce. Of the 9 million dairy cattle in the U.S., 7-25% are injected with BGH.

The use of BGH to increase milk production results in increased udder size and increased frequency of infection. The large numbers of cattle that are crammed into small spaces where the soil is hard and compact increases the incidence of injury and lameness as well. Some dairies have up to one thousand cows, which means the factory dairy farmer may often fail to recognize that veterinary care is needed until the illness or injury has progressed beyond successful treatment ... and the cows are sent to slaughter.

Fully 25% of dairy cattle are slaughtered before they are 3 years old. Only 25% of dairy cattle live more than 7 years, although the natural life span for cattle is 20-25 years. (The oldest cow on record lived to be 49 years old!) Injury, illness, milk production lower than optimum, poor conception rates, and other factory-farming-induced health problems are common reasons dairy cattle are sold for slaughter long before they have lived out their natural life span.

Every year 17 million shots of antibiotics are given to cattle for infections related to milk production and other diseases. Most commercial ground beef is made from the meat of culled dairy cattle. Because dairy cattle have not been raised specifically for human consumption, dairy cattle have often been treated with antibiotics shortly before being butchered in an attempt to cure the disease that later resulted in their being killed. Therapeutic antibiotics are also routinely given to dairy calves and cattle. This means that antibiotics are entering the human food chain through the consumption of the milk and meat of dairy cattle. Many experts feel that the excessive consumption of antibiotic-tainted animal products has created a number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (superbugs) that may be a threat to human health.

A heifer (female) calf will probably remain on the farm to replace her mother or some other worn-out milk producer. A bull (male) calf is usually thrown in a truck and sent to an auction while he is still wet with amniotic fluid, still unable to stand by himself. Many bull calves die at the auction yard and those who don't are often sold to a veal operation, where they live out their short lives confined to a tiny crate that prevents almost all movement and fed an iron-poor diet to make their flesh pale. For calves reared as replacement heifers, life is not much better -- farmers make feeding and maintenance easier by housing the heifers for the first few months of their lives in crates barely larger than veal crates.

The days of a calf being born in a field and being nurtured by her mother are long gone. Calves are separated from their mothers within 24 hours of birth, and weaned from milk within 8 weeks (calves will gladly suckle for as long as eight months if allowed to do so). A calf separated from her mother at an early age does not receive any immunities through her mother's milk, and is therefore vulnerable to disease -- a 10% mortality rate is common.

The nearly half a million factory farms in the U.S. produce 130 times more waste than the human population. Cattle produce nearly one billion tons of organic waste each year. The waste from livestock, chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides are a primary source of water pollution in this country. Wastes from dairies, feedlots, and chicken and hog farms enter waterways, damaging aquatic ecosystems and making the water unfit for consumption. Cattle also contribute significantly to global warming because they emit methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide, three of the four gases responsible for trapping solar heat.
***********************************************

Buddhist Monks consider the elimination of milk and dairy

Feature documentary on milk ‘Got the Facts on Milk?’ promotes increased interest in a non-diary diet among Buddhists and yoga practitioners.

http://www.milkdocumentary.com/2011/12/14/san-francisco-chronicle/

*****************************************

Health Concerns about Dairy Products

Many Americans, including some vegetarians, still consume substantial amounts of dairy products—and government policies still promote them—despite scientific evidence that questions their health benefits and indicates their potential health risks.

Osteoporosis

Milk’s main selling point is calcium, and milk-drinking is touted for building strong bones in children and preventing osteoporosis in older persons. However, clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Pediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children.¹ Similarly, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study,² which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk.
(read more)
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-products?mid=57


RAPE OF THE COW FOR HER MILK!

Bob Linden   (feb. 19, 2012) Can a true "feminist" ever support rape? Shouldn't an attack such as the recent one on contraception be matched by equally great and ongoing feminine outrage over the massive industrialized rape of millions who are exploited only because they are female. They say "no", but nobody ever listens. One by one, they are raped, held captive in a restraining device called "the rape rack". Is this some story of sexual perversion in a foreign land, or is it sexual perversion in your refrigerator? Face it. Innocent cows, undeserving of rape as everyone is, are thrown on a device that the dairy industry itself calls "the rape rack". Period. End of story. If you drink cows' milk, you drink RAPE MILK. You also drink KIDNAP MILK. Can a true "feminist" support rape and kidnapping? After being forcibly raped, there is no abortion - there is the birth of her child, who is immediately kidnapped from her, as they cry for each other. Can a true "feminist" be insensitive to mother-child bonding. Her baby's milk, RAPE MILK, then becomes STOLEN MILK shipped to your supermarket. Her baby will be brutally murdered in weeks. Can a true "feminist" support "infanticide"? Cows' milk - RAPE MILK, KIDNAP MILK, STOLEN MILK, BABY KILLER MILK - cannot possibly be in a "feminist's" refrigerator, can it? Where is the "feminist" outrage over being braindirtied by cowboys whose reverence for life and women comes in the form of some contraption called a "rape rack". Women come with an innate knowledge. Women produce eggs and milk. Doesn't that tell you who gets whose milk? If we are bright enough to be "feminists", shouldn't we be bright enough to know we don't give birth to baby cows? Why would we feed their milk to our children? And would having a vagina lead one to conclude that vaginal excretions aren't necissarily the best foods for the family? Is belly-button lint? I'm just asking. When I debated the "cattleman" about a week ago on the radio, I brought up the issue of the "rape rack". Of course the "cattleman" made it sound more like consensual sex between a married couple, but that word "rape" seems to give it away. And it's people like that "cattleman" who have all the money in the world to advertise and braindirty "feminists" into drinking RAPE MILK, "feminists" into supporting the dairy and egg industries whose very existence depends on female exploitation. There is never a question of equal pay for equal work here. The pay is a miserable life, and the payoff at retirement is a beheading. Is it not ironic that women who engage in this female exploitation, who consume the mammary secretions and vaginal excretions of these imprisoned slaves, then develop the breast cancers, the ovarian cancers...And what about rape? Is it any wonder that it is so prevalent in a society that "nourishes" itself on it, that drinks rape milk , or eats it as rape cheese, rape yogurt, rape butter, rape ice cream. You are what you eat. All of those "foods" started with a rape. Can a true "feminist" ever support rape? If not, A TRUE FEMINIST MUST BE VEGAN, right? - Bob Linden www.GoVeganRadio.com - listener-supported, donation-financed "GO VEGAN WITH BOB LINDEN" radio, as heard on Air America

  

PROTEIN

PROTEIN: If you think you need to eat animals, drink their milk, or eat their eggs in order to get enough protein, and the 'right kind' of protein, then by the time you finish reading these extensive entries, you will find it difficult and even foolish to continue thinking that way.

I've gathered this protein information in two ways. The first section comes from numerous websites, while the second section is composed of many passages from several books.

I) From Internet Sites:

Basically proteins are made up of long chains of amino acids. There are 22 different types of amino acid and the body needs all of them to function properly. Amino acids are chemical compounds containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, which combine together into different structures to form the various types of protein that the body requires.

There are many forms of protein, which all play an important role in the function of the body. For example, collagen is a protein and is vital for the strength, elasticity and composition of our hair and skin. When the proteins that we consume in our food are broken down through digestion into individual amino acids, these amino acids are then absorbed and reform in order to create new proteins that are then used by the body.

The 22 types of amino acid are divided into two groups: essential and non-essential amino acids. There are 14 non-essential amino acids. They are termed non-essential as they can be manufactured by the body and do not have to be derived from food.

The body, on the other hand, cannot produce the remaining 8 essential amino acids itself, and therefore they must be derived from the food that we eat.

Non-essential amino acids are just as important as essential amino acids, as without the other, new proteins that are needed by the body cannot be properly formed. It is therefore vital that a variety of foods are eaten in order to provide the body with all of the amino acids required.

Complete and incomplete proteins:
There are some foods that contain all of the 8 essential amino acids required to form the new proteins together with the non-essential amino acids. These foods are called "complete" proteins and tend to come from animal sources of protein such as meat, dairy products, eggs, fish, shellfish and poultry.


The proteins that are termed "incomplete" proteins are usually lacking in one or more of the essential amino acids. They are generally found in vegetable products like fruits, vegetables, pulses, grains and nuts.


However, by combining two or more of the "incomplete" proteins, a complete supply of essential amino acids is available. For example, baked beans on toast or rice and beans will form a complete protein and give the body all the essential amino acids.


What is the exact role of protein in our body?
Protein is required by the body for the growth, maintenance and repair of all cells.

(II) From Books (just getting started on this; July 29, '11)

The China Study: T. Colin Campbell (2006)

This is a valuable and informative book, and I will only be focusing on protein extracts. If you don't already have your own copy, you will appreciate it when you do. The first 100 and some pages heavily reference animal studies (rats). So as you might imagine, I vehemently oppose this kind of research, irrespective of how much good, useful, significant, etc., information can be obtained by experimenting on and studying animals--IT'S NOT RIGHT, IT'S VERY WRONG TO TORTURE AND KILL SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE WE AS  HUMANS MIGHT BENEFIT FROM THAT!

For ten years our primary goal in the Philippines was to improve childhood malnutrition among the poor. The aim of these efforts was to make sure children were getting as much protein as possible.

It was widely thought that much of the childhood malnutrition in the world was caused by a lack of protein, especially from animal-based foods.


Universities and governments around the world were working to alleviate the perceived "protein gap"  in the developing world.

In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest-protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer!  They were the children of the wealthiest families.

I then noticed a research report from India, that had some very provocative, relevant findings. Indian researchers had studied two groups of rats. In one group they administered the cancer-causing aflatoxin, then fed a diet that was composed of 20% protein, a level near what many of us consume in the West. In the other group they administered the same amount of aflatoxin, but then fed a diet that was composed of only 5% protein. Incredibly, every single animal that consumed the 20% protein diet, had evidence of liver cancer, and every single animal that consumed a 5% protein diet avoided liver cancer. It was a 100 to 0 score, leaving no doubt that nutrition trumped chemical carcinogens, even very potent carcinogens, in controlling cancer.

This information countered everything I had been taught. It was heretical to say that protein wasn't healthy, let alone say it promoted cancer.I decided to start an in-depth laboratory program that would investigate the role of nutrition, especially protein, in the development of cancer.

Eventually this research became handsomley funded for 27 years by the best reviewed and most competitive funding sources.

What we found was shocking. Low protein diets inhibited the initiation of cancer by afflatoxin, regardless of how much of this carcinogen was administered to these animals.

In fact dietary protein proved to be so powerful in its effect that we could turn on and turn off cancer growth simply by changing the level consumed.

But that's not all. We found that not all protein had this effect. What protein consistently and strongly promoted cancer? Casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein, promoted all stages of the cancer process.What kind of protein did not promote cancer, even at high levels of intake? The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy. These experimental animal studies didn't end there.

The scientific basis for my views is largely empirical, obtained through observation and measurement. It comes from legitimate research findings.

Much of my evidence comes from human studies done by myself and by my students and colleagues in my research group. They included a study of dietary factors affecting bone density and osteoporosis in 800 women in China, a study of biomarkers that characterize the emergence of breast cancer, and a nationwide, comprehensive study of dietary and lifestyle factors associated with disease mortality in 170 villages in mainland China and Taiwan (widely known as the China Study).

This China Study, of which I was director, began in 1983 and is still ongoing. In addition to these human studies, I maintained a twenty-seven year laboratory research program in experimental animal studies.

Eating the right way not only prevents disease but also generates health and a sense of well-being, both physically and mentally. Some world -class athletes....have discovered that eating a plant-based diet gives them a significant edge in performance.

In the laboratory, we fed rats a diet rich in animal-based protein and compared them with other rats fed a diet low in animal-based protein.
Given the opportunity to voluntarily use exercise wheels, those fed the low animal-protein diet exercised substantially more, with less fatigue than the rats fed the high animal protein diet.

A century ago, a famous, well-established nutrition researcher at Yale University Medical School, Professor Russell Chittendon, investigated whether a plant-based diet affected students' physical capacities. He fed some students, fellow faculty, and himself a plant-based diet and measured their physical performance tests. He got the same results as our rats a century later--and they were equally spectacular.

My entire professional career in biomedical research has centered on protein. Protein, often regarded with unsurpassed awe, is the common thread tying together past and present knowledge about nutrition.

The dogma surrounding protein, censures, reproaches, and guides almost every thought we have in biomedical research. Ever since the discovery of this nitrogen-containing chemical in 1839 by the Dutch chemist Gerhard Mulder, protein has loomed as the most sacred of all nutrients. The word protein comes from the Greek word proteios, which means "of prime importance."

In the 19th century, protein was synonymous with meat, and this connection has stayed with us for well over a hundred years. Many people today still equate protein with animal-based food.

Confusion reigns on many of the most basic questions about protein:

• What is a good source of protein?
• How much protein should one consume?
• Is plant protein as good as animal protein?
• Is it necessary to combine certain plant foods in a meal to get complete proteins?
• Is it advisable to take protein powders or amino acid supplements, especially for someone who does vigorous exercise or plays sport?
• Should one take protein supplements to build muscle?
• Some protein is considered high quality, some low quality; what does this mean?
• Where do vegetarians get protein?
• Can vegetarian children grow properly without animal protein?

Fundamental to many of these common questions and concerns is the belief that meat is protein and protein is meat.

Protein, the most sacred of all nutrients, is a vital component of our bodies and there are hundreds of thousands of different kinds. They function as enzymes, hormones, structural tissue, and transport molecules, all of which make life possible.

Proteins are constructed as long chains of hundreds or thousands of amino acids of which there are 15 or twenty different kinds, depending on how they are counted. About 8 of the 22 amino acids
our body needs for making tissue protein must be provided by the food we eat. They are called essential because our bodies cannot make them.

Proteins wear out on a regular basis and must be replaced. Various food proteins are said to be of different quality, depending on how well they provide the needed amino acids used to replace our body proteins.

Food proteins of the highest quality are, very simply, those that provide, upon digestion, the right kinds and amounts of amino acids needed to efficiently synthesize our new tissue proteins.

This is what the word "quality" really means: it is the ability of food proteins to provide the right kinds and amounts of amino acids to make our new proteins.

The proteins of other animals are very similar to ours because they mostly have the right amounts of each of the needed amino acids. These proteins can be used very efficiently and therefore are called "high quality." Among animal foods the proteins of milk and eggs represent the best amino acid matches for our new proteins, and thus are considered the highest quality. While the "lower quality" plant proteins may be lacking in one or more of the essential amino acids, as a group they do contain all of them.

The concept of quality really means the efficiency with which food proteins are used to promote growth. The greatest efficiency, however, doesn't equal the greatest health, and that's why the terms efficiency and quality are misleading. In fact to give you a taste of what's to come, there is a mountain of compelling research showing that "low quality" plant protein, which allows for slow but steady synthesis of new proteins, is the healthiest type of protein.

The quality of protein found in a specific food is determined by seeing how fast animals would grow while consuming it. Some foods, namely those from animals, emerge with a very high protein efficiency and value. This focus on efficiency of body growth, as if it were good health, encourages the consumption of protein with the highest "quality."

As any marketer will tell you, a product that is defined as being high quality instantly earns the trust of consumers. For well over 100 years we have been captive to this misleading language, and have oftentimes made the unfortunate leap to thinking that more quality equals more health.

We now know that through enormously complex metabolic systems, the human body can derive all the essential amino acids from the natural variety of plant proteins that we encounter every day. It doesn't require eating higher quantities of plant protein or meticulously planning every meal. Unfortunately, the enduring concept of protein quality has greatly obscured this information.

Lengthy article on the differences between humans and herbivores on the one hand, and carnivores on the other:
http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm?mid=54726

Video: Where do you get your protein if you don't eat meat? John McDougall talks about the small amount of protein needed for good health. (3 min.)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPD
7Wvi1OM&feature=player_embedded   

Video: Animal Protein -- Meat and Dairy -- Cause Cancer: Colin Campbell (45 min.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfsT-qYeqGM&feature=relmfu

HUMANS vs. ANIMALS: what we must know!

FOR LOVE OF THE ANIMALS!

This post is an introduction to the many areas of animal abuse. Unless an animal can completely escape human detection, many of its kind will be captured, experimented on, brutalized, killed, or eaten.  Yes, most of us love our cats and dogs, while we haven't the slightest knowledge of what is being done to millions of them each year. We might like chickens, pigs, cows, lambs, horses, ducks, etc., yet we love them more when they are on our plate or the end of our fork! Very few people are familiar or aware of the great tragedy and the large numbers involved in humanity's use of animals presented here. Once you know, it should be difficult for you to continue living as you have, trying to forget it so you don't have to change your life around; because that's what will be required, a change in how you live, and what you are going to do now that you know something terrible. Many of you, I am certain, are not even going to read all that's here, it's not pleasant, not comfortable, so you are going to continue as you have, living a moral life as long as it doesn't require too much from you. Oh sure, you describe yourself as having high moral standards, and occasionally you even act on them. Yet, as you read down this page and see what is being done to the animals, what will you do? 

Well, I've come to conclude that we have sufficient evidence for the potency and power of Evil that has rooted itself in our world. Evil influences in human beings' lives cause them to commit evil acts or to turn away when they see evil before them.


Let's use our lives not only for ourselves but also for that which is other, especially when that other is being cruelly confined, tortured, and killed, on an unprecedented scale.

Each section will include some videos. This first video is very difficult to watch, but I think it is necessary for us to know, so that we can take actions to stop something that is very wrong in our world. EARTHLINGS  http://earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php                                   

                                            

                                                                        

ANIMALS AS FOOD

Over 58 billion land animals are slaughtered for food worldwide each year. That's a 170 million every day. These are living, breathing, reasoning, thinking, feeling animals that want to live. In the United States alone, more than 11 Billion are killed yearly.  (That's 30 million each day, or 349 a second,
349 land animals killed every second for food in the U.S. alone!) 
 video #2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbVRugmzuDs&feature=fvsr
#9 http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/  
#12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-cor1uZ2AM

Tom Regan writes: Animals are not like vegetables, they live their lives. They are somebody, not some thing. Their death marks the end of a biographical, not merely a biological life. To kill them inhumanely is of course to cause them gratuitous pain, and that is gratuitously immoral. But to kill them at all is to cancel their psychological sojurn on this earth.

                                                                                             

                                                                                             

FISH

Well over 800 billion fish, and other sea animals, are killed for the same reason, to eat them. Every year. 


Imagine you are having a picnic at a park with your friends and family. You see food you like and take a bite. Suddenly you feel a sharp pain in your mouth. Blood washes over your face as you struggle, unsuccessfully, to get free. You are dragged away from your family and friends, up into the sky and then outer space. You flail and struggle to breathe, but you can't get any oxygen. You feel your eyes buldge and your insides about to explode out of your mouth due to a rapid change in pressure. Then you see large alien creatures looking down at you. Their hands grab your body and throw you onto the floor of their ship. You gasp for air, but you are not designed to breathe in this environment. you feel the cold of crushed ice packed around your body. Bleeding and in pain you slowly suffocate to death.

For close to a trillion fish who are killed every year worldwide, this is very similar to what they experience in their last moments of life.
 Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_3Sii0b1Z4&feature=related

Commercial fishing is cruelty to animals on a colossal scale, killing hundreds of billions of animals worldwide every year--far more than any other industry.

Today's commercial fishers use massive ships the size of football fields and advanced electronic equipment to track fish. These enormous vessels can stay out at sea for as long as six months, storing thousands of tons of fish onboard in massive freezer compartments.
This industry has decimated our ocean ecosystems. In fact, 90 percent of large fish populations have been exterminated in the past 50 years, and a report published in the academic journal Science estimates that by the year 2048 our oceans will have been completely depleted.

Long Lines
Long-lining is one of the most widespread fishing methods. Ships unreel as many as 75 miles of line bristling with hundreds of thousands of baited hooks. The hooks are dragged behind the boat at varying depths or are kept afloat by buoys and left overnight, luring any animal in the area to grab a free meal. Once hooked, some animals drown or bleed to death in the water, and many others struggle for hours until the boat returns to reel them in.

Large fish such as swordfish and yellowfin tuna, weighing hundreds of pounds each, are pulled toward the boat by the baited line. Fishers sink pickaxes into the animals' fins, sides, and even eyes—any part of the fish that will allow them to haul the animals aboard without ripping out the hook.

Billions of fish, sharks, sea turtles, dolphins, birds, and other marine animals are injured and killed by long-lines each year.


VEAL CALVES (DAIRY COWS)

The veal calf industry is one of the most reprehensible of all the kinds of intensive animal agriculture. Veal calves are a by-product of the dairy industry; they are "manufactured" by "milk machines" - dairy cows. Female calves are raised to be dairy cows: They are confined and fed synthetic hormones to increase growth and production and antibiotics to keep them alive in their unhealthy, unnatural environments. They are artificially inseminated and, after giving birth, are milked for several years until their production levels drop, then they are slaughtered.

A Fate Worse Than Death
About 14 weeks after their birth, the calves are slaughtered. The quality of this "food," laden with chemicals, lacking in fiber and other nutrients, diseased and processed, is another matter. The real issue is the calves' experience. During their brief lives, they never see the sun or touch the Earth. They never see or taste the grass. Their anemic bodies crave proper sustenance. Their muscles ache for freedom and exercise. They long for maternal care. They are kept in darkness except to be fed two to three times a day for 20 minutes. The calves have committed no crime, yet have been sentenced to a fate comparable to any Nazi concentration camp.


In 2006 there were 9.1 million dairy cows in the U.S. Their male babys, taken from them about a day after birth, go into the veal industry, while the females (cows) become dairy prisoners. Milk production per cow doubled between 1970 and 2006 (from 9,751 to 19,951 pounds per year). The cows are always kept pregnant, producing milk constantly, not for her baby calf, but for humans who have been brainwashed by an unscrupulous industry into believing they need milk from an animal to be healthy. See excellent and informative article here: http://www.nonhumanslavery.com/behind-the-milk-moustache

From The Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients: (http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html


Male calves are taken from their mothers shortly after birth. Some are slaughtered soon after birth for "bob veal." Others are raised in "open pens," a kind of minimum security prison, and even then they are sometimes chained. Most are destined for the veal crate.

 
Solitary Confinement

The veal crate is a wooden restraining device that is the veal calf's permanent home. It is so small (22" x 54") that the calves cannot turn around or even lie down and stretch and is the ultimate in high-profit, confinement animal agriculture. Designed to prevent movement (exercise), the crate does its job of atrophying the calves' muscles, thus producing tender "gourmet" veal.  

About 14 weeks after their birth, the calves are slaughtered. The quality of this "food," laden with chemicals, lacking in fiber and other nutrients, diseased and processed, is another matter. The real issue is the calves' experience. During their brief lives, they never see the sun or touch the Earth. They never see or taste the grass. Their anemic bodies crave proper sustenance. Their muscles ache for freedom and exercise. They long for maternal care. They are kept in darkness except to be fed two to three times a day for 20 minutes. The calves have committed no crime, yet have been sentenced to a fate comparable to any Nazi concentration camp.
video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?       
v=eOWQOXeJyUM&feature=related   

video: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/pigabuse/ 
*****************************************************

Why should humans turn toward a vegetarian diet for themselves, not only for the animals?

Posted on December 26, 2011 under about.com, AELLA, animal crush videos, Animal Rights, Anthony Damiano, brutality, constitution, doris lin, Environment, extinction, factory farming, fast food, global, global warming, legislation, Marla Stormwolf Patty, pollution, stop crush videos, stopcrush.org

Why should humans turn toward a vegetarian diet for themselves, not only for the animals?

Human beings over-stress the planet to produce inordinate amounts of grain to feed animals that we label as “livestock”. Feeding the 53 billion animals that we exploit, torture and slaughter each year has a vastly detrimental affect on our world.

There are over 1.5 billion cows being “utilized” in the animal agriculture industry, which consume grain at 50 times the rate of full grown human beings. We lose a land mass of rain forest that could cover a mid-sized nation every 5 years and there will not be any rain forests in 40 years, mainly due to humanity feeding animals in animal agriculture.

The exploitation of animals by the current human population is so extensive that we have also resorted to adding ground fish to their feed, seeing as roughly half of every grain that we reap is not enough to sustain the industry. This is obviously the main factor when considering why humanity is depleting the number of fish species in our oceans. The Earth was never meant to sustain the 53 billion animals that we slaughter each year. It simply can not cater to so many meat and dairy consuming human beings. We are condemning our grandchildren to a gruesome future through our inability to see reality and change for the sake of human posterity.

We obviously can not count on lawmakers to do the right thing on their own. Corruption is rampant at the legislative level in most nations, no less, if not more so, in the United States. Everything is based on consumerism/corporate structure, the majority of which, is connected to animal agriculture, energy companies and obviously, banking conglomerates. The “powers that be” expend a great deal of resources making sure that people either do not know, or do not care. Money has become the basis for humanity’s moral structure. It is more important than life, itself. It doesn’t matter if 20,000 human children starve to death each day, how many animals are tortured, how many people are exploited or how much of the planet is irreparably damaged by animal agriculture through deforestation, so long as the bottom line is nice and healthy. Citizens must alter the way that they live their own lives, stand up together and enact a demand for positive changes on a national, as well as global scale.

Below, are but a few frightening statistics released by the United Nations, National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, American Heart Association and the Human Rights Watch. Thanks to Skylar Jordan for helping to compile some of them.

Human rights/food distribution statistics:

Number of people worldwide who will die specifically of starvation this year: Nearly 15 million, whilst many more will die of related diseases and well over 900 million live without adequate food or water.

Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if United States citizens alone, reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 60 million

Human beings in America: 310 million

How frequently a child starves to death: Roughly every two seconds

Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by United States based “livestock”: 1.3 billion

Percentage of corn grown in the United States consumed by humans: 20%

Percentage of corn grown in the United States consumed by “livestock”: 80%

Percentage of soy grown globally consumed by “livestock”: 80%

Percentage of all grains fed to livestock reaped by humans on a global scale: Nearly Half

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce one pound of beef: 16

Fatalities per 100,000 in livestock occupations: 28

People employed in slaughterhouse operations: Over one half million

Planetary statistics:

Even if you do not believe in the environmental impact caused by methane, animal agriculture is still the primary cause of CO2 emissions and deforestation.

More carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels(“livestock” transport, slaughterhouse operations, logging operations to make room for “livestock”, etc…) are produced by animal agriculture than any other human action.

Deforestation itself, produces more CO2 emissions than the entire global human transit system.

Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more

Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million

Area of tropical rain forest consumed in every quarter-pound hamburger: 55 sq. ft.

Current rate of species(plant and animal) extinction due to destruction of rain forests habitat in favor of animal agriculture use: Almost 50,000 per year

More than half of all water sources are used for the purposes of “livestock” production

Gallons of water to produce a pound of meat: 2,500

Some health-based statistics:

70 percent of the 9 billion broiler chickens , 34.4 million cattle, and 116.5 million pigs produced annually in the U.S. are fed a diet containing roxarsone, the most common arsenic-based additive used in animal feed. Arsenic has been linked to bladder, lung, skin, kidney and colon cancer, while low-level exposures can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes.

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times.

For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times.

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 4 times

Most common cause of death in United States: heart attack

How frequently a heart attack kills in the United States: every 45 seconds

Average United states male’s risk of death from heart attack while eating a meat-based diet: 50%

Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15%

Percentage of pesticide residues in the United States diet supplied by grains: 1%

Percentage of pesticide residues in the United States diet supplied by fruits: 4%

Percentage of pesticide residues in the United States diet supplied by dairy products: 23%

Percentage of pesticide residues in the United States diet supplied by meat: 55%

This message is meant to explain that we, as animal rights activists, care about the posterity of our own species and all life on Earth, in addition to animals. Humans disregard how damaging meat consumption is, not only for us and the animals, but for our planet. Eating something because it tastes good is not justification for destroying the Earth, allowing children to go hungry, torturing animals, or maiming/crippling the people who are exploited under horrendous work conditions in the agriculture industry.

Humanity has some very hard decisions to make, and equally difficult times ahead. We must stand together against human apathy and ignorance.

Anthony Damiano
Founder of AELLA

FOIE GRAS
Foie Gras is the french term for 'fatty liver.'  This is the product of extreme animal cruelty. It is the swollen, diseased liver of ducks and geese who are force-fed just up until the point of death before being slaughtered. 

 In just a few weeks, their livers swell up to ten times their normal size, and the birds can scarcely stand, walk, or even breathe. At this point, they are slaughtered, and their livers are peddled as a "gourmet" delicacy.

video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqI-28WuoYQ

FUR

Each year more than 40 million fur-bearing animals are killed for their fur. Ten million are trapped in the wild, and 30 million are raised on fur farms.  video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbzUjSwKo-g&feature=related 

Over two million dogs and cats are slaughtered each year for their furs and skins, mostly in China and other Asian countries. Investigators documented  50,000 to 100,000 cat pelts stockpiled at animal byproduct factories in China. 

The slaughter of these animals is violent and pitiless.Cats are strangled inside their cages as other cats look on. Dogs are noosed about the neck by metal wires,  and then slashed across the groin. The wire noose cuts into their throats as they struggle in pain.

At least ten dogs are slaughtered to make a single coat, more if puppies are used. Up to 24 cats  are slaughtered to make one fur coat. Dog and cat fur is used in trims, linings, hats, decorative  figurines,

and folk remedies. Skins are used in dog chew toys and shoe leather.before finally losing consciousness. In Harbin China, HSUS investigators documented a Germanshepherd still blinking and conscious as he was being skinned. At a dog farm several hours  north of Harbin, investigators documented dead dogs hanging from hooks being skinned, while other dogs looking on, awaited the same fate.
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuaMsUda7kg

This article on China's fur trade is sub-mitted by Dee-Ann Gallant:

China's economy is just speeding and now the country is the world's largest exporter of fur garments; but for these 12 years of rapid progress, a great price is paid by the fur-bearing animals. There are no laws regulating the confinement and slaughter of the raccoon dogs, foxes, minks, rabbits, and even dogs and cats, in a highly profitable business. While conditions of Western fur farms have been highly criticized, what happens in China is far more shocking and brutal. "China's farms number as many as 10,000, where 90% of the skins come from farms with fewer than 50 females", stated China Leather Industry Association. Most farms are concentrated in China's North East, in Shandong, Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces, while Hebei is the center of fur marketing. 35 million fur skins (60 % of China's pelt trade) are traded annually at the Shangcun Market in Hebei province. Here, they secretly produced a 14-minute video in February 2005 by the Swiss Animal Protection (SAP) revealing the alive skinning of raccoon dogs, foxes and other animals. (the film can be seen here). Officials of the Communist Party Committee said that the live skinning took place seven or eight years ago, but the reporter for the Beijing News confirmed that the skinning alive of most animals at the biggest fur markets in China was still occurring even after the facts have been denounced. The animals are stunned with repeated blows to the head, or just slammed on the ground. From the video it can be seen that they convulse, tremble or attempt to crawl away and the skinning can start while the animal is conscious or regaining consciousness. "Desperate and writhing in agony, animals conscious during these procedures hopelessly try to defend themselves even to the point where all the skin had been forced off �breathing, heart beat�and eyelid movements were evident for 5 to 10 minutes," describes the SAP report. "It is wrong to portray all fur farming as the same in China. Some fur farms are run to western standards. Conditions will improve for animal welfare in China when fur farmers come to realize that the quality of the pelts improve by employing western standards of animal welfare, and that through education, the situation will correct itself," said the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF), whose member is China, too. The main importers of the fur garments are the U.S., Europe or Japan. New processing techniques, coloring and the mixing with silk, wool, suede and leather, hide the real origin of the material. "Overall, fur was displayed in greater numbers than in previous years, coming in all colors, shapes and sizes," commented a CNN at New York's Fashion Week in February 2005. In the U.S., 2003 fur sales reached the value of $1.8 billion. "China has become the leading fur garment exporter to the USA, accounting for 40% of total US imports in 2004-the equivalent of $7.9 million. However, exact import statistics are difficult to obtain because fur trimmings are not specifically declared to customs," said the SAP report. The Anti-Fur Society of Washington, D.C. (member of the International Anti-Fur Coalition) signals also the conditions in which the fur animals are kept in China, cramped wire cages that leave almost no room for the animal to move about. "In these cramped quarters, the animals show signs of extreme anxiety and pathological behaviors," signals Care for the Wild International (CWI), a UK based association. Skinning of the animals alive, "makes China's fur industry the most barbaric in the world," commented the disturbing and horrifying practice the Anti-Fur Society. The group also signals the use of domestic dog and cat fur, forbidden in the US, which still enters the US market, as fur items priced at less than US$150 are not checked through Customs. Many unsuspecting customers are buying items with dog and cat fur. On Nov 20, 2006, the E.U. banned imports of pelts of dogs and cats; however, 5,400 dogs and cats are still killed daily in China. "Chinese suppliers offered us entire sheets made of dozens and dozens of cat skins-all in matching color patterns of tabby, ginger, black and white or tabby and white," said Dr Barbara Maas, CWI's Chief Executive. On February 2007, Anti-Fur Society of Washington, D.C. and other associations organized in 35 cities worldwide a funeral for the animal victims of the Chinese fur trade in front of the Chinese Embassies. "In their lives and their unspeakable deaths, these animals have been denied the simplest acts of kindness," writes the SAP report. In 2005, global fur sales reached about $12.8 billion, with 9.1% higher than in 2004. China takes up 22.4% of the total. China is the world's leading exporter of fox and raccoon dog pelts, and the second for mink pelts, after Denmark.

VIVISECTION

Every year, between 20 and 50 million animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. 
(worldwide 115 million). Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science.


The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States is the world's largest funder of animal experiments. It dispenses seven billion tax dollars in grants annually, of which about $5 billion goes toward studies involving animals. The Department of Defense spent about $180 million on experiments using 553,000 animals in 1993.

Tell Nestea to Stop Abusing Animals:
Before taking your next sip of tea, check the label on the bottle because you may be drinking a cupful of cruelty to animals. Nestlé, the maker of Nestea, is testing and paying others to conduct painful and deadly tea tests on animals. The company has caused animals to suffer simply to investigate the possible health benefits linked to tea products and ingredients, even though not one of these experiments is legally required for beverage manufacturers, and regulators have stated that animal tests are not sufficient to prove a health claim about a product.


In these cruel tests, mice and rats were tormented and then killed by such means as decapitation. The following are some details of the horrors endured by the animals used in Nestea's tea experiments:


Mice bred to suffer from brain dysfunction and rapid aging were fed green-tea extracts and then locked in a dark chamber, only to receive painful electric shocks to their feet; the mice were then killed.
Mice bred to suffer from muscle degeneration were fed green-tea extracts, after which experimenters cut open the animals' leg muscles and then decapitated them.
Experimenters injected toxic chemicals into mice to destroy insulin-producing cells, causing the animals to develop diabetes. After this cruel procedure, the mice were force-fed tea extracts and then killed.
Rats made to suffer from high fat and cholesterol levels were forced to consume tea extracts through a tube that was forced down their throats; the rats were then killed and dissected.
Modern, cruelty-free research methods are available and are in use by other leading beverage companies around the world.                         video: http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/animal-experimentation/968985922001.aspx



SHARK FINNING

Shark finning refers to the removal and retention of shark fins and the discard at sea of the carcass. The shark is most often still alive when it is tossed back into the water. Unable to swim, the shark slowly sinks toward the bottom where it is eaten alive by other fish.

• Shark finning takes place at sea so the fishers have only the fins to transport. Shark meat is considered low value and therefore not worth the cost of transporting the bulky shark bodies to market.
• Any shark is taken-regardless of age, size, or species.
• Longlines, used in shark finning operations, are the most significant cause of losses in shark populations worldwide.
• Shark finning is widespread, and largely unmanaged and unmonitored.
• Shark finning has increased over the past decade due to the increasing demand for shark fins (for shark fin soup and traditional cures), improved fishing technology, and improved market economics.
• Shark specialists estimate that over 75 million sharks are killed for their fins, annually.
• One pound of dried shark fin can retail for $250 or more. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.
•  video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQX04kERoI&NR=1
• video:  http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/planet-100-shark-finning-explained.html

Animal Shelters

& Street Dogs of Europe

There are about 5,000 community animal shelters nationwide that are independent. Approximately 5 million to 7 million companion animals enter animal shelters nationwide every year, and approximately 3 million to 4 million are killed (60 percent of dogs and 70 percent of cats).

   

Facts about Pet Overpopulation in the U.S.: It is impossible to determine how many stray dogs and cats live in the United States; estimates for cats alone range up to 70 million. Five out of ten dogs in shelters and seven out of ten cats in shelters are destroyed simply because there is no one to adopt them.

The average number of litters

a fertile cat produces is one to two a year; average number of kittens is 4-6 per litter.

The average number of litters a fertile dog produces is one a year; average number of puppies is 4-6.  

Dead dogs turned into petfood!
http://www.piaberrend.org/dog-food-industry-what-you-are-not-supposed-to-know/                 

                                                                                
From the Oxford Lafayette Humane Society:  UNITED STATES FACTS & FIGURES:

• Number of cats and dogs born every day in the U.S.: 70,000 (nearly 3,000 born every hour or 50 born every minute)

• Number of stray cats and dogs living in the U.S.: 70 million

• Number of animals in the U.S. that die each year from cruelty, neglect, and exploitation: 30 million

• Number of animal shelters in the U.S.: 4,000 – 6,000

• Number of cats and dogs entering U.S. shelters each year: 6 – 8 million

• Number of cats and dogs euthanized by U.S. shelters each year: 3 – 4 million (nearly 10,000 animals killed every day)

• Number of cats and dogs adopted by U.S. shelters each year: 3 – 4 million

• Percentage of people who acquire animals that end up giving them away, abandoning them, or taking them to shelters: 70%

PET OWNER SURVEYS: On average 25% of owned pets have not been spayed or neutered (dog owners 34%; and cat owners 15%).


About 63 percent of all households in the United States have a pet. (Source: American Veterinary Medical Association)

About 75 million dogs and about 85 million cats are owned in the United States. (Source: Pet Food Institute

The Street Dogs
of Europe

Of the estimated 500 million dogs in the world, approximately 75% are strays. In many countries the majority of stray animals have been abandoned by their owners or are owned but allowed to roam freely.


The stray animals  have been starved, shot, poisoned, hanged, raped, burned to death, drowned, clubbed and huddled in small enclosures. The most common killing method to inject venom directly into the heart.


"THE STRAY DOGS BUSINESS IN ROMANIA"
(By Codrut Feher, FNPA)
(Romanian National Federation for Animal Protection)

Between 2001 and 2011 the Romanian animal control people have killed hundreds of thousands dogs by spending tens of millions of EURO in public funds, while the number of stray dogs only grew
larger. For example, in Brasov, although there were only 4,000 stray dogs in 2001, the dog catchers managed to “kill” about 20,000 in 8 years.

THE HORRIFIC PLIGHT OF ROMANIAN STREET DOGS

04 March 2011:
Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, today called on British dog lovers to help save hundreds of thousands of street dogs’ lives in Romania following shocking reports of new legislation imminently legalising their mass euthanasia.


There are no official statistics regarding the total number of street dogs in Romania, but with an estimated 80,000 dogs living on the street in Bucharest alone, the problem is deep-rooted and far-reaching. Mass euthanasia of street dogs was outlawed in 2008 but the Romanian Parliament is set to overhaul the legislation next week

Why are there so many street dogs in Romania? In the 1980s the Communist President Nicolae Ceausescu called for the demolition of traditional housing across the country and built large numbers of high rise apartment blocks. Romanian citizens had only three days notice to move and were forced to leave their pet dogs on the street but continued to feed them. The dogs quickly adapted to the new urban setting and, neutering being relatively rare at that time, their numbers soon multiplied. There are now hundreds of thousands of dogs living on the streets in Romania.

http://www.piaberrend.org/romania-the-country-with-3-million-stray-dogs/



HUNTING

Lovely picture of bears killed by hunters.

On April 21st, 2006, Captain Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, commemorated John Muir’s 168th birthday by saluting Muir’s anti-hunting philosophy in an article that accompanied his resignation as Sierra Club National Director, only a few days prior. We have decided to reawaken Paul’s article, as we feel that it is a profound piece, which echoes the feelings of many environmental, conservation and animal rights activists, alike.

By Paul Watson

My resignation from the Sierra Club received more letters of support for condemning hunting than criticisms and this was to be expected considering that more than 80% of Sierra Club members do not hunt.Of the few who were critical of my anti-hunting position, they reportedly took offense to my remarks as being anti-hunting(of course they were) and they insisted that hunters were a strong conservation lobby and thus essential to protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats.

I probably should have been more definitive of my position. Instead of stating that I was anti-hunting or opposed to hunters, I should have said that I am anti-killing and opposed to killers.The choice is really between endorsing the infliction of pain, suffering and death or opposing the infliction of pain, suffering and death.Pro-killers will say that those people like me who are opposed to killing are alienated urbanities, of the privileged class, and insensitive to the traditional rationale that supports hunting.

That argument does not work with me because I was raised as the eldest of seven children by a single mother in a small fishing village in a rural area of Eastern Canada. My father was abusive and he was a hunter.

I have spent a large part of my life in third world nations and on the ocean. I oppose the killing of wildlife not because I am alienated from nature but because I happen to believe that you can’t love or respect nature with a gun.

I walked the trap lines in the Eastern bush as a child. I walked them to free captive animals from leg hold traps and to destroy the traps. I destroyed hundreds of these vicious contraptions between the ages of 11 and 18. I have seen the suffering. In Kenya I watched a mother elephant literally weep for the loss of her calf. In Michigan I witnessed a Canada goose sit for days without eating beside the body of its mate who had been shot and not recovered. In Alaska I saw a Grizzly cub sitting confused beside the skinned body of its mother who was killed only for her hide. In the Yukon, I followed a trail of blood for over a mile to discover an aerial gut-shot wolf staring at me in fear and bewilderment.

What I have observed in the wild is suffering. It was plainly evident and I felt remorse for the arrogance of our species for justifying the taking of lives for sport, for enjoyment, for fun, and for pleasure.In Zimbabwe I spent time with big game hunters, some of whom reluctantly led rich trophy hunters into the bush because they had lost their jobs as rangers and President Mugabe had ruled that unless wildlife made money the animals would be eliminated. These hunters described most of their clients as slob hunters, arrogant and ignorant and expressed their shame at being forced to participate in the murder business.

I was amazed to discover that a Texan accountant had won a prize from the Boone and Crocket Club for bagging a trophy whitetail deer and then he was exposed when it was discovered that the rack of an animal stolen from a taxidermist in Alberta had been surgically grafted onto a smaller animal on a game farm in Mexico where they flushed it out from cover into the sights of the great hunter’s rifle.

It was John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club who first describedhunting as the murder business. In a few places in the world people hunt for survival. In the past, people were forced to hunt for survival. The constituency the Sierra Club is now courting through its killer outreach program are not people who have a need to hunt for survival. They are people who spend more money on weaponry, travel and related expenses than the value of the meat they obtain. It is not the meat they are after but the thrill of the kill.

Dick Cheney, when not shooting lawyers, describes how he loves to see the ducks tumble from the sky. I’ve heard hunters describe how pulling the trigger gives them an erection. These are men who slaughter for pleasure. I call them perverse death deviants and I have no apologies for labeling them as such. Killing for pleasure is a sickness, no different than child molestation or rape. There is no sport in killing an animal from a distance with a sophisticated tool designed to inflict death. The name sportsman implies that there is a fair contest. There is nothing fair about being ripped apart by high powered bullets.

Hunters target the biggest, the strongest and the best of the species they pursue. This is behavior outside the laws of ecology. It is unnatural predation and certainly cannot be condoned by credible conservationists.

Hunters defend their perverse desire to extinguish life by saying it is traditional. Unfortunately many barbaric practices are traditional. However, modern day hunting bears little relation to so called traditional hunting. Hunters today are more akin to those who eradicated the bison and took only the tongues.

Hunters were responsible for the extinction of the Labrador duck, the Passenger Pigeon, the Eastern Bison, the Plains Wolf and the extirpation of the Grizzly from most of the lower 48 states. They were not only killers they were involved in the act of specicide, the complete eradication of entire species. This was not conservation. Hunters cite Theodore Roosevelt as a big game hunter who was also a conservationist. This is true, he was both. He lived in a time when killing for pleasure was accepted but it was also a time when racism was accepted as normal and it was considered abnormal for women to have any rights, especially the right to vote. Roosevelt did set aside land to conserve much in the same way that the British aristocracy set aside land as exclusive hunting preserves to keep out the lower classes.

The Sierra Club is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to reach out to invite killers to join the Club. The leadership of the Club believes that the over 80% of Club members who don’t take pleasure from killing must be tolerant of the less than 20% who do. They want to bring in more killers into the Club.

There is a big difference between hunting and killing. Photographers and film makers can hunt wildlife. It actually takes more skill to hunt a Mountain sheep with a camera than with a rifle. Any nimrod can pull a trigger and send a high velocity bullet unexpectedly into living tissue to shatter organs and induce shock. The photographer brings back nobility, a creature caught in its natural habitat in harmony with the world around it.

The killer watches his victim tumble from the air or crash to the ground as it chokes and gurgles on its own life blood. The photographer brings back life. The hunter brings back death.I have been a hunter myself. I’ve never killed anything but I have stalked and hunted human poachers. I have destroyed their ships, their rifles, their nets, their longlines and their harpoons. I have snatched clubs from the bloody hands of sealers and defended myself from their attacks. My form of hunting is much fairer and gutsier than these killers who prey upon their unsuspecting and innocent victims. I target the guilty not the innocent.

Once I trekked with Kenyan rangers across the plains of Tsavo on the track of poachers. We followed their trail of elephant carcasses rotting on the ground with only their tusks removed. We found the criminals. They fired on us and killed one of our rangers. We did not kill them. We wounded two and arrested seven. They were armed with AK-47 rifles and our rangers were armed with British Enfield 303′s. We were up against a superior foe and we beat them. It was not sport. It was not fun. It was dangerous and necessary work and the objective was to save lives, not to extinguish lives. That is the only kind of hunting that makes sense today in a world with a human population approaching seven billion.

If every American exercised their right to kill, the ducks, geese, quail, elk, deer and other creatures would disappear quite quickly. There are simply to many of us and not very many of them. It can hardly be an egalitarian sport if only a minority of citizens can realistically participate. Instead of encouraging hunting, groups like the Sierra Club should be discouraging the number of hunters. The nation and the world needs fewer killers of wildlife, not more.

In Europe over a hundred million songbirds are gunned down every year. Elephant populations have been reduced by 70% in East Africa since I worked on poaching patrols there in 1978. World fisheries are in a state of collapse. Wildlife is getter scarcer and there is more need now than ever for protection. Why can’t we protect wetlands simply because wetlands need to be protected? Why is there this demand that killers are needed to help protect wetlands simply because they want to slaughter ducks? Canada geese mate for life. Shouldn’t it bother us that we shatter tens of thousands of these relationships every year? Why should we tolerate the accumulation of lead and steel shot in the marshes and estuaries? Why should we tolerate the legal murder of human beings that we label as hunting accidents, especially when the victim is a non-killer, perhaps a child some nimrod has mistaken for a deer.

The son of Sigmund Freud was walking on his own property in Quebec when a hunter shot and killed him. The killer was found not guilty because the death was ruled an accident. When a stranger can kill you on your own land and get away with it, it demonstrates that our tolerance for this legal killing has gone over the top of

acceptability.

One killer wrote me to say that my radical anti-hunting ideas were unacceptable for a member of the Board of the Sierra Club. When did opposition to killing, to the taking of life, to the extinguishment of a living creature, to the wasting of a sentient being become a radical idea? Sometimes I think we live in such a bizarre world where advocates for life are considered radical and proponents of death are considered normal, where violence is considered acceptable and non-violence is dismissed as unpatriotic or cowardly. Few killers question the morality of their actions. Once you have reached a stage where you can inflict cruelty and death, thoughts of morality, empathy and respect have long since vanished. For if a killer of a deer could feel the pain and anguish of his victim or see the fawn starve because of a mother that did not return they would have little appetite for the meat.

Humans who have crossed the line into dealing death and inflicting misery have become alienated from the wonderment of life and no longer see or appreciate the magic of being alive. Life is to be cherished, protected, defended and championed, not to be wantonly and cruelly destroyed, and certainly not for so frail an excuse as pleasure or sport.

This essay may be freely distributed and published.

BEAR BILE FARMING

Video: http://dailycoop.blogspot.com/2011/08/making-me-sick-bear-bile-is-torture.html

Throughout parts of China, some 11,000 endangered Asiatic black bears are currently housed in tiny, restrictive metal cages where they are systematically 'milked' of bile, a digestive fluid produced in the gallbladder which is believed to have medicinal qualities in some Asian traditions. But after a recent conference on bile farms, experts have confirmed what so many animal rights groups had long suspected: the bear bile industry isn't just cruel, it's unnecessary, too. In other parts of Asia, another 3,000 bears are kept in small cages.

On the farms, the bears - mostly Asiatic black bears - are kept in tiny, cramped cages and milked for their bile through crude holes cut into the abdomen wall and the gall bladder. The wounds are deliberately left open, leaving the bears exposed to infection and disease. They are kept hungry and denied free access to water because this helps produce more bile.

The farms are still found in many parts of China and other Asian countries, fuelling poaching and illegal trade in the animals. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw8YSuAVIpI (5min.)

CHINESE medicine containing bile drained from the stomachs of tortured bears is being sold in the UK.

The digestive juice, painfully extracted from Asian, black bears kept in tiny cages, is advertised as a traditional remedy for hangovers and liver complaints.

What shoppers do not realize, however, is that these products, bought from Chinese pharmacies around the country, are funding barbaric bear farms in South East Asia.

Poor bear is milked for its bile

The endangered animals are milked twice a day for their highly valued bile, a process that often leaves them gnawing at their paws and howling in pain. Hundreds die in agony each year.

Police have already recovered a number of health products containing bear bile in London but warn more are still on sale. Sergeant Ian Knox, of the Metropolitan Police’s Wildlife Crime Unit, said: “If people knew the suffering and the misery bears go through for these medicines, they would never touch them again.

If people knew the suffering and the misery bears go through for these medicines, they would never touch them again

Sergeant Ian Knox, of the Metropolitan Police’s Wildlife Crime Unit

“We have seized a number of items containing bear bile from traditional Chinese medicine shops but cannot be complacent as there is a strong possibility more are on sale all over the UK.”


Britain is fast becoming a key target for the vile trade, with farmers trying to exploit new Western markets aided by a recent surge in demand as Britons turn to Chinese medicine as an alternative to prescription drugs.

Bear bile is particularly treasured in Asian culture because it contains high levels of ursodeoxycholic acid, a sub- stance that helps the animals avoid kidney complaints during hibernation.
 Ground into powder for a market worth about £6million a year, the bile is thought to prevent gallstones, improve eyesight and stimulate energy.

Selling bear bile products in Britain carries a maximum five-year jail term, but first offenders are normally let off with a warning. Many shop owners are unaware they were breaking the law be- cause the substance is legal in Asia.

On farms in China, Vietnam and Laos, as well as other countries, up to 20,000 bears are kept confined for as long as 10 years in tiny “crush cages”. With no space to move, they constantly beat their heads against the metal bars in frustration at their hellish existence.

The manner of their twice-daily milking is in itself extremely brutal. Some have been subjected to amateur surgery to implant a tube or steel catheter into their abdomens, others have a permanent hole drilled into their stomach, in a process known as “free-dripping”.

Not only are the techniques excruciatingly painful, the unsanitary surgery also leaves them open to infections and diseases like cancer. When bears stop producing bile they are slaughtered for their meat and fur.

Sgt Knox said: “Much of the British public is unaware these bears live in such appalling conditions and suffer so much pain. One of our main aims is to raise public awareness about this problem and encourage people to be careful of what they buy.

“The use of Chinese alternative medicines is becoming increasingly popular in this country, but as many people do not understand the language they have no idea what they are buying.

“Some shop owners have no idea what is in their medicine while others are unaware bear bile is banned in Britain, but there are a few who know they are breaking the law and know all about the bear farms but just want to make money

“We need to end any demand for bear bile in the UK to protect these rare animals back in their natural habitats.”
Chris Gee of the World Society for the Protection of Animals said: “The farms are horrendous places. By nature bears are solitary animals but are cooped up in tiny cages among many other bears. It places huge mental stress on them.

“The bile perhaps contains minor healing properties but there are synthetic alternatives as well as dozens of
herbs that do the job far better. In such unsterile conditions, the bears are often open to infectious diseases so you never know quite what’s in these health products.”

Many bears rescued from farms are found to have liver cancer and a report last month found that some of the bile could contain carcinogens.

Dr Jidong Wu, president of the Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine in the UK, added: “We strictly condemn and prohibit the use of bear bile. There are countless available alternatives.”