Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: The topic of Nutrition just as heated as Religion Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
11-27-2006 05:51 PM
pampered_mom
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
But here’s the rub –I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like “free-range” and “cage-free” can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don’t address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).
Again, another issue that we agree on. I don't trust labels on products in a store one bit! At least not until there becomes some way to ensure that there will be in fact some truth in that labeling required. And even the I'd be very likely to be very skeptical. You don't have to look very far to find proof that those labels aren't worth the paper they're printed on - especially in the case of the organic label since the USDA sees it as nothing more than a marketing tool it's not too hard for the standards to be erroded. Another good example is the labels you find on items in places like Whole Foods - just read Michael Pollan's latest book for more info on that one!

That's the reason why I researched the farms that I purchase from very carefully and have gotten to know the farmers personally. When we last went to pick up our raw milk my son even got a guided tour of the animals by the farmer's granddaughter - which was quite amusing given the candid nature of most children.

But for me it's more than an issue of treatment of animals - we buy this way because it's our protest against the harsh treatment of farmers in the industrial agricultural system as well! I much prefer to go w/out the middleman/woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee
So the common ground is not as easy to claim as simply saying “we’re both against factory farming.”
When it comes to the mindful omnis here it is that simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
But that's where education, as opposed to insult and accusation, should play a larger role. I think most people in North America still think their conventional meat comes from a farm where everything roams free, and are even more complacent when it comes to an "organic" label.
I actually think that the common ground is that simple, though - if I was uninformed about where any of my food was coming from, I'd want to know. I don't know how many discussions you read in the TF forum, but business practice discussions *do* come up from time to time.
:
11-27-2006 04:19 PM
OceanMomma I grew up in a big smelly smokey city that had something like 4 times the population of our whole country. I cannot tell you how much I am aware of the priviledge I have living where I do & having the choices I have. Being poor here doesn't suck. My takes on alot of this are gonna be wildly different to someone who lives in a big city. Just to be able to get out of one of those places to check out the nice little local farms is nigh on impossible. Hence why I stuck to beans & rice in those days!
11-27-2006 03:57 PM
rootzdawta
Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanMomma View Post
For me, the only real solution will be when I can get some more land so I can have bigger stock with my chickens. Then I will know where my food has lives, what it has eaten & how it died.
I have just about driven myself crazy trying to figure out the best foods to feed the family and realizing how almost impossible it is especially for a city dweller. I really look forward to having my own land as well. Otherwise . . .well, it's always questionable.
11-27-2006 03:54 PM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanMomma View Post
I still have massive ethical problems with dairy & I do get mine from a nicey little farm but they do do some things I have problems with. For me, the only real solution will be when I can get some more land so I can have bigger stock with my chickens. Then I will know where my food has lives, what it has eaten & how it died.


You know, we should really start some kind of an "omni ethics/sustainability" thread in TF.

I really want my own land too.
11-27-2006 03:50 PM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
Yes, I know people in this thread have said that, and I genuinely am glad to hear it.

But here’s the rub –I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like “free-range” and “cage-free” can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don’t address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).

Whenever I hear people say they don’t eat factory-farmed animal products, I wonder how familiar they are with the actual production of the products they do eat. Some people know a lot, have even visited farms and watched the transport & slaughter before making their purchasing decisions.

But most people, I think, rely too heavily on labeling and marketing claims, or even third-party certifications whose standards they haven’t read. I have been guilty of this myself, both with animal products in the past and with other types of products now.

So the common ground is not as easy to claim as simply saying “we’re both against factory farming.”
Again, we're in agreement. I'm pretty sure many many of us here are acquainted with the farmers. I know I am.
But that's where education, as opposed to insult and accusation, should play a larger role. I think most people in North America still think their conventional meat comes from a farm where everything roams free, and are even more complacent when it comes to an "organic" label.
I actually think that the common ground is that simple, though - if I was uninformed about where any of my food was coming from, I'd want to know. I don't know how many discussions you read in the TF forum, but business practice discussions *do* come up from time to time.

By the way, kaydee, when I said the "insult and accusation" thing I'm not saying you were being insulting - in fact, I find your writing style to be quite diplomatic and I enjoy having these discussions with you (even though we did have a run in around a year ago - and I don't think I ever did thank you for pointing out that I was making unfair assumptions and not being clear enough in my statements).
11-27-2006 03:42 PM
OceanMomma
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
But here’s the rub –I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like “free-range” and “cage-free” can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don’t address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).
The information is out there about the truth about those nice "free range" or "cage free" eggs in the supermarket. You just need to want to look. But even if ppl don't, they are still way better than battery farms. The poultry industry is one big animal right's abuse however you look at it & is something I am very vocal about.

One thing I do take issue with vegetarians about I have to say is the fertilised egg thing. I am a huge advocate for roosters. I have a pet rooster who will die of old age, who I rescued from the pot when I was a veg*n. He is a lovely gentle bird. He has his own flock of girls who he takes care of who will also die of old age. I get the odd vege buy eggs of me who is totally horrified I have a rooster with them. I say if I hadn't have taken him, he would have been pot roast for sure.

I still have massive ethical problems with dairy & I do get mine from a nicey little farm but they do do some things I have problems with. For me, the only real solution will be when I can get some more land so I can have bigger stock with my chickens. Then I will know where my food has lives, what it has eaten & how it died.
11-27-2006 03:18 PM
kaydee
Quote:
Originally Posted by pamered_mom View Post
The methods of killing animals and they way that they are treated in the factory/industrial farming model bother us us omni's too. I'm almost 100% positive that it has been said by at least a handfull of us at least a handfull of times on this thread.

Please don't assume that all methods of farming/slaughter/processing are the same thing. I couldn't be any less interested in purchasing animal products as a result of that system. I haven't bought meat in a traditional grocery store - much less shopped at one - in a very long time. I prefer to get mine from a local farmer b/c she raises heirloom breeds and because I know how she treats her animals.

See...common ground.

Yes, I know people in this thread have said that, and I genuinely am glad to hear it.

But here’s the rub –I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like “free-range” and “cage-free” can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don’t address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).

Whenever I hear people say they don’t eat factory-farmed animal products, I wonder how familiar they are with the actual production of the products they do eat. Some people know a lot, have even visited farms and watched the transport & slaughter before making their purchasing decisions.

But most people, I think, rely too heavily on labeling and marketing claims, or even third-party certifications whose standards they haven’t read. I have been guilty of this myself, both with animal products in the past and with other types of products now.

So the common ground is not as easy to claim as simply saying “we’re both against factory farming.”
11-27-2006 01:50 PM
pampered_mom
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
No real argument here about the death/life continuum. I just prefer to cause the least harm to other animals. It's not the fact of killing animals that bothers me such much as the methods of killing--and the hell so many animals are put through at human hands during their lives.
The methods of killing animals and they way that they are treated in the factory/industrial farming model bother us us omni's too. I'm almost 100% positive that it has been said by at least a handfull of us at least a handfull of times on this thread.

Please don't assume that all methods of farming/slaughter/processing are the same thing. I couldn't be any less interested in purchasing animal products as a result of that system. I haven't bought meat in a traditional grocery store - much less shopped at one - in a very long time. I prefer to get mine from a local farmer b/c she raises heirloom breeds and because I know how she treats her animals.

See...common ground.
11-27-2006 12:18 PM
granolamomma
Quote:
Originally Posted by edamommy View Post
: I'm kind of sickish feeling yet feel like adding some hysterical laughter in there on this one! I guess, this is why I do not believe in a "god". But how nice that "he" gives one the ability to push of that guilt on "him"! WOW. I'm glad you wore the suit.
Feel better now?

That was completely unneccesary and out-of-line.
11-27-2006 02:41 AM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
It's not the fact of killing animals that bothers me such much as the methods of killing--and the hell so many animals are put through at human hands during their lives.
I feel the same. I was at an interesting website tonight and I think I'm actually post-PPD enough to do some letter-writing, especially to the small, locally owned grocery store a block away. Wish me luck, I've never done any activist-type things before (other than talking to people I know and meet - food always seems to come up )
I think we're all just trying to do first what's best for our family and next what's best for the planet, and even though we don't all agree about what that is, at least it plays an active part in our decision making. I know appalingly few people in real life who even think about the state of the planet - friends refer to me as a "hippie" (which I take as a compliment) and will tell me to cover my ears if they're about to tell a story about something not eco-friendly : My parents and ILs kind of try, but don't really get it (like, my MIL was going on at length about how important it is to recycle, meanwhile they're conventional grain farmers).
Anyway, MDC is the one place I can come where the vast majority of people care, even if we do have different ideas.
11-27-2006 02:09 AM
kaydee
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
I truly believe that animals or plants raised in optimum natural conditions are much more nutrient dense than when conventionally farmed. I also believe that if one eats in such a way that all needs for vitamins and minerals are met, one doesn't desire as many calories, period.
If factory farms did not exist, I think that fewer animals would be eaten as a natural consequence. And as AJP pointed out, there is a LOT of waste in the current system. I'm also not advocating that everyone eat beef - it simply doesn't make sense to eat grazing animals in an area where they cannot exist in concert with the land. Different people have different physiological needs for nutrients and I believe that's closely linked to genetic heritage as well as environment.
I don't think that feeding the world (or, more accurately, feeding the humans of the world) is a global concern. Rather, it should be a local one. Furthermore, I believe that if the average city/suburb dweller grew food on their land instead of lawns, food production in human settlements would be much much higher.
I also believe the average person should eat waaaaaay more vegetables. In fact, I think that vegetables should make up the bulk of a person's diet, in volume. That alone would cut down the amount of meat eaten significantly (I'm sure we all know at least a few people who never touch anything green).
Mostly-plant-based and predominantly local sounds pretty good. A heck of a lot better than the current state of affairs, even if it isn't a vegan paradise!



Quote:
See, here's where I get to don my flameproof suit (thanks gardenmommy, for that phrase, I got a kick out of it). I feel the energy of things around me. I have communicated with both plants and animals. I know every living thing to be "sentient" in it's own way (which I realize doesn't fit the literal definition of "sentience", but I'm at a loss for another word to describe it right now). I'm almost reluctant to bring this up, however, because my own experience has been belittled by others simply because they don't see things the same way. Or it's taken as "baiting", which is not what I intend at all.
No flames, but no agreement either. While I feel that all of nature has a life force, I don't think that all beings can experience pain and suffering. And in the absence of other proof (and the absence of personal experiences such as yours), I choose to believe the scientific evidence in assessing sentience.


Quote:
Further to that, death does not scare me. It is not final. I view it as part of the flow of life, not separate from life. Death is the beginning of life. The method of death can be energy depleting/negative, as can negative life experiences (such as the suffering that occurs in a feedlot). What occurs after death can affect the energy of the whole universe.
No real argument here about the death/life continuum. I just prefer to cause the least harm to other animals. It's not the fact of killing animals that bothers me such much as the methods of killing--and the hell so many animals are put through at human hands during their lives.
11-26-2006 12:28 PM
lisalou Ditto HearthElde that's the basis of my belief system too.
11-26-2006 09:37 AM
homemademomma
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
See, here's where I get to don my flameproof suit (thanks gardenmommy, for that phrase, I got a kick out of it). I feel the energy of things around me. I have communicated with both plants and animals. I know every living thing to be "sentient" in it's own way (which I realize doesn't fit the literal definition of "sentience", but I'm at a loss for another word to describe it right now). I'm almost reluctant to bring this up, however, because my own experience has been belittled by others simply because they don't see things the same way. Or it's taken as "baiting", which is not what I intend at all.
Further to that, death does not scare me. It is not final. I view it as part of the flow of life, not separate from life. Death is the beginning of life. The method of death can be energy depleting/negative, as can negative life experiences (such as the suffering that occurs in a feedlot). What occurs after death can affect the energy of the whole universe. I could go on at length, but I think I'd go very far off topic if I did. My train of thought finishes with the fact that the only fear I have about death is that someone will bury my body, full of toxic chemicals, in an airtight box (also likely toxic) when I go.
this is the basis of my whole belief system.
11-26-2006 08:37 AM
twinkletoes [QUOTE=Gale Force;6583576]I imagine there would be plenty of nutritive value in eating a human living on a traditional human diet. It looks like I erased my comment that you can all eat my dead body if you need to. I still mean it and I'm on a traditional diet, so you could make Gale Force jerky. You could call it GF jerky because it would also be gluten free.QUOTE]




Thank you Gale Force, I needed a good laugh!
11-26-2006 04:28 AM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
Yes to both. If one must farm animals, Polyface's model seems like a pretty good one. However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand. (I'm certainly not knocking better humane & ecological standards or a reduction in animal product consumption--just pointing out that I don't think factory farming can simply be replaced by grazing/pasturing/true free-range animal ag). We must also eat fewer animals.
I truly believe that animals or plants raised in optimum natural conditions are much more nutrient dense than when conventionally farmed. I also believe that if one eats in such a way that all needs for vitamins and minerals are met, one doesn't desire as many calories, period.
If factory farms did not exist, I think that fewer animals would be eaten as a natural consequence. And as AJP pointed out, there is a LOT of waste in the current system. I'm also not advocating that everyone eat beef - it simply doesn't make sense to eat grazing animals in an area where they cannot exist in concert with the land. Different people have different physiological needs for nutrients and I believe that's closely linked to genetic heritage as well as environment.
I don't think that feeding the world (or, more accurately, feeding the humans of the world) is a global concern. Rather, it should be a local one. Furthermore, I believe that if the average city/suburb dweller grew food on their land instead of lawns, food production in human settlements would be much much higher.
I also believe the average person should eat waaaaaay more vegetables. In fact, I think that vegetables should make up the bulk of a person's diet, in volume. That alone would cut down the amount of meat eaten significantly (I'm sure we all know at least a few people who never touch anything green).


Quote:
Well, there is an accepted definition of the term, and abundant scientific evidence that many species (mammals, birds) are sentient. About other species, there is some scientific debate about the degree of sentience (animals without a central nervous system). And no credible scientific evidence indicates sentience in plants. If evidence changes in the future, we will all have to re-evaluate our decisions, but it seems to me not too difficult to deem some species more sentient than others given the ample knowledge we currently posses.
See, here's where I get to don my flameproof suit (thanks gardenmommy, for that phrase, I got a kick out of it). I feel the energy of things around me. I have communicated with both plants and animals. I know every living thing to be "sentient" in it's own way (which I realize doesn't fit the literal definition of "sentience", but I'm at a loss for another word to describe it right now). I'm almost reluctant to bring this up, however, because my own experience has been belittled by others simply because they don't see things the same way. Or it's taken as "baiting", which is not what I intend at all.
Further to that, death does not scare me. It is not final. I view it as part of the flow of life, not separate from life. Death is the beginning of life. The method of death can be energy depleting/negative, as can negative life experiences (such as the suffering that occurs in a feedlot). What occurs after death can affect the energy of the whole universe. I could go on at length, but I think I'd go very far off topic if I did. My train of thought finishes with the fact that the only fear I have about death is that someone will bury my body, full of toxic chemicals, in an airtight box (also likely toxic) when I go.
11-26-2006 03:47 AM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
To turn the tables What if the crystal ball told you that you DIDN'T need animal products to be "healthy, strong, and virile"? Would you still eat meat?
Short answer: it depends

If the crystal ball showed me that my descendants were healthier if I didn't eat meat, it would change my whole perspective. I would not eat meat then. And I would come to the conclusion that humans were not meant to be omnivorous.

If the crystal ball showed me that it was equal, I would then weigh the ecological consequences of each decision, and err on the side of what I believe to be the least damaging. I believe that this is an impossibility, though, because if either decision was more ecologically damaging, that in itself would affect the health of my descendants.

That answer really wasn't that hard to come by once I was able to get past my current beliefs and look at the bigger picture.
11-25-2006 04:03 PM
AJP
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
Yes to both. If one must farm animals, Polyface's model seems like a pretty good one. However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand. (I'm certainly not knocking better humane & ecological standards or a reduction in animal product consumption--just pointing out that I don't think factory farming can simply be replaced by grazing/pasturing/true free-range animal ag). We must also eat fewer animals.
I agree the volume should be reduced, both in terms of actual consumption and waste (the amount of food wasted is sickening). However, if animal agriculture were to be switched to a Polyface Farm model, then the VAST acreage now used to grow corn and soybeans for animal feed would be reduced to a fraction of the current amount, which would free up that land for other ag uses within a sustainable model (pasture included). Intensive animal farming actually uses a great deal of land to grow the grains and legumes fed to those animals, which compared to mixed pasture is a very inefficient use of the land.
11-25-2006 03:48 PM
JSerene
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiggleBirds View Post
However, my circumcision analogy stands.
I respectfully disagree. For starters, this is not the vegan board. This is an open board and we are discussing a topic, one that the jury is still out on, despite your personal convictions. Most importantly, however, is the huge difference in topics. Circumcision is about the routine, unnecessary mutilation of newborns for cosmetic purposes. What we are discussing here is basic human biological needs as well as, if I'm not mistaken, our place on this planet and our responsibilty toward it and it's creatures. I understand your wanting to boil both topics down to the pain and suffering involved, but it's not that simple.

(and before you say it, I know that you think that it IS that simple )
11-25-2006 03:37 PM
JSerene
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand.
In my perfect world, the polyface farm model would be standard and no one would eat meat more than a few times a month. We would use every part of every animal for broths, etc. to supplement the times we actually ate a cut of meat. Happier, healthier animals, happier healthier people, sustainable environment = utopia .


10 BILLION, I can't even comprehend the suffering...
11-25-2006 01:00 PM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiexto View Post
HerthElde, I'm in Canada too and your post made me giggle... at first I thought you said you COULD grow coconuts & oranges locally, and I was like - WOW! I'm impressed with that SK soil!
11-25-2006 12:24 PM
pixiexto
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
I'm in Saskatchewan, Canada. We can't grow oranges, coconuts, seaweed, bananas, nuts (except, I believe, hazelnuts, or at least I plan to try in the next couple of years) and mac&chreeze
HerthElde, I'm in Canada too and your post made me giggle... at first I thought you said you COULD grow coconuts & oranges locally, and I was like - WOW! I'm impressed with that SK soil!
11-25-2006 11:35 AM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
Your fruits and vegetables are non-local? Bummer if you can't get any tasty plants in your area. I've not heard of such a thing except in the far far north.
I'm in Saskatchewan, Canada. We can't grow oranges, coconuts, seaweed, bananas, nuts (except, I believe, hazelnuts, or at least I plan to try in the next couple of years) and mac&chreeze No greens in the winter. I'll admit, I need to get better at eating locally, but last time I tried to make the leap, I fell off the wagon completely. This thread has renewed my passion, though.
Babe in arms, will address the rest later (I'm staying at my parents' place tonight, so I hope to get some good typing time in )
11-25-2006 05:00 AM
kaydee
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
Are you familiar with PolyfaceFarm, or with Permaculture concepts, intensively managed pastured animals, etc? There's a difference between the "let 'em out and do what they please" pastured cow and the intensively managed, mimicing-natural-grazing-patterns-as-closely-as possible-pastured-cow.
Yes to both. If one must farm animals, Polyface's model seems like a pretty good one. However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand. (I'm certainly not knocking better humane & ecological standards or a reduction in animal product consumption--just pointing out that I don't think factory farming can simply be replaced by grazing/pasturing/true free-range animal ag). We must also eat fewer animals.

Quote:
Who decides what defines sentience?
Well, there is an accepted definition of the term, and abundant scientific evidence that many species (mammals, birds) are sentient. About other species, there is some scientific debate about the degree of sentience (animals without a central nervous system). And no credible scientific evidence indicates sentience in plants. If evidence changes in the future, we will all have to re-evaluate our decisions, but it seems to me not too difficult to deem some species more sentient than others given the ample knowledge we currently posses.

Quote:
I was pondering this the other day, and it struck me that every single food in my house that isn't local is vegan.
Your fruits and vegetables are non-local? Bummer if you can't get any tasty plants in your area. I've not heard of such a thing except in the far far north.
11-25-2006 03:13 AM
nicolelynn
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudswinger View Post
We once went out to dinner with a vegetarian, and ordered a meat dish. She felt the need to leave a menu up in between us so she couldn't see what we were eating. Makes conversation kind of hard.
Yeah...it's kinda different on the opposites sides...a militiant TF follower could call a vegan ignorant at worst, but some militiant vegans all but call meat-eaters murders...ya know? That's just some militiant ones, though. Our former roomates were and are vegans...and we all lived in harmony in our home. Mainly because they are vegan for health and human concerns (the farmland/vs pasteuring land issue), not animal rights.

So hopefully we can continue to discuss nutrition rather than argue about it?
Each has chosen their path for a reason. It IS like religion as JaneS said...arugeing dosn't make converts to your faith. The only way help another person in anyway is to walk with them in love and exemplify your convictions.
11-25-2006 02:32 AM
HerthElde I posted on a different thread recently that I never understood why a person is supposed to avoid yeast when they have chronic yeast infections - because they're two totally different things! Then a baker friend of mine told me that commercial yeast contains cornstarch. Don't know if that's always true, but

I've figured out my answer to kaydee's question, btw. I just need to find some time to type uninterrupted. Hopefully soon.
11-25-2006 01:30 AM
Gale Force The Red Star yeast fortifies the B-12. Otherwise, nutritional yeast is not a good source of B-12. It is not known whether the plant forms of B-12 provide us with any usable B-12. The jury's out. (As it is with the ALA-EPA-DHA conversion.)
11-25-2006 12:08 AM
GiggleBirds Oh that is funny! I've heard for so many years that it is not actually a yeast. Hmm. But I found this:

Quote:
The nutritional yeast we use is Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula nutritional yeast. It is the highest quality nutritional yeast available. It contains good quality protein and B vitamins, including B12; it has a yellow or gold color from its riboflavin content. This kind of yeast is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which is food yeast grown in a molasses solution. This yeast is easily digestible and contains all the essential amino acids. It is a different species of yeast than candida yeast; they don't have anything to do with each other. Candida yeast is a wild live yeast while Red Star nutritional yeast is cultured and pasteurized. In fact, Red Star nutritional yeast is guaranteed candida albicans negative.
11-24-2006 11:47 PM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiggleBirds View Post
Nutritional yeast is not actually yeast, so I don't see how it can cause candida overgrowth.
I'm pretty sure it is a yeast, just not of the genus Candida

ETA: yup, I was right, it's Saccharomyces

(A yeast is a single celled fungus)
11-24-2006 11:43 PM
GiggleBirds Nutritional yeast is not actually yeast, so I don't see how it can cause candida overgrowth.

I don't want dnx to leave either. I don't think she was being self righteous, I think she is extremely frustrated.

Okay, here is what I've learned from this thread. It's very possible that some people need meat for their health. So, in terms of what I'm debating, that is now a neutral point.

However, my circumcision analogy stands. Substituting religion for necessesitation (which aren't equal, but close enough); eating meat is unnecessary for most. Many people think it is awful, horrible, cruel. Many people hate circumcision for the same reason. Please don't tell me you would bash them for being self-righteous and deciding to leave? If all the anti-circ threads were hijacked (not that this one was, but since I've been here, almost every one not discussing recipes has been) and flooded with circers, would that be okay? All I'm saying, is I feel the frustration that dnw feels, even though I personally want to stick it out).

Okay, now I'm going to get a bunch of people telling me they believe meat is necessary. Well, maybe all the anticircers are going to hell too (or wherever they go). That is not my point. My point in this post is that dnw feels what she feels for a reason, and that reason does not make her self righteous.
11-24-2006 11:34 PM
HerthElde
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janelovesmax View Post
Have anyone read any books from BRAGGS? Famous health crusaders?
According to them, eating meat is like killing yourself. I do have to say that most people who followed their diet got better and their quality improved.
You mean the apple cider ppl? I didn't know they wrote books.

Most people who go veg from a standard omni diet will improve in health in the short run - it's the longer term stuff I'm skeptical about.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off