Monsanto & Cancer Milk

[Daos]

JL1pKlnhvg0


FOX NEWS Reporters (Steve Wilson & Jane Akre) uncover that most of the Milk in the USA and across some parts of the world is unfit to drink due to Monsanto Corporation's POSILAC®, which has been proven to be a cancer-causing growth hormone (known in short as "BGH", "BST" or "rBGH"), but they were fired for attempting to inform people of the truth.

(Important note: After a long court battle, the Court dismissed the whistle blowers protection for the reporters because the Court stated that there was no law to force that the NEWS state the truth. NEWS was/is no different than other TV shows/reality shows.)

[Óttar]

Holy shit fellow yanks, you guys aren't afraid to drink milk now?

[skyhawk]

I read Joel Balkans book " The Corporation " and also later on watched the documentary made about it. Frightening stuff!!!

The corporate control over our societies SHOULD be a huge concern for people , unfortunately it isn't except for the fringes. I'm sure the two are not unrelated :mad:

[anonymaus]

...

I would prefer a simple quotation from the Wikipedia article about rBST, such as:


IGF plays a role in the formation of new tumours [16] [17] [18] and increased levels of IGF-1 may be linked to increased risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. [19] [20] However IGF is involved in many biological processes so it is not possible to assign a clear-cut cause and effect relationship. IGF-1 is not denatured by pasteurisation, so consumption of milk from rBST treated dairy cows will increase the daily intake of IGF-I.

It's balanced, properly sourced, and doesn't use "words that give liberals explosive diarrhea" like FOX NEWS--this is critical, since they worked for a local Fox Broadcasting affiliate and had nothing to do with FNC.

[skyhawk]

It's balanced, properly sourced, and doesn't use "words that give liberals explosive diarrhea" like FOX NEWS--this is critical, since they worked for a local Fox Broadcasting affiliate and had nothing to do with FNC.

I think you are missing the point mate , what should be a big story is a suppressed/non story. Do you think Americans should be talking about whether the milk there is safe to drink ? How many do you think are even aware there is an alleged health risk concerning the milk they ARE drinking ?

Or you can just shoot the messengers , presumeably on political grounds ;)

[anonymaus]

Information about this is freely available on the internet, has been discussed in the media, and enough people are aware of the issue that both producers and retailers have responded to market forces: many produce and advertise their rBST-free milk, and entire retail chains refuse to carry ANY milk so-tainted.

More to the point: in places like Canada where our department of public health (Health Canada) reviewed the issue, they determined that it endangered animal health--and that was enough for them to ban its use. The EU had similar results. The best research to date shows nothing more than a loose association between rBST milk and human health issues.

American consumers decided for themselves that they didn't want to take a chance on the product which, if you are unaware, is estimated to saturate merely 15% of the market.

The whining in that video about the FDA "rushing" approval is as dishonest as referring to those WTVT reporters as working for "Fox News". NIH concluded, four or more years previous to the FDA approval, that rBST and BST functioned identically when introduced into the human body and was fit for consumption.

Of course, were people to simply spread correct and properly sourced information--as I said in the post I am now having to explain in excruciating detail--they would be much better equipped to make rational decisions about their health. All of the paranoid bleating and ominous music of TV documentaries has never helped people see the truth.

[skyhawk]

Information about this is freely available on the internet, has been discussed in the media, and enough people are aware of the issue that both producers and retailers have responded to market forces: many produce and advertise their rBST-free milk, and entire retail chains refuse to carry ANY milk so-tainted.

Researching something like this on the internet is a nightmare. There's as much junk as there's valuable/accurate stuff and many people would just find themselves in the no mans land of conflicting opinion. Obviously you are aware of this .
As for discussions in the media , well , imho I think that there are very definate parameters of permissible debate in our " free media " . Bearing in mind that the media are corporations themselves , and as such have a legal obligation to conduct business solely in the interest and for the benefits of shareholders/owners, I think it is naive to believe that situations concerning public health v corporate profiteering would enjoy a fair and in depth hearing in a corporate owned media system like we have.

Even if we agree/accept that the debate has been publicly aired to some extent that is in no small part down to the likes of people who make these documentaries and others who dig into the murkier side of corporate capitalism.
You have a faith in the checks and balances system that I lack maybe



More to the point: in places like Canada where our department of public health (Health Canada) reviewed the issue, they determined that it endangered animal health--and that was enough for them to ban its use. The EU had similar results. The best research to date shows nothing more than a loose association between rBST milk and human health issues.

I used to have a lot more time for Canadian government organisations/reps than I do today but the above to me sounds like the diplomatic option to sit on the fence concerning allegations against US agribusiness giants like Monsanto. A concern for animal welfare is welcome if it is genuine but it also offers a neat route out of a potentially troublesome position



American consumers decided for themselves that they didn't want to take a chance on the product which, if you are unaware, is estimated to saturate merely 15% of the market.

It might only account for 15% now but , again , how much of that is down to those who questioned its safety in the first place ?


The whining in that video about the FDA "rushing" approval is as dishonest as referring to those WTVT reporters as working for "Fox News". NIH concluded, four or more years previous to the FDA approval, that rBST and BST functioned identically when introduced into the human body and was fit for consumption.

But both the Canadians and the EU backheeled their use ? US companies market their milk as rBST free ? , it accounts for 15% of the market ?

That hardly seems like an argument that paints a picture of safety.

Why not just accept less profit and eliminate any risks altogether ? Is the sacred cow , pun intended , of profitability so powerful that unnecessary risks for human health come secondary to it ?



Of course, were people to simply spread correct and properly sourced information--as I said in the post I am now having to explain in excruciating detail--they would be much better equipped to make rational decisions about their health. All of the paranoid bleating and ominous music of TV documentaries has never helped people see the truth.

And government/corporate sources never spin a yarn do they ? Keep the faith ! :eek::D

[Breedingvariety]

I believe Kevin Trudeau, who says milk we drink in our age causes blood vessels and heart problems primarily and other diseases (including cancer) as well. It is because of pasteurization and other unnatural sides of milk we drink. Pasteurization damages blood vessels.