290580 Thu Oct 17 18:48:45 -0700 2002 9 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1577841 From CNN's Web site Link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/10/17/schools.soy.milk.ap/index.html Thu Oct 17 18:48:45 -0700 2002 0 Hiko Ikeda 1 1577843 It's about time someone took a stand against the "Milk Mafia". Thu Oct 17 19:37:38 -0700 2002 1577841 0 2chez mike 1 1577844 the usda is in bed with the dairy mafia, so don't bet on soy milk being widespread in school lunches in the usa even though it is healthier. the only issue i have is that children need lots of calcium so that may need to be added to the soy milk. if they can put calcium in orange juice i bet they can put it in soy milk too. Thu Oct 17 19:49:26 -0700 2002 1577841 0 mrnyc 1 1577848 The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a PETA affilitated organization. The AMA (American Medical Association) issued a position paper several years ago condemning the PCRM for their dietary policies that put children, especially young children, at risk for a number of future health problems. The PCRM first gained public attention about 9-10 years ago when they proclaimed that children over the age of 1 had no need for milk - cow, goat, sheep, pig, yak or whatever. This can be pretty clearly refuted by a substantial amount of research in many fields. The calcium requirement alone is well documented and well known. And, incidentally, it takes approximately 2 cups of cooked dark leafy greens to provide the same amount of calcium available for 8 oz. of any variety of milk. How many 3 year olds do you know that are likely to willingly eat 2 cups of cooked spinach ;-). Over the last decade the PCRM has used hit and run tactics to gain National attention for their issues, but if you scratch the surface you'll find their claims are based on little more than smoke and mirrors. The goal of the PCRM (and PETA) is to impose a vegan lifestyle on everyone. Vegetarianism and veganism are lifestyle choices that one enters into with some thought and foresight, not at the imposition of an animals rights organization. As has also been pointed out, the Dairy lobby is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington. But dairy consumption is not measured in fluid milk, it's measured in butter fat and it's the Dairy lobby's goal to reduced the amount of stock piled butter fat. Did you know that up until about 1980 there was a requirement in the School Lunch Act for a mandatory 1 Tsp of butter/per student/per day. Now you know why those canned green beans and canned corn tasted so good, they were liberally doused with butter. Up until nearly 1990 school districts were required to serve whole milk only or risk loosing their Federal reimbursement, now *that's* the Dairy lobby at work. There were a number of other inaccuracies in the CNN article. There already are provisions in the National School Lunch Program for children with medical problems that affect their diet. Any school district participating in the NSLP is required to provide alternative foods for any elibible (i.e. receiving a Free or Reduced Price lunch) child who can provide a doctor's authorization. Diabetic children are accommodated all the time, as are children with any other variety of food allergies or diet related problems. Children who can provide valid documentation regarding religious practices are also routinely provided with meals that meet their needs. There is no need to change the existing authorization law, these options already exsit, and have for many, many years. Thu Oct 17 21:31:17 -0700 2002 1577841 0 Gayla 2 1577851 here's a quote directly from the cnn article: "The physicians' group said soy milk has fewer calories, less fat and just as much calcium as whole cow's milk. In addition, studies show that soy may help prevent cancer, osteoporosis and heart disease, the group said. " spinach and milk both inhibit the absorbtion of calcium in humans. here is a quote from the post i respnd to " they proclaimed that children over the age of 1 had no need for milk - cow, goat, sheep, pig, yak or whatever. This can be pretty clearly refuted by a substantial amount of research in many fields" my question regarding this statement is who PAID for that research? the usda, the dairy lobby. the people who are supposed to get us to buy the stuff. yes, they are also supposed to 'educate the public' but money talks. now htat folks know cigarettes are bad for you, most are less likely to puff. so that begs the question, why the hell would the USDA come out and say, 'hey guys, you know, we're the only species that never weans FROM ANOTHER SPECIES MILK'....cow milk is designed to make little cows into bigger cows. the protein and fat content isn't right for people. some 'races' have been consuming milk for centuries and have adapted to it. others become undeniably ill when they use dairy products. (recall the breast versus bottle milk scandal between nestle and third world women...dirty water, non-existant income, inadequate literacy all led to confusion and increased infant mortality that when babies only got breast milk. why did this happen? nestle saw a market.) ok, that's enough from me. i eat cheese, i have no ethical problem with that right now, though i would like to see the treatment of our food animals improve. But first we need to stop allowing ourselves to be lied to. Thu Oct 17 22:16:32 -0700 2002 1577848 0 renee 3 1577868 I did a little research into this when my daughter wanted to start drinking soy milk to get more calcium, as she doesn't like cow's milk. She wanted to make her own, so it would be fresh and natural. What I found is that homemade soy milk has insignificant amounts of calcium in it. But plenty of fat! They are saying in their statement that all soymilk has as much calcium as cow's milk, and is low in fat. The only storebought soymilk with as much calcium as cow's milk is soymilk which has been fortified to that level. And to make it low in fat, they are putting it through a "defatting" process at the factory. Most store bought soymilks have been greatly modified to make them more palatable to American tastes, which changes the nutrition profile significantly, giving you an end product significantly more processed and less "natural" than cow's milk. In theory, soy protein is great for many of the ills you state. So far, though, in tests performed on humans eating diets supplemented by soy, it has not shown any of the effects they were seeking. Keep in mind that, although dairy is a "new" component of the human diet in the last 10,000 years, soy is even newer, so on the paleontological scale, neither is meant for human consumption, and we should be getting our calcium from gnawing on bones. Also note that they state that no human over the age of one year should be consuming dairy products of any kind. This is a misapplication of Western standard childrearing practices. In fact, most native peoples allow their children to nurse much longer than this, until a child stops on his or her own, which may be four years or longer. Fri Oct 18 08:56:00 -0700 2002 1577851 0 ironmom 4 1577907 i totally agree with you on the length of breastfeeding in other cultures. For many children, one year is not enough, especially in cultures where other foods are scarce. I prefer to drink frotified rice milk as cows milk makes me feel noticeably yucky , though i am sure it too has been processed. I am pretty sure it doesn't contain bovine growth hormones and whatever other chemicals they may be using to prolong the lactation of the cow. Fri Oct 18 16:46:55 -0700 2002 1577868 0 renee 5 1579039 "especially in cultures where other foods are scarce." In the U.S.??? Thu Oct 31 22:16:42 -0800 2002 1577907 0 Hiko Ikeda 4 1577912 I would say that even though soy has fat, it source is obviously plant and not animal. A significant profile difference. also, I am reading about the history of agricultural, and really, if we want to get technical, most cultivars were probably consumed in the wild state before being cultivated by humans. Many were accidently domesticated. even some animal speicies have been used by humans in some for a long time. so it is really hard to tell about what is fit or correct for human consumption. peace, jill Fri Oct 18 18:06:42 -0700 2002 1577868 0 jill 5 1577930 Humans can have eaten only very small quantities of grains and beans before the agricultural revolution. Now they make up the majority of the diet for most people. Nor were vegetable oils of any sort (except maybe olive) consumed in quantity before factories made them available. Fri Oct 18 22:27:48 -0700 2002 1577912 0 ironmom