<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The Environment Report naively pushes Monsanto-related study praising rBGH]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by katesisco http://www.grist.org/article/sour-milk1/ Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:37:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/sour-milk1/1 swill milk

I will be reading this book!  

Does it make a difference if the cow is fed fermented exhausted mash?  
Wasn't it common then for the poor people to breast feed and the wealthy to use other choices?  
Wasn't it at that time common to see hogs in the streets and this was before Fredrick Law Omstead received his commission to create Central Park from the slum where the Irish lived?  
New York City sent oysters to France packed in ice.  The Hudson valley was lined with ice houses.  
Was the difference that the milk was skimmed of its cream?  
Babies need milk with fat.  Take the fat, damage the infant.  
Typhoid ran amok during the summer months when water was more polluted; the rich left for the sea shore and came back after summer.  
If 50% of the new generation died; how many were poor?  How many lived to be 1, or 2, or 3, when many babies began to be water drinkers like their parents?  
Brewing may have been the original way to purify their water supply that had been polluted; remember any congregation of humans would have located next to water.  
Our belief in domestication of plants, for example the sunflower, has been genetically determined to be, of all places, not central Mexico, but Siberia.  The oldest domesticated sunflower comes from Siberia.  
And the oldest domesticated us now is projected to be far older than imagined.  First, they were lots of us on the seashore, then we traveled inland, and then there were so many of us we began to occupy a single place just to make sure it wasn't occupied by somebody else when we went back.  Agriculture begins.  How long before water became polluted?

One of the big questions now is what caused the glacial icing on Greenland, which, until 2 million years ago had a small glacier (think Alpine) and was a heaven on Earth.  Scientists wonder.  









]]> swill milk

I will be reading this book!  

Does it make a difference if the cow is fed fermented exhausted mash?  
Wasn't it common then for the poor people to breast feed and the wealthy to use other choices?  
Wasn't it at that time common to see hogs in the streets and this was before Fredrick Law Omstead received his commission to create Central Park from the slum where the Irish lived?  
New York City sent oysters to France packed in ice.  The Hudson valley was lined with ice houses.  
Was the difference that the milk was skimmed of its cream?  
Babies need milk with fat.  Take the fat, damage the infant.  
Typhoid ran amok during the summer months when water was more polluted; the rich left for the sea shore and came back after summer.  
If 50% of the new generation died; how many were poor?  How many lived to be 1, or 2, or 3, when many babies began to be water drinkers like their parents?  
Brewing may have been the original way to purify their water supply that had been polluted; remember any congregation of humans would have located next to water.  
Our belief in domestication of plants, for example the sunflower, has been genetically determined to be, of all places, not central Mexico, but Siberia.  The oldest domesticated sunflower comes from Siberia.  
And the oldest domesticated us now is projected to be far older than imagined.  First, they were lots of us on the seashore, then we traveled inland, and then there were so many of us we began to occupy a single place just to make sure it wasn't occupied by somebody else when we went back.  Agriculture begins.  How long before water became polluted?

One of the big questions now is what caused the glacial icing on Greenland, which, until 2 million years ago had a small glacier (think Alpine) and was a heaven on Earth.  Scientists wonder.  









]]> Comment #2 by sallee4 http://www.grist.org/article/sour-milk1/ Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:33:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/sour-milk1/2 re: Sour Milk?

Tom, I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my piece that I did for The Environment Report. I hope Grist readers will investigate the topic more closely than either my piece or your comments on it can supply. I want to make it clear, though, that this particular piece wasn't meant to be a final, definitive report on the subject of rbst and whether the use of the hormone (or whether milk consumption itself) is appropriate. I only illustrate that a scientist is taking on what has become a common assumption in the environmental community that the hormone has no environmental merit. Mr. Park's comments were presented to make average listeners understand a common reason supplied to avoid rbst and why the market's following along.  Ms. Capper (and others) suggest there's a likely scientific rationale that should trump that line of reasoning. I assume not all listeners (or scientists) would agree.

We were aware of the conflict of interest cited in the PNAS study. I had Ms. Capper and others explain how the research was conducted, who drove it and what roles they played in shaping the outcome. I defer to the PNAS editors on the issue of whether standards were met for publication.

I expect there'll be more scientific salvos fired on the issue, and we'll certainly cover those at The Environment Report as well. In the meantime, I'd invite readers to see what other views we've made available on the subject at http://www.environmentreport.org.  And while you're there, search the word "milk" to get a better idea of how we've covered this issue overall.
Sincerely,
Shawn Allee

]]> re: Sour Milk?

Tom, I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my piece that I did for The Environment Report. I hope Grist readers will investigate the topic more closely than either my piece or your comments on it can supply. I want to make it clear, though, that this particular piece wasn't meant to be a final, definitive report on the subject of rbst and whether the use of the hormone (or whether milk consumption itself) is appropriate. I only illustrate that a scientist is taking on what has become a common assumption in the environmental community that the hormone has no environmental merit. Mr. Park's comments were presented to make average listeners understand a common reason supplied to avoid rbst and why the market's following along.  Ms. Capper (and others) suggest there's a likely scientific rationale that should trump that line of reasoning. I assume not all listeners (or scientists) would agree.

We were aware of the conflict of interest cited in the PNAS study. I had Ms. Capper and others explain how the research was conducted, who drove it and what roles they played in shaping the outcome. I defer to the PNAS editors on the issue of whether standards were met for publication.

I expect there'll be more scientific salvos fired on the issue, and we'll certainly cover those at The Environment Report as well. In the meantime, I'd invite readers to see what other views we've made available on the subject at http://www.environmentreport.org.  And while you're there, search the word "milk" to get a better idea of how we've covered this issue overall.
Sincerely,
Shawn Allee

]]>