what about animals injected with growth hormones?

jhonny

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi all.
I do not know if this issue has already been discussed in the forum, but I'm 1 year vegetarian because I do not agree as to kill animals to eat them, now after taking into account various opinions I think the consumption of meat is normal basic diet, but what about meat from animals injected for growth ..... this is also genetic modification? and that affects our spiritual growth?..
 
Animals injected with hormones is really bad. There is a very interesting documentary that you might be interested to watch: Food Inc.:

http://www.foodincmovie.com/
 
Thanks a lot Psyche.
I ask it because my family, they eat almost every day meat and we buy it at the supermarket, so I don't really Know if all the meat that you buy at the supermarket or at the butcher is inyected with hormones.
Anyway thank you
 
Try to find a local farmer who raises cookin' critters organically and then go in with some friends and buy a big lot of it and put it in the freezer. If you can't find such a one, find a farmer and create a network of friends who will contribute to him raising such stock and will buy the finished product.
 
I'm not sure what to think about hormones in foods derived from animals. I guess it's a difference between naturally occurring hormones and synthetic, injected ones.

I wouldn't say hormone injections are a genetic modification, rather, I see then as manipulation or triggerings of normal cycles within the animal biology.

For example, growth in young animals is controlled by the pituitary gland as it secretes growth hormones to the entire body.

if we eat the meat of a young animal, there will most likely be some growth hormones in the meat, since the animal is still in its growing phase, OSIT.

When a cow has a baby or when the teats are repeatedly stimulated, it's body produces certain hormones that trigger lactation and I assume some of those hormones can end up in the milk.

I don't really know what the effect of these animal hormones have on humans. It's one thing to take in hormones from our own species, but from another species? Maybe they do impact on human genes.

And then there's the question of hormones produced in a laboratory.
In Canada, we don't allow the use of rbGH (synthetic bovine growth hormone) in dairy cattle and won't allow milk imports if the source cattle had hormone injections.

But the problem is, we have to rely on honest, because it is currently impossible to detect the difference between naturally occurring growth hormone and the synthetic variant. We just don't have the technology yet.

This concerns me as I don't put a lot of faith in self governing industries, especially when they know we could never detect non-compliance. And our huge neighbour to the south, the US, loves to use rbGH

As regulations evolve more in favour of larger producers, smaller farms end up having to face the go big or go broke scenario. Cooperative buying used to be the way to go when I was younger, but now farmers can only have a certain amount of chickens, for example, before they have to participate in an expensive supply management system (marketing board) that favours larger producers.

I know a few farms are opting to produce a mix of market vegetables and just enough food animals of various types to stay below the need to buy quota and join supply management. They sell boxed vegetables and the consumer gets whatever is in season. One friend has started 4 season gardening, using hoop gardens, a series of half-circle hoops that form a frame over which they put plastic to create a long, short greenhouse over single rows. In the winter they grow winter hardy vegetable and greens like kale.

Since labeling laws have not caught up with consumer demand, we still don't have GMO labeling requirements. In fact, we are still trying to hammer out country of origin labeling requirements right now. So many people want so much on the label that there wouldn't be enough label to contain the content.

Sure makes me wish I could retire and farm for myself and friends. Unfortunately, I won't be able to retire for another 15-20 years, since - started late in the pension world. Of course, I doubt I'll see the day I get to retire voluntarily.

Gonzo
 
Psyche said:
Animals injected with hormones is really bad. There is a very interesting documentary that you might be interested to watch: Food Inc.:

http://www.foodincmovie.com/
Yes, it's excellent. The best I have seen, I think. But don't watch it on a full stomach. Another, older one I thought was really good is "King Corn:" http://www.kingcorn.net/

When the meat in the grocery store comes from cattle that were so sick that they were near death anyway when they were slaughtered, does it really matter that much if they also happened to be injected with growth hormones?
 
Gonzo said:
I wouldn't say hormone injections are a genetic modification, rather, I see then as manipulation or triggerings of normal cycles within the animal biology.

Well it's genetic modification in the sense that it modifies the normal expression of genes along a pre-defined time frame. Most of the chicken that goes to KFC etc are from chicks that have been given a growth booster hormone. At five or six weeks a normal chick is still pretty small and will take 5 -6 months to reach it's full size. The chicks given the hormone are like frankenchicks, they are the size of full grown chickens at 5-6 weeks but still with the appearance of a chick. The thing is, the hormone boosts growth of muscle but not bones, so most of the chicks cannot stand up, or if they do their legs break under the weight. At six weeks they are slaughtered and sent for processing. The hormone was developed to meet the demand for KFC chicken breasts to all be exactly the same size, which they are, and of course to keep up with demand. Waiting 5-6 months just isn't an option when profit margins are at stake.
 
I guess I'm being a stickler for precision in terminology. I am concerned that if we start playing lose with definitions, we run the risk of misunderstandings as well as open ourselves up for attack by those who need only point out the inaccurate use of a term to discredit otherwise accurate information.

I could be wrong but I believe what has been genetically modified is the hormone and not the chicken in your example. The hormone was altered to affect the animal's biology so that it grows at a continuous rate instead of a naturally regulated rate of growth, which has pauses. That is my understanding.

Having said that, we are becoming aware that in cases of genetic engineering of a plant, where gene segments of other organisms are inserted, from a virus, for example, there is potential for those segments to unravel and attach to the DNA of the host plant as we have seen in the case of Bt corn. The gene for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, a toxin found in certain soil based microorganisms that is toxic to most insects, is inserted into the DNA of corn to produce this transgenic variety of corn. Recent studies have shown that the gene might unbind and then recombine with stomach flora, thereby lending gut microorganisms the wonderful new trait of producing pesticide.

So, I wonder if there is a chance that whatever has been done to the hormone has a potential to transfer to the DNA of the chicken from your example.

This still would not be considered genetically modified or genetically engineered, as it wasn't by intent (hah, that we know of).

I do welcome being corrected by anyone who might know more, but I don't think that the injecting of hormones, synthetic or natural, would be considered genetically modified in the sense of the term genetically modified organism (GMO).


My $0.02,
Gonzo
 
Hi Gonzo,

It sounds like you are engaging in some legalistic nitpicking here and missing the crux of the matter - which is that synthetic growth hormones are evil and in our food supply and have been linked to negative effects on human health.
 
I agree that synthetic growth hormones are a great concern. I was merely suggesting we use the same terminology as the industry and the bodies that regulate them. There is considerably difference between genetically modified organism and calling something that has had a genetically modified organism inserted into it, genetically modified. Otherwise, everyone who ingests gmo could be called gmo - which, as I pointed out, may end up being true, but not the intention of the lowly farmer using the product.

I am sorry if I didn't adequately convey that. I took a while writing it to avoid confusion and I am a little taken aback by your comment, Anart.

Having said that, I have been having trouble expressing myself lately and I only notice it by the reaction or comments of others. This has been going on for 2-3 weeks now as well as falling into arguments unexpectedly (which I why I put extra care in my wording, fearing miscommunication).

So, my comments were not to distract from the notion that injected hormones like rBGH are bad for our health but to add precision to our language so that we can be sure to be talking about the same thing. As well, we avoid the obvious trap of losing credibility for any message we want to convey if all a detractor had to do is point to the misuse of lexicon.

I don't think that's legal nit picking at all.

Gonzo
 
Megan said:
Psyche said:
Animals injected with hormones is really bad. There is a very interesting documentary that you might be interested to watch: Food Inc.:

http://www.foodincmovie.com/
Yes, it's excellent. The best I have seen, I think. But don't watch it on a full stomach. Another, older one I thought was really good is "King Corn:" http://www.kingcorn.net/

When the meat in the grocery store comes from cattle that were so sick that they were near death anyway when they were slaughtered, does it really matter that much if they also happened to be injected with growth hormones?

I would also like to chime in about Food Inc. being a very informative documentary. From showing the treatment of chicken and cattle on farms that provide huge companies like Tyson their livestock, to info about how Monsanto manipulates and bullies farmers into growing their breed of soybeans, it really is an eye-opening experience that will show you the dark side of the American food industry. It certainly had a strong effect on me when I first watched it.
 
Back
Top Bottom