Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 


How much pus do you want in your milk?
There is too much pus in the milk. 38%  38%  [ 3 ]
There should be more pus in the milk. 50%  50%  [ 4 ]
We currently have just the right amount of pus in milk. 13%  13%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 8

the-over-analyzed
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: United States

30 Apr 2007, 10:09 pm

Have you guys heard about how all the pus in the milk? The dairy industry has informed us on how much pus is acceptable in milk, but every U.S. state except Hawaii has more than what they say is safe, when the milk is actually tested.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=497170

I like milk.
But here's a link from some people that are actually against milk altogether.
I include it because I couldn't find any links on the milk pus crisis. I don't support their anti-milk agenda, but they are right that pus is gross:

http://www.milksucks.com/pus.asp

If anybody finds better info about milk pus or related issues, please do post.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Apr 2007, 10:25 pm

Technically I would imagine that less pus would be better, but undoubtedly there is some trade off involved. It really depends on the costs of the pus and the costs of reducing it.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

30 Apr 2007, 11:51 pm

the more pus the better. quit being such wussy whiny babies.


and f**k that anti-milk site, it's run by a bunch of fascists who would dictate how you eat, drink, what you wear, and what products you can buy if they had their way.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

30 Apr 2007, 11:53 pm

the anti-milk site is a peta site, by the way. so they're probably lying about how much "pus" is in the milk or exaggerating its impact.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 May 2007, 12:02 am

skafather84 wrote:
the more pus the better. quit being such wussy whiny babies.

Pus is a plus? That is an unorthodox claim.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 May 2007, 12:06 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
the more pus the better. quit being such wussy whiny babies.

Pus is a plus? That is an unorthodox claim.


it's hyperbole. my point is that everyone complains and is so health conscious and it's all for naught. all that ends up doing is creating a weaker immune system more susceptible to illness.



parts
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,579
Location: New England

01 May 2007, 7:11 am

I don't mind the pus when drinking my milk while eating a big juicy steak, while wearing my fur coat at the circus watching the animal acts. The peta I prefer is People Eating Tasty Animals :lol:


_________________
"Strange is your language and I have no decoder Why don't make your intentions clear..." Peter Gabriel


TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

01 May 2007, 7:54 am

Let me guess the same nuts running this anti-milk project are also running the "Killer Coke" project.



the-over-analyzed
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: United States

01 May 2007, 6:05 pm

I read a bit more about it. Here is a link that explains why the type of milk we drink in the U.S. would be illegal to sell in Canada or Europe (I guess Canada and Europe have banned rBGH injections on the cows):

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

Here's the part about pus:

Quote:
Q. Are cows adversely affected by elevated IGF-1 levels?
A. Cows injected with rBGH show heavy localization of IGF-1 in breast (udder) epithelial cells. This does not occur in untreated cows. Cows are also affected in other ways by rBGH, through increased rates of mastitis, an udder infection. Industry data show up to an 80 percent incidence of mastitis in hormone-treated cattle, resulting in the contamination of milk with significant levels of pus. Mastitis requires the use of antibiotics to treat, which leaves residues to pass on through the milk for human consumption.



kt-64
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 767
Location: Who cares?

01 May 2007, 6:35 pm

It is because in canada and europe we have common sense. Pus is relatively harmless. And it is a peta propaganda compain. I spelt it wrong for emphasis.



hyperbolic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,869

02 May 2007, 12:37 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Technically I would imagine that less pus would be better, but undoubtedly there is some trade off involved. It really depends on the costs of the pus and the costs of reducing it.


Is it a health hazard? If it is, the government should ban it. Does it change the definition of milk? For example, if until recently, milk was milk, but now milk is milk and 45% pus, the question of whether that constitutes milk should be asked. (And perhaps that is a question of cultural taste.) If 45% pus milk does not constitute milk, then the government should ban it. But if the 45% pus milk is neither a health hazard nor, perhaps, offensive to cultural taste, let its saleability be left up to the market forces as awesomelyglorious suggests.

Those are my opinions on this.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 May 2007, 12:50 am

hyperbolic wrote:

Is it a health hazard? If it is, the government should ban it. Does it change the definition of milk? For example, if until recently, milk was milk, but now milk is milk and 45% pus, the question of whether that constitutes milk should be asked. (And perhaps that is a question of cultural taste.) If 45% pus milk does not constitute milk, then the government should ban it. But if the 45% pus milk is neither a health hazard nor, perhaps, offensive to cultural taste, let its saleability be left up to the market forces as awesomelyglorious suggests.

Those are my opinions on this.

Oddly enough, I never even mentioned market forces at all in any of my comments in this thread. Really though the question does go into the nature of regulation and of market imperfection. Now the major issue here is a lack of information on the part of the consumer. The solution really depends on the extent of the market imperfection and the costs to the consumer opposed to those of the producer. Government action though is definitely not a perfect panacea and more information is needed to come to a total conclusion.