The Milk Situation(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Milk Situation
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/style/milk-dairy-marketing.html
137 comments
A lot of milk alternatives aren't great nutritionally. They tend to have added sugar and less protein, maybe more sodium than you'd like.
Why do people still drink dairy milk? I watched a video on factory farming and switched to almond milk ever since. What's the big deal?
Watch this video as an alternative perspective:
A day on my family dairy farm https://youtu.be/Lm95bVL0iwU
A day on my family dairy farm https://youtu.be/Lm95bVL0iwU
I like some almond milks quite a lot. But how can you possibly think it's the same as dairy milk — they're almost incomparable. Dairy milk is rich, delicious, less "candy" tasting. It's full of wonderful fat, whereas most alternative milks are thin and sweet (or bitter and chalky).
It's strange when people forget how important taste is.
It's strange when people forget how important taste is.
Yeah, I stopped buying dairy milk, but I never drink non-dairy milk on its own, I exclusively use it in muesli, oatmeal, smoothies, etc. The taste and mouthfeel is just not very good as a drink.
Almond Milk is really egregious in this regard. It's either unsweetened in which case it tastes like a thin earthy mud, or its sweetened more than cotton candy. I've never found one that has a good balance, and maybe a good balance is impossible since the base product is borderline unpalatable.
I think almond milk/ oat milk can be made to taste better with emulsifiers and such to give them a better texture and taste. The brand of Oatmilk that I currently like is “Califia Farms Barista Blend”. I use oat milk for my coffees as well.
I’m guessing that this is a competitive space and there will be better and better options in the future.
Personally I switched over because I’m mildly lactose intolerant but also, I really don’t like the aftertaste of real milk... subjective opinion, of course : )
I’m guessing that this is a competitive space and there will be better and better options in the future.
Personally I switched over because I’m mildly lactose intolerant but also, I really don’t like the aftertaste of real milk... subjective opinion, of course : )
This is why I love soy milk without additives. It fills all of these criteria plus my additional criteria of being infinitely more ethical to sentient beings.
Soy milk is the only replacement I found that still has a fatty feel and taste to it. And it doesn’t taste disgusting like most supermarket milk. I think some people find the fatty film of milk/soy to actually be a downside, so they like the thinner replacement milks.
Hmm, I guess it depends on individual taste. I've tried several nut milks, oat milk and soy milk.
The nut and oat milks tasted good, with the oat milk in particular bring surprisingly close to dairy milk. But the soy milk I found absolutely disgusting - it didn't taste anything like dairy milk.
I do wish nut milks weren't so "thin" tho - if you look at the ingredients, there aren't actually very much nuts in them; they are mostly water. I'd gladly pay a bit more for a higher nut (and, ergo, fat and protein) content.
The nut and oat milks tasted good, with the oat milk in particular bring surprisingly close to dairy milk. But the soy milk I found absolutely disgusting - it didn't taste anything like dairy milk.
I do wish nut milks weren't so "thin" tho - if you look at the ingredients, there aren't actually very much nuts in them; they are mostly water. I'd gladly pay a bit more for a higher nut (and, ergo, fat and protein) content.
Every kind of food has a drawback, almond milk for example uses enormous amounts of fresh water. But you can then argue that almonds use less water per calorie than other foods. But then you can argue the water has to be moved large distances to get to the almond tree so a lot is lost in transit. Etc. I drink Lactose free milk (basically regular milk with lactase) after drinking all the various non dairy milks, but only in my breakfast smoothie. Everything is a balance.
It doesn't provide young children / babies with enough nutrition. Cow's milk is stupidly simple https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/vegetarian-...
What's your agenda? You've posted this link with the same sound bite multiple times already.
My personal agenda is dislike of the the environmental effects of milk, but also have children and find most vegan conversations by childless adults are oblivious to the short comings of milk substitutes, so I bring it up to see if someone can help my family get off milk (we removed red meat already, and the adults drink oat milk).
I am rather hoping lab made milk will be thing
I am rather hoping lab made milk will be thing
Almond milk turns out to be not good for the environment as well. The problem is that Almond trees are water intensive but we grow in the desert.
Dairy milk requires vastly more water per glass then any plant milk. There aren't very many almonds in a jug of almond milk.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042
Commercial almond milk has very little actual almond in it. It's basically water thickened with gum.
For example, I have in front of me a box of Kirkland brand almond milk. It provides just 1g protein and 2.5g fat per 8oz serving. Compare that to whole dairy milk, with 8g protein and 8g fat.
IMO it would more accurate to call it almond flavored water.
For example, I have in front of me a box of Kirkland brand almond milk. It provides just 1g protein and 2.5g fat per 8oz serving. Compare that to whole dairy milk, with 8g protein and 8g fat.
IMO it would more accurate to call it almond flavored water.
It costs like $3k to save a human life and we still go on vacations to exotic locations and drive $50k cars. It's not that dairy milk is so very good, it's that we care about suffering so very little. You're the minority with a disproportionately sized well of empathy is what's going on. Any attempt to understand it beyond realising that when you go out and about every day you're largely surrounded by monsters is just going to lead to confusion.
> It costs like $3k to save a human life
Source?
Source?
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-best-charity-can-...
GiveWell, their source, actually has a spreadsheet which if I'm reading correctly says it's $1690 to save someone under 5.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLmPuddUmKsy3v55AfG_...
GiveWell, their source, actually has a spreadsheet which if I'm reading correctly says it's $1690 to save someone under 5.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLmPuddUmKsy3v55AfG_...
I have soy milk with coffee because I'm lactose intolerant and drinking black coffee on an empty stomach makes me nauseated. I'd never drink soymilk straight.
This article might be a "submarine" article for it, but I'm actually glad A2 milk is getting more popular, and now even Costco carries it.
I grew up in France and drank milk without problem my whole life, but when moving to the US, I started noticing dry-patches on my arms, and digestive discomforts after breakfast.
It took me a while to pinpoint the root-cause, but after some experimentation, I figured out it was either the whole-wheat bread, or the milk. Today I'm pretty confident this is the milk.
For a while I thought this had to do with some difference in UHT/pasteurization process (all milk in France is shelf-stable until opened, whereas here it has to be refrigerated at all times). But then I realized then that this A2 milk is popular in Australia, and I had never heard of this A1/A2 distinction, but apparently France's cow is 100% A2 only, so I tried their milk, and I don't have any digestion nor dry-patch on my arms anymore. Maybe it's placebo effect, but it works for me, so now I'm back at drinking milk.
A1/A2 apparently isn't as big of a deal for processed dairy (Cheese, yogurts), but I buy the one imported from France/Switzerland, so those are probably A2 anyways.
I grew up in France and drank milk without problem my whole life, but when moving to the US, I started noticing dry-patches on my arms, and digestive discomforts after breakfast.
It took me a while to pinpoint the root-cause, but after some experimentation, I figured out it was either the whole-wheat bread, or the milk. Today I'm pretty confident this is the milk.
For a while I thought this had to do with some difference in UHT/pasteurization process (all milk in France is shelf-stable until opened, whereas here it has to be refrigerated at all times). But then I realized then that this A2 milk is popular in Australia, and I had never heard of this A1/A2 distinction, but apparently France's cow is 100% A2 only, so I tried their milk, and I don't have any digestion nor dry-patch on my arms anymore. Maybe it's placebo effect, but it works for me, so now I'm back at drinking milk.
A1/A2 apparently isn't as big of a deal for processed dairy (Cheese, yogurts), but I buy the one imported from France/Switzerland, so those are probably A2 anyways.
I wish the article had gone more into this as it's an interesting topic I had never heard of. Even the wikipedia article [0] gives only passing mention to France, but according to other sources [1], the Channel Island cow breeds which are raised in France produce mainly the A2 protein, whereas the Holstein-Frisian varieties cultivated elsewhere in Europe and in North America produce both A1 and A2.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_milk
[1] https://www.ericksonliving.com/tribune/articles/2017/08/what...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_milk
[1] https://www.ericksonliving.com/tribune/articles/2017/08/what...
I'm not familiar with the term 'submarine' in this context, does that refer to some sort of stealth advertising?
I believe it's from [1] by Paul Graham.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
I can't immediately find a source with a date, but I'm pretty sure using submarine to mean undisclosed happened before Paul Graham was born.
OP used the term specifically to refer to PR-generated articles in prestige media like the NYT, which was probably a direct allusion to Graham’s essay.
> all milk in France is shelf-stable until opened
As someone currently in France I thought this was funny: the first thing I show visitors is the "distributeur de lait frais" down the street, which will dispense 1L of raw milk for 1 euro. It tastes amazing.
As someone currently in France I thought this was funny: the first thing I show visitors is the "distributeur de lait frais" down the street, which will dispense 1L of raw milk for 1 euro. It tastes amazing.
For anyone else unfamiliar with A2 milk:
> A2 milk is a variety of cows' milk that mostly lacks a form of β-casein proteins called A1, and instead has mostly the A2 form. [...] The a2 Milk Company claims that milk containing A1 proteins is harmful [...] but a 2009 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) review found [no] an adverse effect on health.
It is said to be sold mostly in five eyes countries and China, which would explain why I've never heard of it, and is snake oil to boot so I'm happy it hasn't caught on here.
> The a2 Milk Company claims that people who experience discomfort drinking ordinary cows' milk may experience relief when they switch to milk with predominantly A2 protein. This claim is not supported by research.
Scum of the earth. I'm actually pretty sure that health claims that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever are legal in the EU (edit: found it[1]). Curious that it's still popular in the UK, but it probably got popular in the past and they just stopped printing that claim on the packaging when that became illegal.
> The EFSA study emphasized the dangers of drawing conclusions from correlations identified in epidemiological studies and the dangers of not reviewing all the evidence at hand.
I'm sorry u/vmarsy, but you've been mislead about what A2 milk is :/ The placebo effect might work and have real effects, but buying (more expensive, or just any really) products from scammers still seems ill-advised.
All citations from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_milk
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_claim#European_Laws
> A2 milk is a variety of cows' milk that mostly lacks a form of β-casein proteins called A1, and instead has mostly the A2 form. [...] The a2 Milk Company claims that milk containing A1 proteins is harmful [...] but a 2009 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) review found [no] an adverse effect on health.
It is said to be sold mostly in five eyes countries and China, which would explain why I've never heard of it, and is snake oil to boot so I'm happy it hasn't caught on here.
> The a2 Milk Company claims that people who experience discomfort drinking ordinary cows' milk may experience relief when they switch to milk with predominantly A2 protein. This claim is not supported by research.
Scum of the earth. I'm actually pretty sure that health claims that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever are legal in the EU (edit: found it[1]). Curious that it's still popular in the UK, but it probably got popular in the past and they just stopped printing that claim on the packaging when that became illegal.
> The EFSA study emphasized the dangers of drawing conclusions from correlations identified in epidemiological studies and the dangers of not reviewing all the evidence at hand.
I'm sorry u/vmarsy, but you've been mislead about what A2 milk is :/ The placebo effect might work and have real effects, but buying (more expensive, or just any really) products from scammers still seems ill-advised.
All citations from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_milk
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_claim#European_Laws
There are now clear environmental and animal rights reasons to avoid red meat and dairy. Unfortunately, animal rights motivations don't seem to cut it for most of my colleagues and friends, who are by and large highly educated. Arguments about whether cows are "alive" or "feel pain" the same way humans do inevitably conclude with an acknowledgement that they probably do in all likelihood, but too bad, they taste good/produce animal products we like, and thus it sucks to be them. Or "too bad our ancestors have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years".
Thankfully, most are swayed by environmental arguments and have eliminated their red meat consumption. Far fewer have given up milk, probably out of long-standing habits of milk consumption with cereal/coffee.
Just like the choice of whether we hurt or inflict pain and enslavement on a fellow human (a choice which has taken centuries to reverse), there's a choice of whether we enslave another sentient species for the sake of our tastebuds and convenience. I hope the decline of the milk industry continues, and that more of these farmers can successfully switch into more ethical and planet-friendly sources of revenue.
Thankfully, most are swayed by environmental arguments and have eliminated their red meat consumption. Far fewer have given up milk, probably out of long-standing habits of milk consumption with cereal/coffee.
Just like the choice of whether we hurt or inflict pain and enslavement on a fellow human (a choice which has taken centuries to reverse), there's a choice of whether we enslave another sentient species for the sake of our tastebuds and convenience. I hope the decline of the milk industry continues, and that more of these farmers can successfully switch into more ethical and planet-friendly sources of revenue.
Cheese & butter are pretty dang hard to replace, and yogurt fills a special nutritional niche.
By the way, you profess to object to red meat and milk, but you're basically advocating veganism.
By the way, you profess to object to red meat and milk, but you're basically advocating veganism.
What is this special nutritional niche that yogurt occupies? The majority of humans don't eat it and seem to be doing ok.
Yogurt contains probiotics so I'm assuming that is the niche he is talking about, i.e, fermented foods. Also I think a lot of the world does eat yogurt. It is very common in US, Canada, Australia, Europe and Asia. I'm not sure about Africa and South America. Apparently, more than 50% of the US population does (or at least yogurt and smoothies, which I'm assuming they meant yogurt based smoothies but who knows) https://www.statista.com/statistics/279748/us-households-con...
Here in SE Asia yogurt is much less popular but there are lots of other non-dairy fermented, probiotic foods that people eat regularly like kimchi, natto, etc. So yogurt may be one of the few probiotic foods people eat in the West but it's hardly special.
Yoghurt is pretty big in India as well.
Yogurt is milk that’s been fermented; the result releases probiotics that can help support helpful gut bacteria.
But there other fermented foods one can eat that are dairy-free, like tempeh, kimchi and miso.
But there other fermented foods one can eat that are dairy-free, like tempeh, kimchi and miso.
And how useful the whole dietary probiotic thing is is fairly controversial, anyway.
I was mainly thinking of K2.
Can't tell right now, but in Bulgaria is what we get almost all day - either for breakfast, just like this, or for kids might add sugar (but no need to). Mix it with water - 50/50 or some other ratio - and you get yogurt drink - "airian", seeing here (in the US) that stores (mostly iranian) have such but salted, or carbonated.
Found also the best representative (to me at least) yogurt at Whole Foods - yes, it's marked "Bulgarian", and it's pretty good :)
I'm also following low-carb/keto diet, so while I like it, I have to be careful with it, though it's much better (cheat) than other things... (like ... pastry)
Found also the best representative (to me at least) yogurt at Whole Foods - yes, it's marked "Bulgarian", and it's pretty good :)
I'm also following low-carb/keto diet, so while I like it, I have to be careful with it, though it's much better (cheat) than other things... (like ... pastry)
I'm actually working toward a sort of "orthodox"-Jainism in which you only eat substances that plants are actively trying to give to other animals to help them propagate themselves (so eating fruits/bellpeppers, etc. are all ok, but killing a plant to consume it is not).
Anyway I understand that talking about animals and plants in this fashion is not a popular position on HN, and folks have and are likely to downvote me.
Anyway I understand that talking about animals and plants in this fashion is not a popular position on HN, and folks have and are likely to downvote me.
Water doesn’t actively try to give itself to be drunk. Is it ok to consume?
Yo, don't do that here. Someone responded politely about their personal beliefs, asking a interrogative question like this is needlessly rude.
If it was never okay to as questions, then any discussion ever could be shut down with "personal belief". If some beliefs can be examined and others are deemed too sensitive, then eventually the untouchable beliefs multiply and take over all discussions.
Beliefs are meant to be examined and evaluated, not coddled.
Beliefs are meant to be examined and evaluated, not coddled.
Yep, but make sure you conduct your examination and evaluation in a polite and civil manner. Otherwise you're just being contrarian and rude.
I believe in free speech, but I also believe that rude, insulting, thoughtless or incendiary speech deserves to be soundly ignored.
I believe in free speech, but I also believe that rude, insulting, thoughtless or incendiary speech deserves to be soundly ignored.
Surely there's a difference between asking a question and saying things to be an asshole. Let's all strive to be less of an asshole as a society, ok?
I didn't say you had to coddle someone, but it's equally clear you asked the question with the intent of being a dick, not to actually engage with the parent poster. "Haha, look how superior my intellect is, did you even think about water?!" is materially different than exploring and questioning someone's belief.
I suppose it's not considered a live being, so it can't be hurt by consuming. Same with air.
Do you actually need someone to answer this for you, or are you arguing in bad faith?
Is what you're talking about equivalent to Frutarianism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
I certainly respect people doing that. But my perspective is that until we can photosynthesize, we're dependent on exploiting other forms of life to survive. Even modern fruit trees have been vastly changed from their natural equivalents, and farming of course creates major ecosystem changes that we're still morally responsible for, even if we're not directly killing plants.
Can we eventually get to some sort of technological plateau where we go right from inanimate objects to survival? Eventually, I'm sure. But until then, there's no morally pure way to survive, so I'm going to carry on being an omnivore and aim for reasonable harm reduction instead of purity.
I certainly respect people doing that. But my perspective is that until we can photosynthesize, we're dependent on exploiting other forms of life to survive. Even modern fruit trees have been vastly changed from their natural equivalents, and farming of course creates major ecosystem changes that we're still morally responsible for, even if we're not directly killing plants.
Can we eventually get to some sort of technological plateau where we go right from inanimate objects to survival? Eventually, I'm sure. But until then, there's no morally pure way to survive, so I'm going to carry on being an omnivore and aim for reasonable harm reduction instead of purity.
Personally I think such experimentation is great. I’ve many Jain friends and it really pains me that they’re excluded from when we would go out for dinner because of their dietary restrictions.
However, in most Urban restaurants in the US today there are great options for vegetarian/vegan food, which makes them a lot more accessible.
Ultimately I do hope that the demand for alternative foods will continue to change the way we think about what we eat. The current situation isn’t sustainable. As the demand for meat from developing countries grows, hopefully the meat-alternatives will be good enough to satisfy the market.
However, in most Urban restaurants in the US today there are great options for vegetarian/vegan food, which makes them a lot more accessible.
Ultimately I do hope that the demand for alternative foods will continue to change the way we think about what we eat. The current situation isn’t sustainable. As the demand for meat from developing countries grows, hopefully the meat-alternatives will be good enough to satisfy the market.
[deleted]
Another fallacy? Look at historical fruits and vegetables - these plants were trying to kill those that ate their seeds and fruit - so the progeny plant could thrive in their rotting corpse. No gratitude from me.
An exaggeration of course. But fruits and vegetables are only the lovely things they are, because of 10,000 years of selection for what are essentially grotesque bloated versions of the 'natural' seeds and fruits they came from. Outrageous genetic experiments as unnatural as modern chicken breasts and goldfish. No reasonable 'intent' of the plant may be inferred, anthropomorphizing aside.
An exaggeration of course. But fruits and vegetables are only the lovely things they are, because of 10,000 years of selection for what are essentially grotesque bloated versions of the 'natural' seeds and fruits they came from. Outrageous genetic experiments as unnatural as modern chicken breasts and goldfish. No reasonable 'intent' of the plant may be inferred, anthropomorphizing aside.
Yes, milk is hard to replace for the specific nutritional value it brings when raising small children. You can't go wrong feeding them cow's milk
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/vegetarian-...
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/vegetarian-...
The majority of humans are lactose intolerant and can't drink cow's milk. So clearly it's not essential for humans of any age.
You are born un-abled to eat solids, so clearly drinking something for sustinence is essential for all humans at some point. Obviously breast milk is best, but not always possible, so then pick your substitute.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/drinks-and-...
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/drinks-and-...
Not the majority of newborns...
Most people who are labeled lactose intolerant can still drink up to 100ml of milk per day without major problems. People who really cannot drink any amount of milk are allergic to it, but are extremely rare.
IIRC, most small children (toddlers and infants especially) are not lactose intolerant. In general, giving a breast milk substitute is a good thing if breast milk isn't available. In fact, at a young enough age, milk is vital to survival in most cases.
But as folks grow older, they can stop making the enzymes that break down milk. This happens less often if milk is kept in the diet and more often if you have genes that increase your chances of intolerance. This usually happens more often where milk isn't a staple food source for the population.
Edit: Forgot a sentence.
But as folks grow older, they can stop making the enzymes that break down milk. This happens less often if milk is kept in the diet and more often if you have genes that increase your chances of intolerance. This usually happens more often where milk isn't a staple food source for the population.
Edit: Forgot a sentence.
> The majority of humans are lactose intolerant and can't drink cow's milk
The majority of adult mammals are lactose intolerant and can't drink any milk; this is true of humans too. Very young mammals generally are not lactose intolerant and generally initially rely on milk, usually from the same species but in most cases it can be substituted from other mammal species (the main problem being that often other-species suppliers are disinclined to cooperate, not any nutritional/digestive barriers.) This is, again, is as true of humans specifically as it is of mammals generally, and domestication addresses the cooperation problem.
> So clearly it's not essential for humans of any age.
Milk is essential for very young humans. Milk from humans (and especially their own mother) is ideal, but there are not-infrequently a variety of problems with that, and the general solutions we've found mostly rely on cow's milk as a key component. For somewhat older human children, it's not essential but still useful, and even for adults it has uses (even for lactose intolerant adults; e.g., in the form of milk/whey protein isolates.)
The majority of adult mammals are lactose intolerant and can't drink any milk; this is true of humans too. Very young mammals generally are not lactose intolerant and generally initially rely on milk, usually from the same species but in most cases it can be substituted from other mammal species (the main problem being that often other-species suppliers are disinclined to cooperate, not any nutritional/digestive barriers.) This is, again, is as true of humans specifically as it is of mammals generally, and domestication addresses the cooperation problem.
> So clearly it's not essential for humans of any age.
Milk is essential for very young humans. Milk from humans (and especially their own mother) is ideal, but there are not-infrequently a variety of problems with that, and the general solutions we've found mostly rely on cow's milk as a key component. For somewhat older human children, it's not essential but still useful, and even for adults it has uses (even for lactose intolerant adults; e.g., in the form of milk/whey protein isolates.)
Cow's milk is designed to get a calf to full size in a year. Its composition is very different from human milk, is loaded with bovine growth hormones, and there's a lot of evidence it's not very well suited for us.
Rat milk is closer to human milk and would actually be a much better substitute. Maybe we should set up big rat dairies?
Rat milk is closer to human milk and would actually be a much better substitute. Maybe we should set up big rat dairies?
> Cow's milk is designed
No, it's not.
> Rat milk is closer to human milk and would actually be a much better substitute. Maybe we should set up big rat dairies?
Sure, when the automation has reached the point that number of animals you need to deal with per unit of milk production isn't a significant factor in the cost, that’ll probably be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
No, it's not.
> Rat milk is closer to human milk and would actually be a much better substitute. Maybe we should set up big rat dairies?
Sure, when the automation has reached the point that number of animals you need to deal with per unit of milk production isn't a significant factor in the cost, that’ll probably be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
> Far fewer have given up milk, probably out of long-standing habits of milk consumption with cereal/coffee.
I've given up milk except for coffee for what is purely vanity - casein in milk binds to tannins in coffee and reduces tooth staining.
(Though I've kicked my daily coffee habit too - I mostly just get decaf lattes if I'm meeting someone socially for coffee, or the like.)
I've given up milk except for coffee for what is purely vanity - casein in milk binds to tannins in coffee and reduces tooth staining.
(Though I've kicked my daily coffee habit too - I mostly just get decaf lattes if I'm meeting someone socially for coffee, or the like.)
>Arguments about whether cows are "alive" or "feel pain" the same way humans do inevitably conclude with an acknowledgement that they probably do in all likelihood
Strawman; they logically are not “alive” in the same way humans are and cannot “feel pain” the same way humans do.
Strawman; they logically are not “alive” in the same way humans are and cannot “feel pain” the same way humans do.
Okay, show your proof.
The brains are different.
> they logically are not “alive” in the same way humans are
My brain is not the same as yours. People who have live with 1 hemisphere are (likely) different than your brain (or however you want to define brain similarity). Your reasoning is not a sufficient bar to make an appeal to logic, on its own.
Currently, science has favored Jaak Panksepp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Panksepp) above John B. Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson).
My brain is not the same as yours. People who have live with 1 hemisphere are (likely) different than your brain (or however you want to define brain similarity). Your reasoning is not a sufficient bar to make an appeal to logic, on its own.
Currently, science has favored Jaak Panksepp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Panksepp) above John B. Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson).
What? Of course they feel pain. Do you have a cat or dog? They feel pain. So why wouldn't cows? Or pigs, which are arguably smarter than any of the above?
To eat meat, one must acknowledge that it means causing pain and suffering. If you're fine with that, go right ahead. But you cannot pretend there are no consequences. i say this, by the way, as an occasional meat eater. But at least I'm honest with myself and others...
To eat meat, one must acknowledge that it means causing pain and suffering. If you're fine with that, go right ahead. But you cannot pretend there are no consequences. i say this, by the way, as an occasional meat eater. But at least I'm honest with myself and others...
By the argument you make below ("The brains are different.") you could use this argument to deny the humanity, or capability of feeling pain of anyone that isn't yourself. This argument quickly slides into solipsism, which is not a useful philosophical position to take in a world inhabited by agents that pass our individual Turing tests.
There's a certain irony in accusing someone of constructing a strawman by constructing your own strawman.
I actually found it easy to give up milk but meat is hard to give up. There are so many foods that have meat as the core substance and I like the texture.
I don’t think I can really reconcile my concern about animal rights, environment with the desire for meat. It’s a part of me that I like to not think about. Occasionally the pull manifests itself into a nudge to try the non-meat options when they are available.
I don’t think I can really reconcile my concern about animal rights, environment with the desire for meat. It’s a part of me that I like to not think about. Occasionally the pull manifests itself into a nudge to try the non-meat options when they are available.
I wonder what are your views on wildlife, where animals live often in quite poor conditions, and are regularly brutally killed and eaten. Isn't properly organized farm life a better option for e.g. a sheep?
I'm not being ironic here; I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not being ironic here; I'm genuinely curious.
Watch this and decide for yourself:
https://vimeo.com/209647801
This is the reality of farm life for most animals, despite what you often see in commercials etc.
https://vimeo.com/209647801
This is the reality of farm life for most animals, despite what you often see in commercials etc.
Grew up in farm country.
That video is not the reality of farm life for most animals, especially not most farm animals.
It is a video of the stereotypical view of farm life that most people who haven't lived within 100 miles of a farm think that farm life looks like.
That video is not the reality of farm life for most animals, especially not most farm animals.
It is a video of the stereotypical view of farm life that most people who haven't lived within 100 miles of a farm think that farm life looks like.
Sorry but that's just not true:
Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms.
The percentage of animals raised on small family farms is negligible. That people like you aren't aware of this just shows how well this industry is hiding the truth.
https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima...
Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms.
The percentage of animals raised on small family farms is negligible. That people like you aren't aware of this just shows how well this industry is hiding the truth.
https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima...
Your citations in no way refute my comment.
The video is not representative of factory farms across the US. It is representative of some factory farms, but not the vast majority of them.
That people like you aren't aware that most factory farms operate differently from the few depicted in a vegan propaganda video just shows how well the progaganda is working.
The video is not representative of factory farms across the US. It is representative of some factory farms, but not the vast majority of them.
That people like you aren't aware that most factory farms operate differently from the few depicted in a vegan propaganda video just shows how well the progaganda is working.
Why are gag laws needed then? Why is any kind of filming prohibited at most factory farms? Which practices in that film do you claim are unusual?
Gag laws aren't needed, and most states and countries don't have them.
Some states have gag laws because activists kept trespassing onto farms and disrupting activities, including harassing workers and endangering themselves in order to get footage. There are several shots in the video in which the camera person could have fallen into the machinery and become sausage or fillets.
I claim that most of the practices in the film are unusual in the West, especially since they violate farm safety laws passed after the mad cow outbreak several decades ago. It's also not clear why footage from Asian factory fish farms is relevant to a discussion of factory farms in the West.
Some states have gag laws because activists kept trespassing onto farms and disrupting activities, including harassing workers and endangering themselves in order to get footage. There are several shots in the video in which the camera person could have fallen into the machinery and become sausage or fillets.
I claim that most of the practices in the film are unusual in the West, especially since they violate farm safety laws passed after the mad cow outbreak several decades ago. It's also not clear why footage from Asian factory fish farms is relevant to a discussion of factory farms in the West.
Over the past decade, the animal-agriculture industry has been behind the introduction of "ag-gag" bills in more than half of all state legislatures across the country.
https://www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/what-a...
If the problem was just trespassing then existing trespassing laws would be sufficient.
https://www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/what-a...
If the problem was just trespassing then existing trespassing laws would be sufficient.
You are arguing based on your anecdata vs actual longitudinal/ in depth analysis. Sure you and most of the people you immediately knew treated your animals well (my extended family was the same) - that does not negate the reality of factory farms in general.
There is no in-depth analysis in that video or website.
It's literally just pictures of animals being slaughtered in (primarily) overseas food facilities, at least one of which appears to be an open-air fish market. So, not representative of the claims about factory farming.
It's literally just pictures of animals being slaughtered in (primarily) overseas food facilities, at least one of which appears to be an open-air fish market. So, not representative of the claims about factory farming.
This isn’t likely to lead anywhere productive.
Sheep generally cannot live without human care because they need to be shorn because their wool doesn’t stop growing, and have their tails docked else they get fly blown.
Also, the brutality of nature in the wild is irrelevant in the context of human’s farming animals for food.
Edit: fixed some grammar
Sheep generally cannot live without human care because they need to be shorn because their wool doesn’t stop growing, and have their tails docked else they get fly blown.
Also, the brutality of nature in the wild is irrelevant in the context of human’s farming animals for food.
Edit: fixed some grammar
Feral sheep do exist, if wikipedia is to be believed.
Philosophically you don't have a leg to stand on making an argument for or against what is in the best interest of an incommunicable intelligent species.
For instance, you might be able to infer what a dairy cow desires, but that dairy cow's intelligence was molded by a dairy system. It is impossible to project that onto another instance even of the same species.
Is one wild deer thriving and happy with a meaningful attachment to family, and another suffering for nourishment daily? Likely.
Even concerted conservation efforts end up with unanticipated ramifications for the target and other species. The preservation of endangered species, particularly megafauna, is largely for the sake of human desires and human scientific purposes. And ironically, some of these preserved species are so captive (imprinted by our human environment for them) that they decide not to breed, not to continue their entire species. And it is the humans that are sad about it, not them.
For human morality's sake, then, I would posit that we are left only with the choice to take no action. We will either let wild be wild, or will be playing a human-centric game for eternity. There is no way to construct a world that is somehow better for other species and for us.
We either wild our own species, divide ourselves from the wild geographically, or live with the moral baggage of subjugating other species... Trying to minimize suffering based on our folly human ideas of where righteousness begins and ends.
PS I also play that righteousness game and eat a plant-based diet, take part in conservation efforts, etc. But I do so knowing it is a delusion :)
For instance, you might be able to infer what a dairy cow desires, but that dairy cow's intelligence was molded by a dairy system. It is impossible to project that onto another instance even of the same species.
Is one wild deer thriving and happy with a meaningful attachment to family, and another suffering for nourishment daily? Likely.
Even concerted conservation efforts end up with unanticipated ramifications for the target and other species. The preservation of endangered species, particularly megafauna, is largely for the sake of human desires and human scientific purposes. And ironically, some of these preserved species are so captive (imprinted by our human environment for them) that they decide not to breed, not to continue their entire species. And it is the humans that are sad about it, not them.
For human morality's sake, then, I would posit that we are left only with the choice to take no action. We will either let wild be wild, or will be playing a human-centric game for eternity. There is no way to construct a world that is somehow better for other species and for us.
We either wild our own species, divide ourselves from the wild geographically, or live with the moral baggage of subjugating other species... Trying to minimize suffering based on our folly human ideas of where righteousness begins and ends.
PS I also play that righteousness game and eat a plant-based diet, take part in conservation efforts, etc. But I do so knowing it is a delusion :)
[deleted]
It's a great and tough question, and to be totally honest I don't have a fully formed view on this. It does seem like a life lived on a farm with humans could have significantly less suffering than a live in the wild. If the animal is (i) not being used for some byproduct, e.g., being repeatedly inseminated for milk (ii) has enough volition, or freedom to roam, and reproduce in some (possibly controlled) manner, it seems like such a life could be quite good for an animal. There are probably many small family farms that keep animals for pleasure and not to raise for meat that practice this sort of ethical farming.
One argument against this sort of intervention comes from my experience living with our family dog (we've had him for five years). He is a calm and intelligent dog who I feel has had a good life, but I feel sometimes that it is a very restrictive one. He can't do whatever he wants, and is separated from other creatures like himself. My feeling is that his life was worth living, but there is an element of guilt when I think about how free he is, and once he passes away I don't think I will keep a pet in a future family I start.
It's very hard to say what these creatures who cannot speak up for themselves really want, and whether we should interfere with their lives to prevent suffering that's inherent in nature.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Please let me know if you have any books/resources to recommend. I'm planning to read Singer's Animal Liberation soon, which will probably discuss this question.
One argument against this sort of intervention comes from my experience living with our family dog (we've had him for five years). He is a calm and intelligent dog who I feel has had a good life, but I feel sometimes that it is a very restrictive one. He can't do whatever he wants, and is separated from other creatures like himself. My feeling is that his life was worth living, but there is an element of guilt when I think about how free he is, and once he passes away I don't think I will keep a pet in a future family I start.
It's very hard to say what these creatures who cannot speak up for themselves really want, and whether we should interfere with their lives to prevent suffering that's inherent in nature.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Please let me know if you have any books/resources to recommend. I'm planning to read Singer's Animal Liberation soon, which will probably discuss this question.
I would highly recommend Fellow Creatures by Christine Korsgaard. There was a good review in the NYRB, if you have access: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/03/21/christine-korsga...
I don't have any background in philosophy or ethics, but I found it relatively accessible and well-argued; it helped to crystallize a lot of my thoughts on the topic.
I don't have any background in philosophy or ethics, but I found it relatively accessible and well-argued; it helped to crystallize a lot of my thoughts on the topic.
Why are these two the alternatives? In the wild, these animals wouldn't exist. They were born into a life of forced slavery, rape, and murder but that life otherwise wouldn't exist.
You are trying to guild trip lions. Majority people do not feel bad about the concept of killing and eating animals. And I am not talking about the terrible conditions of factory farms, which I think most people do oppose, but about the general concept of eating meat.
The amount and frequency and price at which we consume meat necessitates very high intensity production. Most people, myself included, prefer not to think about it.
I quite enjoy meat of many forms, and am largely indifferent to how that gets to me unless it's unsanitary. That said, I'm all for treating the animals as humanely as possible and optimizing the yield of various animal products until such a time comes that there are better options. I won't pay for it until I have to, but others will, and that's great. Temple Grandin has built a career on designing slaughterhouses for reducing the distress a cow is caused while it's being killed, and anything farmers can do to treat their animals well and produce better tasting beef seems pretty reasonable. Seems to me a lot like the automotive industry, in that electric cars are kind of viable sometimes, but not better or not suitable in a lot of areas just yet.
The environmental arguments are hardly clear to anyone with experience farming since they appear to hinge on equating ranch land with arable land and cattle feed with millable grain. Industrial farming is easy to revile and many people are indeed searching for more sustainable and ethical alternatives. My family raised a small amount of cattle growing up and most of the "clear" arguments against livestock seem incredibly ignorant to me and contrary to the basic facts of my life.
The ethical picture of killing animals is equally murky since obviously to feed the masses industrial farming is necessary and that means pesticides and vermin control. So, no matter what you're going to be killing animals and it becomes a question of utilitarian balance or drawing a line and saying those animals (rats and all insects probably) don't matter. Meanwhile, we still live in an era of slavery, but most people fill up their cars and eat chocolate without any cognitive dissonance. Why would the ethics of meat and dairy be uniquely more clear to people than human slavery and murder?
Finally, people who actually care about their diet probably want a natural source of vitamin B12. South Park actually put the best satirical point on this side of the discussion. People switch over to things like the impossible burger and think they have improved their diet, but they are just switching out one crappy processed diet for another. For many people the clear reality of needing more fortified foods seems to be a degradation, not an improvement.
Do I think these apologetics are going to change anyone's mind? No, just like your apologetics to people around you aren't convincing them in all but a few exceptional cases. Maybe at least people can agree that the discussion is anything but clear and try to be civil but polarisation is more of the zeitgeist than civil disagreement. Logistics and economy are not easy, ethics either, nor nutrition. The only truly clear thing in all of this to me is that the best thing I can do is not have any children, but it is equally clear that other people are not going to stop that.
The ethical picture of killing animals is equally murky since obviously to feed the masses industrial farming is necessary and that means pesticides and vermin control. So, no matter what you're going to be killing animals and it becomes a question of utilitarian balance or drawing a line and saying those animals (rats and all insects probably) don't matter. Meanwhile, we still live in an era of slavery, but most people fill up their cars and eat chocolate without any cognitive dissonance. Why would the ethics of meat and dairy be uniquely more clear to people than human slavery and murder?
Finally, people who actually care about their diet probably want a natural source of vitamin B12. South Park actually put the best satirical point on this side of the discussion. People switch over to things like the impossible burger and think they have improved their diet, but they are just switching out one crappy processed diet for another. For many people the clear reality of needing more fortified foods seems to be a degradation, not an improvement.
Do I think these apologetics are going to change anyone's mind? No, just like your apologetics to people around you aren't convincing them in all but a few exceptional cases. Maybe at least people can agree that the discussion is anything but clear and try to be civil but polarisation is more of the zeitgeist than civil disagreement. Logistics and economy are not easy, ethics either, nor nutrition. The only truly clear thing in all of this to me is that the best thing I can do is not have any children, but it is equally clear that other people are not going to stop that.
sc4les(2)
It isn't "clear" to oil executives and the coal industry that they're killing the planet. It's easy to revile oilsands, but how else are people going to live? "Why can't we just be more civil and talk about it", they're thinking.
As a layman, the scientific consensus appears to be pretty one sides. The UN makes it clear that it thinks our current farming isn't sustainable (1) and that it's primary reason for the current mass extinction (2).
More recent NPR take on it (3)
(1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/12/third-of...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_Report_on_Bi...
(3) https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/08/748416223/to...
As a layman, the scientific consensus appears to be pretty one sides. The UN makes it clear that it thinks our current farming isn't sustainable (1) and that it's primary reason for the current mass extinction (2).
More recent NPR take on it (3)
(1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/12/third-of...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_Report_on_Bi...
(3) https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/08/748416223/to...
This consensus you are pointing to is the consensus that livestock is a leading cause of deforestation. There is no consensus that eliminating meat from all diets is the solution to that problem. There is also no consensus that it is the only problem.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with oil executives and oilsands. My general statement was in regards to the use of slaves (or indentured servants if you prefer) in the Arabic peninsula which doesn't seem to bother most people (because indeed most people aren't aware of it).
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with oil executives and oilsands. My general statement was in regards to the use of slaves (or indentured servants if you prefer) in the Arabic peninsula which doesn't seem to bother most people (because indeed most people aren't aware of it).
On the aspect of pain and suffering: many small animals are killed in the act of harvesting a field mechanically. So if we posit that those animals are sentient and feel suffering, and far out number the number of bovine slaughtered, would we not cause more suffering haversting a field? This is serious question.
Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes and ruminating animals such as cows can be quite beneficial for the landscape.
Edit: “mono” instead of “no”
Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes and ruminating animals such as cows can be quite beneficial for the landscape.
Edit: “mono” instead of “no”
> So if we posit that those animals are sentient and feel suffering, and far out number the number of bovine slaughtered, would we not cause more suffering haversting a field.
What do you feed the cows with? The same things that humans instead could eat. So, not only are you hurting the cow, but you are also hurting the critters in the process of feeding the cow.
> Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes
Okay, rotate the plants and have off-periods to not over harvest.
What do you feed the cows with? The same things that humans instead could eat. So, not only are you hurting the cow, but you are also hurting the critters in the process of feeding the cow.
> Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes
Okay, rotate the plants and have off-periods to not over harvest.
What do you feed cows with? Well most places other than America let them feed on grass which humans can’t consume...
Cows don’t commonly eat small mammals.
Cows don’t commonly eat small mammals.
Downvotes because of posing serious questions? I would enjoy a discussion about it rather than drive by downvotes.
We as a society have already solved this in our judicial system via a difference in punishment for murder, manslaughter. Let's strive to do less murder first, and then we can work on the harder problems like accidental animal death via externalities of production. Or we can work on both at the same time!
Can we agree that intentional death is more of a low hanging fruit than accidental death, though?
Can we agree that intentional death is more of a low hanging fruit than accidental death, though?
Here is a question I would genuinely like answered. Isn't there a major tension between the environmental point of view and animal rights point of view?
The environmental viewpoint seems clear and reasonable; keeping large animals alive is expensive in terms of resources and waste. So get rid of them. Reduce the population of cows from a billion to a million.
But this seems to go against the idea of animal rights. After all, to make an environmental improvement, we would need to eliminate most of the cattle, i.e., kill them and not replace them. If you care about the conditions of a cow's life, is it moral to solve the problem by eliminating that life?
How are these two viewpoints allies?
The environmental viewpoint seems clear and reasonable; keeping large animals alive is expensive in terms of resources and waste. So get rid of them. Reduce the population of cows from a billion to a million.
But this seems to go against the idea of animal rights. After all, to make an environmental improvement, we would need to eliminate most of the cattle, i.e., kill them and not replace them. If you care about the conditions of a cow's life, is it moral to solve the problem by eliminating that life?
How are these two viewpoints allies?
Attrition. Animals don’t live that long.
20 years is natural lifespan of a cow. Supposedly 2030 is some kind of limit for climate change.
I don't think anyone is conflicted by this? Like you say: kill them and don't replace them. They're going to be slaughtered anyways. This year we slaughter 39 million, next year 25 million, the year after that 10 million, ... I don't think anyone [serious] (of those two groups) is going to complain too hard.
Why do you feel like humans need to be responsible for upkeeping cattle populations, who's sole existence is for human consumption? As others have said...consume them and then don't replace them seems like a good plan.
I was vegetarian for a stretch. Am a treehugger and child of farmers. Have no problem eating animals. Was mostly motivated by food safety and contempt for the misc industries.
My health suffered.
After watching Dr Terry Wahls TED talk about nutrition and mitochondria, I resumed eating animal protein. Like her, my health improved. Many, many people are successfully vegetarian (et al), so YMMV.
I'll resume being vegetarian once nutrition science figures how I can do so safely. I'm very bullish on engineered meat, as in grown in a vat.
My health suffered.
After watching Dr Terry Wahls TED talk about nutrition and mitochondria, I resumed eating animal protein. Like her, my health improved. Many, many people are successfully vegetarian (et al), so YMMV.
I'll resume being vegetarian once nutrition science figures how I can do so safely. I'm very bullish on engineered meat, as in grown in a vat.
What were your health problems that were solved by adding meat to your diet?
Psoriasis, edema, and general purpose malaise.
The psoriasis was bleeding, covered my legs, arms, and entire scalp.
I should have qualified my statement as "Believe, but cannot prove." None of this stuff is simple. (Accept maybe HFCS and calorie restriction.) Of all the things I've tried, it's hard to know which helped most and how. I also take breaks, just to be sure the things I'm doing are actually helping.
Some years later, I have minimal psoriasis and no edema. I no longer take immunosuppressants or do UVB light therapy, but I do still use topical steroids occassionally.
And when I slip from my nutrition plan, I feel like shit and the itchiness resumes.
YMMV. Do what works for you, keep experimenting.
The psoriasis was bleeding, covered my legs, arms, and entire scalp.
I should have qualified my statement as "Believe, but cannot prove." None of this stuff is simple. (Accept maybe HFCS and calorie restriction.) Of all the things I've tried, it's hard to know which helped most and how. I also take breaks, just to be sure the things I'm doing are actually helping.
Some years later, I have minimal psoriasis and no edema. I no longer take immunosuppressants or do UVB light therapy, but I do still use topical steroids occassionally.
And when I slip from my nutrition plan, I feel like shit and the itchiness resumes.
YMMV. Do what works for you, keep experimenting.
When I was towards the end of mouth/neck radiation I wasn't able to swallow anything, even water, for about a month.
So I was just using TwoCal® HN in my feeding tube. I was using six cans a day which is about 3K calories. I still lost 35 pounds. I ended up under 100 pounds. I am 6' tall. I was never a big guy. But I got bad.. I have a picture.
https://i.imgur.com/UQVgJIP.jpg
I don't get out in the sun much. That brown around my neck is burns from the radiation. It has been a year and that burn is still there. If anyone wants to know what it is like to have a sunburn inside your mouth feel free to ask.
But I hit a point where every joint in my legs and fingers ached and I didn't want to get out of bed because it hurt so much. I hate milk, I never put it in my mouth. But I started putting the fattiest milk as possible the feeding tube. In a week my aches went away.
So I was just using TwoCal® HN in my feeding tube. I was using six cans a day which is about 3K calories. I still lost 35 pounds. I ended up under 100 pounds. I am 6' tall. I was never a big guy. But I got bad.. I have a picture.
https://i.imgur.com/UQVgJIP.jpg
I don't get out in the sun much. That brown around my neck is burns from the radiation. It has been a year and that burn is still there. If anyone wants to know what it is like to have a sunburn inside your mouth feel free to ask.
But I hit a point where every joint in my legs and fingers ached and I didn't want to get out of bed because it hurt so much. I hate milk, I never put it in my mouth. But I started putting the fattiest milk as possible the feeding tube. In a week my aches went away.
> But I started putting the fattiest milk as possible the feeding tube.
I'm curious whether this was just whole milk (~3.5% fat), or if you went up to fat-added milks like half-and-half (~10%) or whipping cream (40-50%).
I'm curious whether this was just whole milk (~3.5% fat), or if you went up to fat-added milks like half-and-half (~10%) or whipping cream (40-50%).
Whole milk. I tried the heavier dairy products but they slowed things to a crawl.
The feeding tube is actually very narrow. I tried blending spinach and other assorted vegetables and it clogged it.
You have to do a intro with a person before they install it. They showed me a example of what the tube would be. He showed me what was essentially a half inch vinyl tube with one of those locking clamps you have to squeeze down to close.
It was huge and I was terrified. I just didn't understand how I would be able to sleep with it in. I thought I could blitz a steak and put it in the tube.
But the tube is tiny. After a few weeks you barely notice it. The entire concept of it is terrifying. I couldn't look at mine for a week. That isn't a joke. The concept just flipped me out.
But I thought it was weird that every doctor through my path mentioned that they could take it out in seconds if I didn't like it. Not a big deal, we just pop it out and put on a band-aid. No big deal. ENT person, Nutritionist, Radiologist, Oncologist, Oral Surgeon. It was almost scripted. Everyone said the same thing.
Now I understand. I would have died without it. The Radiologist said as much the first time I met him. "25% of the people with what you have don't get the tube, most of those people are dead now"... I thought that was hyperbole. It wasn't.
I think I had the worst schedule ever. My first treatment of radiation was at 8am. Surgery to put in the feeding tube at 9:30. First chemo at 1PM. It is hard to top that Monday. But I went in for the feeding tube and was completely knocked out. When I woke up they said they couldn't do it. So plan B was needed. From what I gather my stomach rides high so they ended up needing to push my stomach down and then stitching my stomach lower to hold it in place. This was incredibly painful. I did learn that OXY is actually a fairly weak narcotic compared to what they can give you. This dude got high.
Well fuck, I typed a lot but answered your query in the first sentence. I think I am just trying to get my story out before I turn to dust.
The feeding tube is actually very narrow. I tried blending spinach and other assorted vegetables and it clogged it.
You have to do a intro with a person before they install it. They showed me a example of what the tube would be. He showed me what was essentially a half inch vinyl tube with one of those locking clamps you have to squeeze down to close.
It was huge and I was terrified. I just didn't understand how I would be able to sleep with it in. I thought I could blitz a steak and put it in the tube.
But the tube is tiny. After a few weeks you barely notice it. The entire concept of it is terrifying. I couldn't look at mine for a week. That isn't a joke. The concept just flipped me out.
But I thought it was weird that every doctor through my path mentioned that they could take it out in seconds if I didn't like it. Not a big deal, we just pop it out and put on a band-aid. No big deal. ENT person, Nutritionist, Radiologist, Oncologist, Oral Surgeon. It was almost scripted. Everyone said the same thing.
Now I understand. I would have died without it. The Radiologist said as much the first time I met him. "25% of the people with what you have don't get the tube, most of those people are dead now"... I thought that was hyperbole. It wasn't.
I think I had the worst schedule ever. My first treatment of radiation was at 8am. Surgery to put in the feeding tube at 9:30. First chemo at 1PM. It is hard to top that Monday. But I went in for the feeding tube and was completely knocked out. When I woke up they said they couldn't do it. So plan B was needed. From what I gather my stomach rides high so they ended up needing to push my stomach down and then stitching my stomach lower to hold it in place. This was incredibly painful. I did learn that OXY is actually a fairly weak narcotic compared to what they can give you. This dude got high.
Well fuck, I typed a lot but answered your query in the first sentence. I think I am just trying to get my story out before I turn to dust.
Could you talk more on how learning that not having the tube in would kill you made you understand why all of the medical professionals were offering to remove it?
I imagine the idea is that, by emphasizing how easy it is to change your mind after the tube is inserted, you can more easily persuade the patient to allow you to put the tube in in the first place.
Absolutely. That was the goal. If I didn't like it we could pop it out in a minute and it won't hurt. So no harm in having it done.
I am glad they were aggressive. I would have died a painful death without it.
When the ENT guy said I would probably need a feeding tube I was thinking a thing that would go down my throat. And I was not thrilled about that. Right after the ENT guy I had to see the Radiologist and he was banging on more about the tube.
I still thought it was a down the throat tube. But my sister had google imaged searched g-tubes and showed me on the ride home. Tube in the stomach. No big deal. As long as it wasn't a tube down my throat. Horrible.. But significantly less bad than I had imagined.
I would be dead without the tube. So if anyone else has the same problem you should really get it.
I have to get the tube replaced every ~4 months. Last time I talked to a guy that used to work as a radiation tech at a different hospital. He said they just didn't do radiation on neck people unless they get the tube. Since they will die anyway and it is expensive.
I am glad they were aggressive. I would have died a painful death without it.
When the ENT guy said I would probably need a feeding tube I was thinking a thing that would go down my throat. And I was not thrilled about that. Right after the ENT guy I had to see the Radiologist and he was banging on more about the tube.
I still thought it was a down the throat tube. But my sister had google imaged searched g-tubes and showed me on the ride home. Tube in the stomach. No big deal. As long as it wasn't a tube down my throat. Horrible.. But significantly less bad than I had imagined.
I would be dead without the tube. So if anyone else has the same problem you should really get it.
I have to get the tube replaced every ~4 months. Last time I talked to a guy that used to work as a radiation tech at a different hospital. He said they just didn't do radiation on neck people unless they get the tube. Since they will die anyway and it is expensive.
Because if it wasn't trivial to get rid of that would be a big disincentive to start with it in the first place?
For sure.
When I first saw the oncologist he made me meet with a lady that walked me through chemo. She laid out that explicitly that I am such a slender guy that I will die without the tube. And my kidneys will fail since I will probably not be able to get down water. I would later learn (PET scan) that I was born with one kidney.
I think they knew that letting me know that they could easily remove it would increase the odds that I would get it put in. To make it seem like a trivial thing. If you don't like it we can just pop it out and things go back to normal. Easy. Might as well have it put in, why not? Everyone had the same spiel.
And they were right. It is easy to remove. I accidentally removed it myself one morning. And I lost my shit. I shoved it back in and my stomach contents started pouring all over the carpet since the other end was open. I was panicked.
It took about five minutes to shove back in and it required a significant amount of force. The thing is the hole closes up fast. They said if it comes it you have a hour to get to the ER before we have to start from scratch. And I don't drive. And nobody that drives was home. And I live in the burbs`. So I had to just get it back in there.
Fun fact.. Is you toss some lube on the tube it goes right in. I now keep KY in the bathroom drawer. But that was terrifying.. That is how I eat. And getting the it put in was pretty fucking painful. I had to resolve to situation.
When I first saw the oncologist he made me meet with a lady that walked me through chemo. She laid out that explicitly that I am such a slender guy that I will die without the tube. And my kidneys will fail since I will probably not be able to get down water. I would later learn (PET scan) that I was born with one kidney.
I think they knew that letting me know that they could easily remove it would increase the odds that I would get it put in. To make it seem like a trivial thing. If you don't like it we can just pop it out and things go back to normal. Easy. Might as well have it put in, why not? Everyone had the same spiel.
And they were right. It is easy to remove. I accidentally removed it myself one morning. And I lost my shit. I shoved it back in and my stomach contents started pouring all over the carpet since the other end was open. I was panicked.
It took about five minutes to shove back in and it required a significant amount of force. The thing is the hole closes up fast. They said if it comes it you have a hour to get to the ER before we have to start from scratch. And I don't drive. And nobody that drives was home. And I live in the burbs`. So I had to just get it back in there.
Fun fact.. Is you toss some lube on the tube it goes right in. I now keep KY in the bathroom drawer. But that was terrifying.. That is how I eat. And getting the it put in was pretty fucking painful. I had to resolve to situation.
Ah I didn't realise it was something people exercised choice over and needed cajoling in to.
I had inquired into why people refuse and the radiologist pretty much said that religion seems to be a major factor.
He also asked me about the "gun situation" where I live. We have a lot of guns but they are locked in a safe. They are for turning animals into jerky. We don't sleep with guns under pillows. We don't even lock our doors.
But he was concerned about my access to suicide machines. Five weeks later I would understand his question.
He also asked me about the "gun situation" where I live. We have a lot of guns but they are locked in a safe. They are for turning animals into jerky. We don't sleep with guns under pillows. We don't even lock our doors.
But he was concerned about my access to suicide machines. Five weeks later I would understand his question.
Informed consent is a very important part of medical care, and patients should exercise choice wherever possible.
I had/have mouth neck cancer. The mouth part was at the very base of my tongue where it enters the throat. The hole they dug via robotic surgery on my tongue is 1x1x.5 I was told half of all people who undergo this end up with a permanent feeding tube so I should try my best to keep eating. Started radiation 2 weeks after surgery while I still couldn't swallow my spit. I ended up mostly surviving on the softest and most calorie dense concoction I could think of - yogurt with both caramel ice cream sauce and maple syrup mixed in. After 6 months I had learned both what pain really was and what morphine withdrawal meant in real terms. I've had 3 clean PET scans since but I sometimes lie awake wondering if I can force myself to go through it again if the test comes back positive. The 24/7 pain of that 6 month stretch will change the way you look at things in your life.
Wowsa.. You had it worse.
I had a "swallowing coach" who was a doppelganger for David Mitchell. The WILTY guy. The best posh comedian. And yes, a swallowing coach is a real thing. I was charged 600 a hour for him to watch me eat pudding and be taught how to gargle water. This was actually really important. The radiation killed my ability to swallow. Every muscle in my neck died.I knew I was fucked when I couldn't swallow a pill.
Funny thing is I had to use the blue box (Kraft Dinner, Mac and Cheese) to get my throat working again. I started with noodles that were cooked for 15 minutes and were mush. And I slowly worked my way to Al dente. To get my throat to open up again. I was threatened with them putting a balloon down my throat and inflating and deflating it over and over and over again to work out my neck muscles enough to swallow. I hate the endoscope so the balloon is my worst nightmare. My muse. But the blue box worked. A have to add a lot of milk since I don't really produce saliva anymore. Permanent dry-mouth has been the worst thing about my year of horror.
This is why I quit my computer job and started doing woodworking for a living. I make less but actually enjoy woodworking. When I was deep in radiation and chemo I got a bunch of credit cards and outfitted a nice workshop. I was pretty sure I wouldn't have to actually pay back the debt, because I would be dead. But I am still here. So fuck..
I had a "swallowing coach" who was a doppelganger for David Mitchell. The WILTY guy. The best posh comedian. And yes, a swallowing coach is a real thing. I was charged 600 a hour for him to watch me eat pudding and be taught how to gargle water. This was actually really important. The radiation killed my ability to swallow. Every muscle in my neck died.I knew I was fucked when I couldn't swallow a pill.
Funny thing is I had to use the blue box (Kraft Dinner, Mac and Cheese) to get my throat working again. I started with noodles that were cooked for 15 minutes and were mush. And I slowly worked my way to Al dente. To get my throat to open up again. I was threatened with them putting a balloon down my throat and inflating and deflating it over and over and over again to work out my neck muscles enough to swallow. I hate the endoscope so the balloon is my worst nightmare. My muse. But the blue box worked. A have to add a lot of milk since I don't really produce saliva anymore. Permanent dry-mouth has been the worst thing about my year of horror.
This is why I quit my computer job and started doing woodworking for a living. I make less but actually enjoy woodworking. When I was deep in radiation and chemo I got a bunch of credit cards and outfitted a nice workshop. I was pretty sure I wouldn't have to actually pay back the debt, because I would be dead. But I am still here. So fuck..
That is the fucked thing about cancer. It is never over. Even if you come up clean in a PET it is always still there. Lingering. Forever..
The mental game after you recover is nearly as bad as the actual treatment. When I was between scans I did fuck-all because I could be dead in a month so I will just watch reruns of "Come Dine With Me".
The mental game after you recover is nearly as bad as the actual treatment. When I was between scans I did fuck-all because I could be dead in a month so I will just watch reruns of "Come Dine With Me".
Thank you for sharing your experience with us.
This xkcd has a poignant illustration of the uncertainty: https://xkcd.com/931/
This xkcd has a poignant illustration of the uncertainty: https://xkcd.com/931/
Not sure if this is bad form to respond to my own comment here. But my comments here have probably been massively depressing. I have a positive one.
There was a radiation tech, a older gentleman. He noticed that my belt slowly was failing. So one day he told me to give him my belt while I was in the machine. He kept a leather punch in the booth and put in more holes in my belt while I was getting radiated.
It is the small things.
There was a radiation tech, a older gentleman. He noticed that my belt slowly was failing. So one day he told me to give him my belt while I was in the machine. He kept a leather punch in the booth and put in more holes in my belt while I was getting radiated.
It is the small things.
Hey John. I know how you feel a bit. Dont worry about people thinking its depressing. It's your struggle and your story and you can tell it how ever you want. I remember tiny things like being able to tell my story helped me when I was diagnosed with a brain tumor.
People may not understand what milk has to really do with your situation but it is those tiny things that make the most profound impacts I'd say. I still look at the tiny needle scars and that reminds me more than the actual scar on my head.
So feel free man. I found being able to talk about it openly helped me deal with it A LOT MORE than anything else.
People may not understand what milk has to really do with your situation but it is those tiny things that make the most profound impacts I'd say. I still look at the tiny needle scars and that reminds me more than the actual scar on my head.
So feel free man. I found being able to talk about it openly helped me deal with it A LOT MORE than anything else.
Hi. Once you're ready to transition to solids, try making (or asking someone to make you!) junket. In short, it's a milk-based dessert that used to be consumed as baby food. It's basically sweet curd with (fragrant) spices.
Here's a quick recipe:
http://oldrecipebook.com/junketrennetrecipes.shtml
Here's one with rather more detail:
https://theelliotthomestead.com/2016/04/junket/
And here's one in video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n9bjLhq2k4
I hope you get to repay your woodworking debt in good time :)
Here's a quick recipe:
http://oldrecipebook.com/junketrennetrecipes.shtml
Here's one with rather more detail:
https://theelliotthomestead.com/2016/04/junket/
And here's one in video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n9bjLhq2k4
I hope you get to repay your woodworking debt in good time :)
“The Canadians have a system where they can only produce what they can sell,” she said. “If you produce more milk than you can sell profitably, they don’t pay as much for it.”
One thing this article leaves out is the massive subsidies that dairy producers receive in many nations, especially the U.S.. Even as demand has sank in the U.S., production has steadily increased, and the federal government has had to throw its weight around to force U.S. milk down the throats of other countries. Despite it's supply management system, Canada is now a consumer of U.S. dairy. This is because Trump made that a condition of lifting tariffs and negotiating NAFTA 2.0..
Because of supply management, dairy products in Canada are significantly more expensive than they are in the U.S.. Yes, it's not consumer friendly, but it does let dairy farmers do fairly well and maintain good quality of their product. In the U.S., the government effectively pays for a large percentage of every glass of milk consumers drink. When that milk is, instead, exported to Canada, additional export subsidies are applied that earn farmers even more money than they do on milk sold domestically. Then the Canadian government slaps tariffs of several hundred percent on this massively subsidized dairy to bring it inline with Canadian dairy products (which are controlled but not subsidized). Amazingly, it still often winds up cheaper than most Canadian dairy when it hits Canadian supermarket shelves.
The end result is that American taxpayers are paying Canadians (and their government) to drink U.S. milk, just so that U.S. dairy production can continue to grow far past domestic demand. Don't feel sorry for your local dairy farmer. Even if you're not drinking their products, you're already helping them out plenty just by paying taxes.
One thing this article leaves out is the massive subsidies that dairy producers receive in many nations, especially the U.S.. Even as demand has sank in the U.S., production has steadily increased, and the federal government has had to throw its weight around to force U.S. milk down the throats of other countries. Despite it's supply management system, Canada is now a consumer of U.S. dairy. This is because Trump made that a condition of lifting tariffs and negotiating NAFTA 2.0..
Because of supply management, dairy products in Canada are significantly more expensive than they are in the U.S.. Yes, it's not consumer friendly, but it does let dairy farmers do fairly well and maintain good quality of their product. In the U.S., the government effectively pays for a large percentage of every glass of milk consumers drink. When that milk is, instead, exported to Canada, additional export subsidies are applied that earn farmers even more money than they do on milk sold domestically. Then the Canadian government slaps tariffs of several hundred percent on this massively subsidized dairy to bring it inline with Canadian dairy products (which are controlled but not subsidized). Amazingly, it still often winds up cheaper than most Canadian dairy when it hits Canadian supermarket shelves.
The end result is that American taxpayers are paying Canadians (and their government) to drink U.S. milk, just so that U.S. dairy production can continue to grow far past domestic demand. Don't feel sorry for your local dairy farmer. Even if you're not drinking their products, you're already helping them out plenty just by paying taxes.
From my perspective I'm trying to maintain my health while also working many hours at a computer each day. At 30+ I don't need milk anymore. I'm not a growing child, or calf. ;)
My whole family has developed lactose intolerance, I'm the last one left. I chose to take milk out of my diet pre-emptively and replace it with oat milk for cooking, several years ago.
Partly because it's an unnecessary source of fat. I loved milk, used to drink it like water. Now I drink water like I used to drink milk.
Sometimes I'll mix lactose free milk and oat milk for luxury cooking.
My whole family has developed lactose intolerance, I'm the last one left. I chose to take milk out of my diet pre-emptively and replace it with oat milk for cooking, several years ago.
Partly because it's an unnecessary source of fat. I loved milk, used to drink it like water. Now I drink water like I used to drink milk.
Sometimes I'll mix lactose free milk and oat milk for luxury cooking.
"The already-low price of milk, which is set by the federal government, is projected to drop even further this year."
Interesting, and worthy of more prominence in the article IMHO.
Interesting, and worthy of more prominence in the article IMHO.
> In an online survey by the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy, seven percent of respondents said they believed that chocolate milk comes from … brown cows.
Unless they asked 4-year olds, this surely, can't possibly be true?!
Unless they asked 4-year olds, this surely, can't possibly be true?!
Lizardman's constant.
Aren't most dairy cows brown? Maybe they're just being good Bayesians.
I think most dairy cows are Holstein-Friesian, so black and white (with some regressive red and white, although Guernsey are also usually red and white). Brown dairy cows (Swiss, Jersey) are the minority of the milking population.
I think what is also happening is that milk substitutes are being consumed more often by people who otherwise would not have drank milk, or not as much. People don't have to switch to drink oat milk. They just have to buy it and pour it in a glass. The dairy industry may be targeting these people.
Another thing that is happening is that the United States is becoming less white. Europeans have the highest incidence of lactase persistence; Africans and South Asians have somewhat less (with high regional variance); and people originating from other regions have almost none. The culture surrounding products like e.g. ice cream is not the same for lactose-intolerant people, who are limited to a few flavors.