excerpt:
Flourishing microbes are consumed with every bite of cheese though the cooling temperatures in refrigerators do slow down bacterial growth, they do not kill them in cheese or in any other food. Bacteria either naturally swimming around the milk or manually injected and enzymes derived from the inner stomach linings of any slaughtered milk-producing mammal called rennet are added to coagulate the milk into curds.
Two proteins arise from curdled milk and manufacturers capitalize on them: The first is whey, which is essentially leftover liquid from curdled milk and is increasingly being used as an ingredient in producing other foods. The second is casein, which makes up the bulk of the solid part of cheese, along with fat.
Fat is what gives cheese its taste, and 70 to 80 percent of the calories in cheese come from pure fat.
Factories are adding more bacterial groups into cheese to achieve enhanced flavors.
Cheese might be a hot commodity, but like other dairy products, it can have some unhealthy aspects. Other ways to get your calcium fix include eating the following foods: fortified grains, kale, collard greens, mustard greens, cabbage, kelp, seaweed, watercress, chickpeas, broccoli, red beans, soybeans, tofu, seeds and raw nuts. With all that variety, there’s hope for any cheese addict.
Note the disclaimer at the end of the article. Apparently the original article was filled with comments about how cheese is somehow laced with pesticides. I reckon some trade group threatened to sue over that. Note how carefully worded the disclaimer is to kind of hint that cheese is indeed full of pesticides.
Open Vegan sites, such as these, are one thing. But I wonder how many sites like this are acting as scientific “cover” for the others. One interesting aspect of this is that the FBI may be investigating Vegans as possibly subversive or even terrorists. While this seems laughable to most people, there is something creepy about many of these people. And such odd zealotry is indeed suspicious.
Thanks to Nate for pointing this out.
#31 – Taking the risk of becoming fried with accusations of possessing an ‘inability to read’ even though it is reasonably clear that #30 can, since s/he a) read the article and b) wrote a response to it. Just had to make the point, just in case someone missed it.
If you were implying that #30 hasn’t read the literature about diet, nutrition etc., I would challenge you to a duel.
For the record for everyone, compared with non-vegetarians, Western Vegetarians –
have a lower mean BMI (by about 1 kg/m2) (I understand that BMI is no longer sen as the best way in which to measure weight related health, but it is at least indicative);
a lower mean plasma total cholesterol concentration (by about 0.5 mmol/l);
and a lower mortality from IHD (by about 25%).
The evidence currently available suggests that widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet could prevent approximately 40,000 deaths from IHD in Britain each year.
Research has shown that both plant-only and plant-based eating patterns have health benefits, most notably in reducing the risk of chronic, degenerative diseases. Evidence for a convergence of scientific opinion on the safety and healthfulness of plant-only diets that are appropriately planned to meet all nutrient requirements compared with plant-based diets is considerable, and easy to find, even on Google Scholar, if you’re not at university or have access to a library which allows research of this nature.
Of course, if you want to simply trust what advertisers, media, bloggers and governments are telling you, and then attack people who question and challenge that with their actions, who protest cruelty, corruption and ignorance about those things, go for it.
They will not listen to you – not because they are fundamentalists, but because they believe that they need better proof than “but we’ve always eaten it!” or “but if we weren’t meant to eat meat, it wouldn’t taste good!” or “but you need protein/iron/just MEAT in your diet!” or “stop being a bleeding heart, you’d eat a cow if you had to, so you should eat them ALL the time”.
It just doesn’t fly when people are living healthy, fulfilled lives not doing what you’re doing, and that’s okay.
Does it really matter to you what other people don’t eat anyway, as long as it doesn’t hurt you?
And, before you start, vegans and vegetarians are being hurt by the meat industry, and they’re not the only ones. Look up the link between meat eating and capitalism too, before you start.
Maybe, just maybe then, you’ll all stop living your lives hating on people who are doing fuck all to hurt a thing.
#32–Sarah===Sarah Palin???? “I can see Russia from my front Porch!” One of my favorite lines ever. Gosh, I’m on pins and needles.
Sadly, Sarah never said that, just as I didn’t take an anti-vegan position, just the opposite.
However, after reading your post, I’ll have to reconsider.
#33 – Sigh.
If we’re playing the “I never said…” game, I will quote you –
“To that end, you’ve got to be religiously stupid to go all vegan, or all meat, or all anything. Consuming moderate amounts of everything you like with more exercise than our life styles easily allow, and we would all lead healthier lives.”
That seems pretty anti-vegan to me. Veganism is not a part time thing. Just because someone is eating an apple, it doesn’t make them a vegan in the moment. The snack may be vegan, the person isn’t.
The point of my previous post was that it is not, in fact, ‘religiously stupid’ to not consume meat, bone, offal, dairy products, eggs, honey or any derivative from any of these things.
‘Consuming moderate amounts of everything you like’, I would argue, does not a healthy person make.
Some examples of things that a lot of people like, which you cannot healthily consume in moderate amounts and be healthier than the average vegan…
cigarettes, McDonald’s burgers, Coca-Cola, deep fried Mars bars, MSG, et cetera.
Veganism (and vegetarianism) is not always a health choice, but there is little evidence to suggest that a well planned vegan diet is (at least!) any worse than a well planned non-vegan diet in terms of health repercussions.
If you could explain to me why my post in any way induced anti-vegan sentiments, or desires to hold them, I would be interested to hear your reasoning.
And, by the way – this is a completely separate point, but I don’t really understand why you would feel it important to comment on someone’s name, unless you were trying to patronise and belittle them as people. Play the ball, not the player. It makes you much more likely to have people listen to your point of view.
#34–SarahD==stand your ground, good for you.
You had me at: ““I never said…” game”==yea!==I hate that one too. “Normally” it is used by weasels trying to avoid the direct implication of what they say. Not true in this case however.
We have a difference in “values” if you think what you quoted is “anti-vegan.” It would be fair to characterize it as “anti-100% dangerous to your own health Vegan.”
Does that make us “close” in veganviews, or polar opposites?
Moderation in those food items you mentioned could mean once a week/month/year depending on the item. Since when did cigarettes make the food category?
I was going to disagree, then quibble, now I admit I was “anti-vegan” even though I also said that as a religion it would be one of the better–so, it really is dependent on what one means by “vegan.” I do think people would benefit by making vegetables, fruit, grain a bigger part of their diets–but when requiring giving up ALL meat ((even when you graciously admit it is not any healthier when doing so)) turns it from dietary advice to a religious movement. Somewhere in switching those horses, my opinion on it switches as well.
We would have to focus like a laser beam on a narrow question to sort these things out.
I explored a vegan oriented diet for a while just for education and experience. It took a real hit when chicken protein was cheaper than soybean protein==and in most dishes tastes much better.
Some of the “anti-100% vegan” attitude to the degree it is there was a carry over from the statement that “no other animal drinks another animals milk” as if that was anything other than dogma.
Why would you think commenting on a name was important? I’m just as lazily heretical regarding anti-hominem attacks as I am pro-vegan. You can think it humorous or not, or dismiss it or not, or both.
So, where does this leave us. Rather than discussing the merit of a vegan diet (100% or just an emphasis on?) your post focuses entirely on my own personality/character/views. But I take no offense and merely offer my own purely ball issue driven comments for your amusement and education.====and vice versa.
#35 – I think that this is a definition issue.
Firstly, I was talking about an entirely vegan diet, as the OP was talking about.
I understand your point about something requiring you to act in a certain way makes it more like a religion.
But the issue with that theory is that there isn’t a leader of veganism, there are no “holy texts” of veganism, veganism does not attempt to explain phenomena that human beings find difficult to understand, in fact, I would argue that it is not anything like a religion, in fact it is simply an adjective.
I will give you an example.
If someone is homosexual, they may call themselves that. It doesn’t mean that they have to sleep with men to be part of the “gay” religion, they simply identify with another group of people who have the same experiences.
I agree that there is a difference, in that some vegans try to “convert” other people to veganism, but I would argue that they are few. Mostly, I think that they are trying to teach people about the damage that they can do to their bodies, the environment, social structures etc. etc., much like someone would attempt to teach at an anti-war rally or something similar. My point being that people don’t have to act a certain way to be blonde, they just are. You don’t have to eat certain things (or not, as the case may be) to be vegan, it is simply what people with those diets call themselves.
I didn’t set out to make you feel as though I was focusing on your personality or your character, but I was attempting to challenge your views – I tend to champion for causes when I see them being flippantly dismissed as silly.
And to return to the top of your post, I don’t think that Veganism alone can be dangerous to your health, and that’s what I have been trying to support with scientific evidence.
It has been proven that giving up meat is better for your health. It is the giving up of eggs, dairy and honey that hasn’t been thoroughly researched yet, as to whether it is any worse than non-vegan diets (it seems that the health benefits in regards to most diseases are better or the same in vegan people). Besides, I believe that a well-planned non-vegan diet would have very little meat and dairy at all.
And not to be nit-picky, but you did say “consume”, and one does consume cigarettes. I did think about it at the time.
It seems I misconstrued your name-commenting as a diversionary tactic rather than a bit of fun – I am rather sensitive to being compared to the Palin family, as I share very few traits or beliefs with them.
#36–Sarah==why yes, everything is definitional and yours need a little work.
1. Like “Religion.” Define it as requiring central authority and vegans aren’t “required” to have that, although I would suppose many would follow a proponent for guidance at least for a while, and even use “Diet for a Small Planet” or somesuch as their “bible?” But its all definitional. If you want to avoid the similarities because of the differences==go ahead.
2. My point being that people don’t have to act a certain way to be blonde, they just are. //// Thats true but vegans choose to be vegan so you miss your point completely.
3. You don’t have to eat certain things (or not, as the case may be) to be vegan. //// Well, of course you do. Vegans are defined by what they eat with variations determined by how strictly vegetarian they are. What are you “trying” to say? Anything means anything?
4. I tend to champion for causes when I see them being flippantly dismissed as silly /// So who did that? Do you think “any” disagreement is silly? I said going all vegan or all meat was “stupid.” Now, I think that is in a family of disparagement along with “silly,” AND what I said is in the family of being dimissive, BUT my comment is just the opposite of being flippantly dismissive.
5. Of course veganism alone can be dangerous to your health. Thats why you have “to make a religion of it” by counting your essential vitamins and what not or follow a strict diet so you don’t have to count up what you are eating. You may do it as second nature by now, but that doesn’t negate the extra attention such a restricted diet requires.
6. It has been proven that giving up meat is better for your health. /// I dimiss that “seriously” as being silly. I’ll buy “reduced” meat and fat consumption but not “giving up.” Do you have a single reference for that other than “it can be healthy” to give up meat if you follow a strict lifestyle thereafter? Being scientific and all, I’ll wait for your link.
7. What is a non-vegan diet to you? Is eggs benedict once a year on my birthday within the definition??? ie==where do you draw the line?
8. re consuming==I think you flippantly departed from the context of the discussion–not very respectful on your part AND it leads to loose thinking and a waste of conversation as these additional words demonstrate.
9. You’ll see name play is common on blogs –for bite, for satire, for humor. I probably would not have done it save for “Jessica’s” post just before yours and I had just watched her cartoon the day before. Palin of course is the most cartoon like moose hunter we have these days. Luck of the draw.
You do need some work on your definitions. We are what we eat.
Brown Chicken Brown Cow!!
Owwwww Brn Chicken Brn Cow~!