
Originally Posted by
Mojo
Silenka~
Enzymes are catalytic proteins. They're present in all forms of life. Whatever your mom is espousing sounds like a bad interpretation of something else (i.e. it's pseudo-science.) If you truly felt worse eating meat, you were either eating too much at a time (like lactose, there's only so much protein we can digest at a time) or have some kind of deficiency, otherwise it's probably just placebo. I was a vegetarian for a few years (admittedly it was a fad diet for me.) I never noticed any difference in how I felt. That's not to say there isn't merit to being vegetarian. Sustainability and animal welfare are too great reasons, if you care about things like that.
OP - If you're concerned I would take caution in listening to anybody who sounds like they've got it all figured out. The human body is immensely complicated. Long term effects from digesting foods that are only slightly different in composition are difficult to evaluate. Perhaps consider this.
rBST - The hormone used to increase milk production in cows. It tends to have some adverse effects on the cows, although the milk that is produced is nearly identical in composition. There are elevated levels of IGFs (a type of protein) in the milk. There have been associations between IGF levels in humans and types of cancer. It's crucial to note that these studies were based on serum levels of IGF (meaning IGF found inside the human body, not the IGF that we consume.) Consumed IGF is actually denatured (digested) in your stomach and intestine, so consumption of IGF won't increase your IGF serum levels. So any claim that milk from cows treated with rBST is somehow carcinogenic isn't rooted in real science.
Antibiotics - These are given to cows regularly regardless of whether they are being treated with hormones (correct me if I'm wrong.) It is a preventative measure to ward off mastitis and perhaps other infectious diseases. The concern is that this practice will create antibiotic resistant diseases that can be harmful to humans and other types of life. There have been some studies that suggest that this concern is valid (findings of bacterial strains believed to originate on farms), although I'm not sure if there is enough data and research on the issue to put the risk into perspective.
Growth Hormones - These are given to cattle to aid in their muscle development and other such things (basically what you would imagine a growth hormone to do.) There are measurable differences in hormone residues in beef from cattle treated with and without hormones. So it is showing up in the meat, but again, risk assessment is important. These are elevated levels of something that was there before (I think the WHO actually deems them as so small that they're indistinguishable.) Also, consider that every day the human body produces somewhere in the range of 30,000~40,000 times the amount of hormones you would find in a hamburger. What really matters though is the bottom line (does consuming those amounts affect human health.) There have been assertions that those hormones might effect pubescence and other things in humans consuming them, although there haven't been any studies that have found a correlation, so it's mostly factless conjecture.
Anyways, I'm not proclaiming myself to be some kind of expert on the matter, I'm simply an advocate of reason and skepticism. This is what I remember after researching organic food and such things for somewhere around a month. I avoid discussions like this IRL because I become subtly disturbed on a deep level when I encounter people espousing a bunch of pseudo-science bullshit that they might have heard on Oprah or whatever. It depresses me when I encounter people that are so casually willing to toss aside scientific innovation and decades of agricultural advancement in lieu of fashion.