RE: POLITICS - Banning soy formula

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 1:36:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, jaq@...

writes:

> IMO, one of the less attractive aspects of the organization. I tend

> not to join groups like AAA, AARP etc for that reason...they spend my

> money against me. I mean, what's the difference in principle between

> banning soy formula and banning raw milk?

_____

On the surface there isn't one. But taking a more subtle view, in a purely

free market, no one would have ever grown such a useless crop as soy.

Pasturing would be more economical than feeding soy and grains, and with no

bountiful

soy crop in the hands of mega-corporations no one would have pondered what

propaganda they could use to make that bounty more profitable by selling it to

humans instead of animals.

I don't think it's an easy issue. I am averse to banning any substance. But

should we let these state-created behemoths of the illiberal and anti-free

market mercantilist oligopoly abuse our children and turn them into hormonal

mutants by subjecting them to toxic non-foods at a time when they are years away

from being able to comprehend or even be aware of what it is they are

ingesting, simply because their nutritionally ignorant parents take their

misinformation from the doctors and/or government agents they trust?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 8:15:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Soy infant formula would be way down on my list of stuff to " ban " . First

off,

> a lot of kids are allergic to casein, for some reason, even raw milk

casein,

> and it's unclear what a commercial firm COULD replace soy with.

_____

The WAPF does not advocate a straight-out banning of soy infant formula, but

a bill that would require a doctor's prescription. Nevertheless, there are

viable non-casein formula options (such as those described in NT). Whether they

are reasonable for a commercial firm to make or not I don't know. I imagine

that a decent quality whey protein combined with cod liver oil and lecithin or

some emulsifier and some kind of sugar would be commercially viable and

vastly, vastly superior, and vastly, vastly less dangerous than soy infant

formula.

Also, formula is much over-used, and many women use soy infant formula

because it is given away free to them while they're still in the hospital with

our

tax dollars. This is like the government financing mini-packs of cigarettes to

be distributed to children on their lunch trays in elementary school.

____

>And, soy has

> been used by Asians as part of their diet (albeit fermented etc.).

____

This is not a remotely reasonable argument for feeding soy formula to

infants. What Asians raise their infants on soy exclusively or even on soy as

the

mainstay of their diet? I doubt there are any. Furthermore, it is an utter

fallacy to consider the Asian population in general to be any kind of paragon of

health.

It would seem that your logic (Others have done it for a while, so it is good

to do) would make it reasonable to use an infant formula that used purified

wheat gluten as its protein source. The Asian level of health, while in some

ways perhaps better than the American standard (which doesn't say much), isn't

exactly something to long after. So, considering:

1) Asians do not eat nearly as much soy as American soy-eating adults

2) Asians do not eat soy in any form resembling the forms Americans most

consume soy in

3) Asians, do not, to my knowledge, feed infants a diet mainly of soy

4) Asians are not as healthy as often made out to be by the American

promoters of a diet they don't really eat anyway

I would consider the Asian argument invalid.

_____

And on

> this sort of thing I tend to agree with the Libertarians even ... give the

> public as much *true* information as you can (labelling laws etc.) and let

> them make the choices.

_____

I'm not sure this is really a libertarian argument. I'd definitely consider

it liberal (meaning " liberal " in the true sense of the word, rather than the

misused term unique to modern American politics), and I guess if you look at

libertarianism as a direction on an axis of libertarian/authoritarian it's

certainly " libertarian of center, " but it's really only " libertarian " in the way

that, say, Kerry is an " authoritarian. " He is, say, an " authoritarian

moderate, " but he's no US-installed Latin American dictator.

_____

> But what's sad to me is that infants need formula at all: it speaks to a

> society where mothers cannot nurse their kids, and ANY formula is a health

> risk compared to breastfeeding. There are so many statistics that show that

> breastfeeding lays the foundation for a healthy life for the kid, and cuts

> down on a lot of these chronic childhood diseases we keep seeing. As well

as

> promoting raw milk, WAPF should be promoting mother's milk. Cutting down on

> the number of " nutritionally ignorant parents " in any way possible!

____

I certainly agree with that. Although WAPF has some valid points, such as

that high levels of trans fats or deficiencies in DHA, etc, could harm the baby

if raised exclusively on breast milk. Even then it may well be better than

any commercial formula, but anyone who WAPF is reaching has available the

meat-based and milk-based formulas that would be vastly superior to any

commercial

formula, and probably considerably better than a highly toxic and

nutrient-deficient breastfeeding; although, on the other hand, it's highly

unlikely anyone

would go to that length to make the formulas but not bother changing their

diet.

____

> As for banning stuff in general: I'd be happy if they work on banning,

say,

> mercury emissions from power plants and spent uranium in munitions.

____

We could ban war too. But hey, Bush wants to develop a bunker-buster *nuke*

now! What's scary is that there's no real detterent value to such a weapon

that there isn't with regular ol' long-range nukes, so I can't see any reason

we'd start developing if it wasn't to USE them.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 9:48:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, jaq@...

writes:

> As for the soy formula issue, your analogy of stifled good vs.

> encouraged evil breaks down on both ends. IF the government COULD ban

> vitamin A, we'd soon all be dead anyway. And cyanide is generally

> recognized as poison, whereas soy is not (if it were, nobody would buy

> the stuff, and this would be a moot issue)

____

Yeah, you're right. The WAPF case against soy formula is pretty weak, and

it's more of a hunch. I happen to think the probability of that hunch being

correct is very close to certainty, but I really don't have the evidence to back

it up.

Furthermore, it would be a giant uphill battle to ban it, I suspect, and no

less uphill than it would be to cut the lifeblood of subsidies off from the

jugular of the soy industry.

Also, you're right about the analogy of giving the 5-yo with ADHD the loaded

pistol.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 10:33:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Irene.M@... writes:

> It is not given away for free from the government. It comes from the infant

> formula companies that give away formula in packs which also contain

> diapers, wipes and coupons etc. Sometime they also have plastic bottles

and

> other items.

___

I'll take your word that that's true, but the WIC program does dole out

formula, and as a result, families on the WIC program are twice as likely to use

formula as the general population

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 11:11:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Irene.M@... writes:

> As for families on WIC. I don't know where you got that stat, but I don't

> think you can assume that it is because they get infant formula from WIC.

> It is more likely that those moms don't have access to childbirth and

> breastfeeding classes.

___

It seems likely that both would play a role.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>I don't think it's an easy issue. I am averse to banning any substance. But

>should we let these state-created behemoths of the illiberal and anti-free

>market mercantilist oligopoly abuse our children and turn them into hormonal

>mutants by subjecting them to toxic non-foods at a time when they are years

away

>from being able to comprehend or even be aware of what it is they are

>ingesting, simply because their nutritionally ignorant parents take their

>misinformation from the doctors and/or government agents they trust?

>

>Chris

Soy infant formula would be way down on my list of stuff to " ban " . First off, a

lot of kids are allergic to casein, for some reason, even raw milk casein, and

it's unclear what a commercial firm COULD replace soy with. And, soy has been

used by Asians as part of their diet (albeit fermented etc.). And on this sort

of thing I tend to agree with the Libertarians even ... give the public as much

*true* information as you can (labelling laws etc.) and let them make the

choices.

But what's sad to me is that infants need formula at all: it speaks to a society

where mothers cannot nurse their kids, and ANY formula is a health risk compared

to breastfeeding. There are so many statistics that show that breastfeeding lays

the foundation for a healthy life for the kid, and cuts down on a lot of these

chronic childhood diseases we keep seeing. As well as promoting raw milk, WAPF

should be promoting mother's milk. Cutting down on the number of " nutritionally

ignorant parents " in any way possible!

As for banning stuff in general: I'd be happy if they work on banning, say,

mercury emissions from power plants and spent uranium in munitions.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

It is not given away for free from the government. It comes from the infant

formula companies that give away formula in packs which also contain

diapers, wipes and coupons etc. Sometime they also have plastic bottles and

other items.

Irene

At 07:13 PM 2/17/2005, you wrote:

>Also, formula is much over-used, and many women use soy infant formula

>because it is given away free to them while they're still in the hospital

>with our

>tax dollars. This is like the government financing mini-packs of

>cigarettes to

>be distributed to children on their lunch trays in elementary school.

[Guest guest]

Yes it's true. Ask any new mom.

As for families on WIC. I don't know where you got that stat, but I don't

think you can assume that it is because they get infant formula from WIC.

It is more likely that those moms don't have access to childbirth and

breastfeeding classes.

Irene

At 07:44 PM 2/17/2005, you wrote:

>I'll take your word that that's true, but the WIC program does dole out

>formula, and as a result, families on the WIC program are twice as likely

>to use

>formula as the general population

[Guest guest]

At 4:50 AM +0000 2/18/05, Masterjohn wrote:

>should we let these state-created behemoths of the illiberal and anti-free

>market mercantilist oligopoly abuse our children and turn them into hormonal

>mutants by subjecting them to toxic non-foods at a time when they

>are years away

>from being able to comprehend or even be aware of what it is they are

>ingesting, simply because their nutritionally ignorant parents take their

>misinformation from the doctors and/or government agents they trust?

Yes, we should do exactly that.

I have no sympathy with the S-CBotIaA-FMMO. <g>. But they are using

the same power that you are proposing should be in other hands. I'm

saying that if that power exists, it will follow the money, and if we

don't want money to have the power, we must destroy the power. We

Hobbitses might be the Good Guys, but the ring still needs to go to

Mount Doom.

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Laws metastasize where morals atrophy.

[Guest guest]

-

>I'm

>saying that if that power exists, it will follow the money, and if we

>don't want money to have the power, we must destroy the power.

You're assuming that the power can be destroyed, that it can't have greater

impact in our hands, and that there aren't countervailing.powers which will

be harder to oppose without it. It's a very Chamberlain-esque argument,

actually.

-

[Guest guest]

At 05:05 PM 2/25/05 -0500, you wrote:

>

>-

>

>>I'm

>>saying that if that power exists, it will follow the money, and if we

>>don't want money to have the power, we must destroy the power.

>

>You're assuming that the power can be destroyed, that it can't have greater

>impact in our hands, and that there aren't countervailing.powers which will

>be harder to oppose without it. It's a very Chamberlain-esque argument,

>actually.

>

>-

>

Does anyone else hear that line from He-Man the Cartoon reverberating in

their head now?

" I .. have ... the ... poooooowwweeeerrrrr!!!! "

* ducks and runs for the seventeenth time in a week*

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2005 8:36:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaq@... writes:

> and that there aren't countervailing.powers which will

> be harder to oppose without it.

That's actually a reasonable argument. Concentrations of economic power

can be almost as dangerous as concentrations of political power. The

difference is that government is much more efficient at wiping out

competition, which is why I don't want it available as a tool for the

monopolists.

_____

I don't think history bears the argument out. For example, Rockefeller's

market share decreased dramatically, I think to 11% or so, iirc, before

Standard Oil was broken up by anti-trust action. In the market, concentrations

of

power can be defeated rather quickly by competitors. Even when competitors

have relatively few resources, they can rise quickly, just like Rockefeller

rose from rags to riches to create his " monopoly " in the first place. On the

other hand, it's much harder to defeat an entreched concentration of economic

power that the more it fails to profit the more money it sucks from the public

through government, because government has established that the company

serves the " public interest. " Much harder when the government, behind the

false

cloak of objectivity, declares that you must eat their food to be healthy.

Much harder when the company's henchmen step through the revolving door of the

US executive branch and blow things up for their company to fix, and tax the

public to pay $300,000/year to people who do what I do for $10.35/hr.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Message: 6

> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:05:15 -0500

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Subject: Re: RE: POLITICS - Banning soy formula

>

> -

>

>> I'm

>> saying that if that power exists, it will follow the money, and if we

>> don't want money to have the power, we must destroy the power.

>

> You're assuming that the power can be destroyed,

Yes, I am. Maybe it can't be. Or maybe it can be so weakened as to

provoke a defensive response among freedom lovers. We won't know if we

don't try.

> that it can't have greater

> impact in our hands,

That's what I'm afraid of, actually.

I fear utopians. When somebody wants to bring out guns to make things

perfect (and that IS what politics is), it stifles innovation and

truth. How do you know that further research might show an even better

way than WAP of managing the food supply? After all, those pasteurized

milk guys were doing what they thought best for us.

If we had a government-mandated WAPF-approved world, I'd be in my barn

making " displacing foods of modern commerce " for the black market.

> and that there aren't countervailing.powers which will

> be harder to oppose without it.

That's actually a reasonable argument. Concentrations of economic power

can be almost as dangerous as concentrations of political power. The

difference is that government is much more efficient at wiping out

competition, which is why I don't want it available as a tool for the

monopolists.

> It's a very Chamberlain-esque argument,

> actually.

I'm not ceding somebody else's territory. And the Germans aren't

forcing you Czechs to drink soymilk. I'm not appeasing agribiz, I'm

just...not...playing.

www.en.com/users/jaquick

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/2005 3:39:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> In the market, concentrations of

>power can be defeated rather quickly by competitors. Even when

competitors

>have relatively few resources, they can rise quickly, just like Rockefeller

>rose from rags to riches to create his " monopoly " in the first place.

I think you're just betraying your biases here. No concentration of power,

whether economic or political or otherwise, has ever proven

immortal. Companies stumble, new technologies appear, revolutions topple

governments, new governments are elected, civil wars change governments --

etc. etc. etc.

_____

Well yes, but there are qualitative differences in the forms of power we are

discussing. In the case of Standard Oil, one must create a better product

and produce it more efficiently in order to carve into the market share,

whereas in the case of toppling a civil government one must obviously do much

more

than that.

demonstrated this very well when he pointed out that if 10% of

people want something different than the other 90% businesses can fill that

niche

market without harm to either the 90% or the 10%, but if 51% of people want

something out of the civil government, the other 49% are screwed. Unless

there is coercive power that is preventing free entry into a market, then

businesses can begin with less than 1% of market share and begin to become

successful and easily overtake other businesses if they offer what consumers

want.

Government by definition uses coercive power to prevent free entry into the

field of governance, so the situation is obviously different.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

>How do you know that further research might show an even better

>way than WAP of managing the food supply?

I'm positive it will, but I'm almost as positive that improvements will be

refinements. Until such time as science and technology allow the

manufacturing of genuinely nutritious foods without agriculture (and

depending on the course civilization takes, that may never happen) there

won't be any radical changes.

> After all, those pasteurized

>milk guys were doing what they thought best for us.

No, pasteurization was instituted as an aid to profit. The businessmen who

wanted pasteurization duped people into believing it was best for them.

>If we had a government-mandated WAPF-approved world, I'd be in my barn

>making " displacing foods of modern commerce " for the black market.

Why? Do you sell heroin or crystal meth or other such drugs out of your

barn? It seems to me that's merely a difference of degree, not kind.

>That's actually a reasonable argument. Concentrations of economic power

>can be almost as dangerous as concentrations of political power. The

>difference is that government is much more efficient at wiping out

>competition, which is why I don't want it available as a tool for the

>monopolists.

Actually I think they're comparably dangerous, and concentrations of

political power are the only means I'm aware of to oppose concentrations of

economic power. Of course, all powers are corruptible, so there's no

perfect solution. Eternal vigilance is unfortunately necessary.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> In the market, concentrations of

>power can be defeated rather quickly by competitors. Even when competitors

>have relatively few resources, they can rise quickly, just like Rockefeller

>rose from rags to riches to create his " monopoly " in the first place.

I think you're just betraying your biases here. No concentration of power,

whether economic or political or otherwise, has ever proven

immortal. Companies stumble, new technologies appear, revolutions topple

governments, new governments are elected, civil wars change governments --

etc. etc. etc.

-