"rick etter" > wrote:

>Auntie Nettles wrote:
><...>
>>>==================
>>>Maybe you should take your own advice stupid. Learn how to use
your
>>>computer and reply to the person that actually wrote what your
spewing
>>>about.
>>>The fact remains that the *vegan* products we're talking about are
far from
>>>natural. The example you cited is not the whole truth. You can
get meats
>>>without any additives added to the cow, or the meat afterwords.
>>
>> A better suggestion if you want "natural" is hunting, preferably
far
>> away from polluted areas.
>
>Why? What would you do about species overpopulations in and around
larger urban
>areas? Are you concerned about biological diversity?
>
>http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D834HDS01.html

The discussion concerned "additives in foods", not "pros and cons of
hunting per se"; do try to stay on topic.

For what it's worth, I have no objection to "hunting near
urban/polluted areas". However, per discussion topic, the possibility
exists of those populations having ingested chemicals or other
contaminants from polluted areas. The same holds true for fish caught
in polluted waterways. Now, if you wish to eat a
possibly-contaminated catch, that's your business. On the other hand,
if you wish to involve yourself in defining the term "natural" as,
"that with the least amount of additives we would consider poisonous,"
then obviously, we would have to take these possibilities into
consideration. Some toxins will accumulate in body tissue if ingested
over a period of time. (Maybe not to the extent of a confined farm
animal eating the farm-raised feed provided to it but still...)

>> Or small farms that raise native animals on native diets.
>
>I thought you activists called that "canned hunting."

What made you assume I was an "activist"? I hold no hardline opinions
one way or the other. Also, why would you think an "activist" would
suggest activities like hunting or buying meat from smaller, private
farms? (Those farms as I mentioned don't necessarily involve hunting
of any sort, either. Ever hear of farm-raised venison?
http://www.agsites.net/links/meat(venison).html Or how about:
http://www.bisonranch.com/meat.html )

>> The word is that most modern commercial farms use a
>> whole concoction of drugs, antibiotics, hormones and other
additives
>> to feed their stock so they can gain bulk at a faster rate.
>
>Where's your proof of this "word"?

"Evidence" dear; "proof" is a mathematical terminology. The
"evidence" for this "word" can be found doing a simple Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...oogle +Search

or:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG =Search

Now, I don't know if every last article in the search is factual, but
there's your "evidence" for the "word".

> The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits the use of hormones in
> the raising of hogs or poultry in the United States.

Hogs and poultry and ...?

> Therefore all pork
> and poultry products that carry the "no hormones administered" label
> only represent the regulations that are already in place for pork and
> poultry and should not be taken to mean that the manufacturer is doing
> anything beyond USDA requirements for conventional pork and poultry
> products.
> http://www.eco-labels.org/label.cfm?LabelID=114

You're forgetting there are other countries besides the U.S. ...And
what of the pesticides used on the crops grown to feed these animals?

>> They even
>> feed cows newspaper and feed made from animal by-product. How
>> "natural" can that be?
>
>It isn't too far off the mark in terms of dietary components, just
not the same
>levels. Cows are not picky and will eat whatever is in the area
they're being
>grazed. That includes carrion.
>
>> A cow in its natural state does not consume
>> animal products.
>
>They will eat carrion.
>
>>>You cannot
>>>get your substitues without mono-culture farming. Again, farming
is not
>>>'natural'. Filling the fields with posions is hardly what I would
call
>>>anything near 'natural'.
>>
>> And what do you think those grain-fed cows eat -- manna from
heaven?
>
>Rick doesn't eat them. His are grass-fed.

Good for him. It doesn't change the fact that acres and acres of land
are still devoted to growing crops for farm animals (which in most
cases aren't even native to the land) -- all for the luxury of
producing a better-flavoured product. (?)

Mind you, you are correct that one can indeed locate meat products
where care has been taken to ensure it's as free from contamination
and additives as possible. Unfortunately such products are often not
as convenient to locate in many areas, since products from smaller
operations are usually not as widely-distributed.

>>>>Now if the discussion was about "plain", "original", vanilla,
chocolate
>>>>or any other flavour, then you would be right. They start joining
the
>>>>"drink" group and seriously start moving away from the 100%
natural group
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>-- Blue
>>
>> P.S. I like soy milk for what it is -- not as a milk substitute,
but
>> because some of the brands just taste pretty good. They seem more
>> refreshing than milk.
>
>Which ones would those be?

"Silk" is one; I think the other was "So Nice". As a beverage, milk
just feels "stickier", although I use it for other things like
cooking.

I don't really like tofu and other bland items although I went through
a phase where I was trying to eat it for its supposed health benefits.
(I understand soy milk doesn't have the same properties, however.)

>The only one I've tried that I genuinely like and
>would buy again for the sake of its taste is a malted soy beverage,
not a "milk"
>made of soy. I don't think it's worth its price, so I seldom do.