In general, whatever PETA claims, I can give this answer- "somehwere the claim was doubtless grounded in truth, or at lest a factoid, but after PETA gets done- straining said truth, spinning the truth, taking it so far out of context that a “galaxy far far away” seems neighborly by comparison, and general torturing the meaning and sense- it can no longer be considered the “truth”.
These are two more examples of the above.
Rat’s milk is likely more concentrated, and thus more “nurtitious”, but who gives a rats ass? This is a meaningless factoid, brought up soley for the "ewww’ factor. I’ll bet Hamster milk is too, so??? :dubious: Whales Milk is, I am pretty sure.
And sure- Milk is a “mammalian secretion” (and is some sense is the “mammalian secretion”). But since “milk” has 6 less sylables and is much easier to comprehend, there is absolutely no reason other than the "ewww’ factor to use that phrase. :rolleyes: Many creatures drink milk- in fact that’s a defintion of “Mammal”- and some certainly will drink other specie’s milk when & if the opportunity occurs.
But Liberal- you’re a smart fella, you post here a lot, you should know what the general veracity rating of PETA claims is by now (see my first paragraph)from reading here and SNOPES, and I know you know how to GOOGLE- why ask this?
x-ray:It may not be as bad as “rotting corpse”, but I’m sure they are using the word “secretion” to bring across a gross out factor.
No doubt, but I tend not to have much sympathy for people who can be grossed out merely by technically or scientifically accurate terms for food items.
Milk is an animal secretion. Meat is part of an animal carcass, and yes, frankly, it did start rotting (to a slight extent) before you ate it. Fruits and roots are the reproductive and digestive apparatus of plants. Liver is, well, an animal’s liver. Personally, I find them all quite yummy, too.
If we’re going to consume the bodies of other living creatures in order to feed ourselves (and unless somebody figures out a way to synthesize all our necessary nutrients and digestive bulk out of rocks, I don’t think we’ve really got a choice), we should accept responsibility for that, and not flinch at calling a spade a spade.
I don’t think we need to go around relabeling all the milk cartons “Mammalian Secretions” and writing “Fish Ova” on the caviar tins and so forth. But if someone actually can’t stand the thought of eating a critter part unless they use a culinary euphemism for it, I’m inclined to think that’s their problem, not PETA’s.
Kimstu: Well, ‘secretions’ isn’t a dysphemism in the sense that ‘rotting carcass’ is, but it’s still intended to shock or at least disturb people by making them think of milk as ‘mammalian secretions’. The statement “Humans are the only animals who drink the milk of other species” is equivalent to the same statement with ‘milk’ replaced by ‘mammalian secretions’; therefore I think the replacement is deliberate and intended to be disturbing. It’s more like saying ‘animal flesh’ for ‘meat’ than saying ‘rotting carcass’. The OP also suggests that the PETA spokesperson consistently used ‘secretions’ for ‘milk’, which would seem to me that it’s an attempt to make the idea of drinking milk sound nasty (and it is nasty to them).
I guess the idea behind ‘just as nutritious’ is to be so vague that the statement can’t be wrong. If you want to consider ‘nutritious’ to mean ‘providing food energy’, then rat secretions are more nutritious than cow secretions. If you take ‘nutritious’ to mean ‘healthful, a good part of a balanced diet’, then rat-breast secretions, which are high in fat, are less nutritious than cow discharges. It also should be considered that the comparison is being made with the assumption that neither is healthful, since both are animal products. On that note, rat’s milk wouldn’t have growth hormones, and it wouldn’t be pasteurized (which destroys its nutritive value, according to raw-foodists), so maybe it’s better than cow’s milk.
"Milk’ is likely one of the very first words ever, so it’s hardly a “culinary euphemism”, just like “meat” is hardly a culinary euphemism for “segmented muscle tissue of a dead animal”. My Big UnAbridged says that “Milk” is at the very least 700 years older than “secretions”, and likely millenia more. Milk *is *the word. It’s not a “euphemism”- “the substitution of a mild, indirect or vague expression for one thought to be offensive”.
“Canola Oil”- now there’s a good example of a “culinary euphemism” ( for rapeseed oil.) Not “milk”.
That’ll serve it right for exploiting the secretions of another mammal.
Dissect a few dozen human livers (on the job, that is) and you may find your cravings dissipating.
It has been said that humans are the only animals that know they are going to die, and the only ones that drink alcohol - and that there’s probably a connection.
Dunno about part A, but a number of critters drink alcohol, including garden slugs, which I have eliminated by setting out a saucer of beer in the garden. They drink, get tipsy, fall in and drown.
A fair question. I use Google when I already have some reasonable level of foundational knowledge about what I’m looking for. For example, I might Google to examine arguments about whether the PETA claim is metaphysical or epistemic. Using what I already know, I can decide which arguments are more reliable than others. But I have insufficient knowledge of biology and nutrition to answer the OP, and I can think of no better place to get an answer than Straight Dope.
Besides, if you know me so well, you know that I have had little to say about PETA over the years. The only discussion I can recall taking part in was about their destruction of property, but that was only because I had an interest in the ethical issues. If I’d wanted to raise a stink, I would have asked something about Indian Hater Jackson. Please cut me a bit of slack in this instance. I had no ulterior motive in asking.
A secretion is a substance that has been produced from cells or separated out from blood by cells, excluding waste. Blood is, by definition, not a secretion.
Well, I don’t know what motive someone might have to explore that here in GQ, but at least if I wanted to speculate about the motives of fellow members, I would know where to do it.
Hint for Balthisar:Liberal is not, in the conventional political sense of the term, a liberal. some of us genuine SDMB lefties wish he’d change his handle so as to not confuse folks unaware, such as yourself.
You know, it just occurred to me that an easier way to think about it is, quite simply, that blood is an organ. It makes as much sense to call blood a secretion as it does to call your brain a secretion. Cells in your brain secrete various substances, just as cells in your blood; but that doesn’t make your brain part of the product of its secretory processes.
Rat’s milk looks to be a pretty good Atkin’s-friendly substitute for cow’s milk (lotsa fat and protein; not much lactose). It also has twice as much solid, and I imagine drinking it would be less pleasant than sipping half-and-half. I can’t even stand 2% fat cow’s milk, so I’m guessing rat milk would make me gag, no matter how chilled.
FWIW, there are numerous accounts of mother cats suckling waif squirrels, rabbits, and puppies, so the statement isn’t entirely correct. Unless they mean “drink mammalian secretions after the point of weaning”, but even then, I’ve seen a great big tomcat, suckling peaceably at the side of a litter of kittens. The mother wasn’t his, he was neutered, and she came to us pregnant.
Hmm, meant to add, that this same tomcat loved to drink cow’s milk, and as long as you gave him a small amount, he’d be fine. If you gave him too much he’d get the runs though.
*mammarian *secretions, perhaps?
And, BTW, Mankind is the only species that extracts and drinks ‘milk’ from soya beans too. Does that make it a bad thing?
This is a meaningless factoid, brought up soley for the "ewww’ factor. I’ll bet Hamster milk is too, so??? :dubious: Whales Milk is, I am pretty sure.
