Dairy cows linked to human twins

[Celebration]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19210850-30417,00.html

A study in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine compared twin birth-rates among women who ate a regular diet, vegetarians who included dairy products, and vegan women.

Vegans follow a strict vegetarian diet which excludes all animal products, including milk.

The vegans had twins at one-fifth the rate of the milk-drinking women, said Gary Steinman, who conducted the research in the US.

The reason may be hormones given to cattle to boost their milk and meat production, he said.

[MADem]

1. That's curious

How do the study sponsors account for families that have had twins down the generations, before the hormones were introduced to the cattle? There's gotta be a genetic predisposition.

I think the rise of twins and triplets is found in this paragraph, myself:

The number of twins in the world has increased significantly in the past 30 years. Scientists say fertility treatments and women waiting longer to have children probably account for the rise.

But hey, who knows? All those double whatever lattes could be having an effect....

[electron_blue]

2. Would this be the same growth hormones "they" assure do not affect humans

Yet another reason I'm glad to no longer be drinking cow's milk. Not that there's anything wrong with twins.....

[la la]

3. hmmmmm

I would say el toro poo poo to that one.

Many women are having children later, when are popping those eggs out at a record rate.

My daughter had twins at 39 and through her, I've met many mother's of multiples. If they haven't had some sort of fertility treatment help - they certainly aren't vegans or big milk drinkers. More like hearty meat and potatoes kind of women.

Just my take.

[Skink]

4. Mmmmm cow growth hormones.

a delicacy

[Igel]

5. But the reason may not be that.

It may be the hormones naturally found. Or diet. Or something else entirely different.

There's not even a "most likely" attached to the claim. "May be."

Reporter and editor need to make story interesting. Highlight potentially attention-getting statement. De-emphasize attention-killing statements. Pander to the public so that you're more profitable, and more likely to be hired.

Or it just may be that the reporter misquoted Steinman. Can't rule it out.

Bleah.