COMMENTS: 45
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
DG: Sure. Pasteurization allows milk to be safely transported regionally, and still remain on store shelves for a week or more without spoilage. Increasingly, milk is being transported ever longer distances -- for example, milk from the West, where there tend to be surpluses, is often transported to the East, where there are shortages. As milk is increasingly transported long distances, standard pasteurization has been supplemented by ultra-high temperature pasteurization, which involves heating milk to 275 degrees for a few seconds. The effect is to kill off even more organisms, and thereby allow the milk to last for up to six to nine months without refrigeration. Because organic milk must often be transported the longest distances, it tends to be subjected to ultra-high temperature pasteurization more often than conventional milk.
MG: Why is the raw milk revolution similar to the organic vs. conventional food debate?
DG: For a long time, organic veggies and fruits were seen as marginal products, produced by just a few local growers. A fringe group of consumers proclaimed their benefits. Eventually, organic food was produced in ever-larger quantities, with large agricultural growers becoming involved. It has become mainstream. Today, raw milk is similarly a marginal product, produced generally by a few local dairies. It's not clear, though, that it will follow the same trajectory as organic food, since even among raw milk advocates, there is a preference for obtaining it locally from small dairies. And among these advocates, there is doubt large feedlot type dairies could produce raw milk that would be consistently safe.
MG: What does the divide between traditional and factory farming have to do with raw milk?
DG: Advocates of raw milk have consistently argued that they wouldn't want milk from factory farms sold unpasteurized, since the crowding of cows makes sanitation sometimes questionable. Indeed, there have been studies of the unpasteurized milk at factory farms (before it is sent for pasteurization), which show significant contamination by pathogens. A 2004 study published in the Journal of Dairy Science found that in milk samples taken from 861 bulk tanks in 21 states around the country, 2.6 percent contained salmonella and 6.5 percent tested positive for listeria monocytogenes. Pasteurization, of course, kills off these pathogens.
Instead, raw milk advocates seek out smaller traditional farms, which encourage pasture feeding of cows and diligent sanitation.
MG: Why is there a crackdown on small farms who produce raw milk (even if they have devoted, happy customers)?
DG: The FDA is adamantly against consumption of raw milk, even if customers are happy. The head of its dairy division has been quoted on numerous occasions as saying that consuming raw milk "is like playing Russian roulette with your health." The FDA's warnings have done little to slow consumption of raw milk, however -- quite the contrary. So as raw milk has grown in popularity, the FDA, beginning in 2005 and 2006, has joined with state agriculture agencies in trying to instead cut the supply of raw milk. It has focused its efforts heavily on such large dairy-producing states as New York, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In these states, there have been varying actions against producers of raw milk -- "sting" operations, shutdowns for contamination even when no one has become ill, and legal proceedings and fines.

MG: When it comes to food, how much freedom should people have to choose their own--regardless of the "risk"?
DG: This is a controversial issue. I think individuals should be free to assess the risks associated with foods, and make the final choices. All foods can be contaminated, and some, like deli meats and raw seafood, involve more serious risks than raw milk. Opponents argue that in certain situations, like with milk, which are heavily consumed by children, consumers shouldn't have free choice, since children can't make an informed choice.
For more information on The Raw Milk Revolution, watch this video with David Gumpert, or order his book here.
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdlepthien on Nov 7, 2009 4:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bovine tuberculosis is contained by destroying cows that test positive for it. However, cows carrying it are often asymptomatic for years. States try to be vigilant enough to get tuberculosis-free status, but there are wild reservoirs of bovine tuberculosis in deer in Michigan and the Northeast. Cows have been infected by contact with the deer.
Cows can also carry human tuberculosis.
I find it astonishing that none of this was mentioned in an article on raw milk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The article states that better
Posted by: AndyF
» A lot of people could get TB before an "annual" test caught the problem!
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» RE: A lot of people could get TB before an "annual" test caught the problem!
Posted by: cats.anon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: buzzsaw on Nov 7, 2009 5:28 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Irradiation is so effective at sterilizing milk, that irradiated milk will keep for years-unrefrigerated. Of course, my fear is that both pasteurization and irradiation are likely to be used as substitutes for good sanitation practices, instead of insurance policies.
When disease among herds is, or would be, rampant without the heavy use of antibiotics and other drugs, we really need to re-evaluate our farming methods. It is interesting that organic milk keeps considerably longer that factory-farm produced milk, probably because it has a lower bacterial load to begin with. It also tastes like milk used to taste when I was a child.
Humans: The only species on Earth that 1) drinks significant quantities of milk after infancy, 2) gets this milk mainly from other species.
buzzsaw
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Irradiation? NO THANK YOU!!!!!
Posted by: wireup
» RE: Irradiation? NO THANK YOU!!!!!
Posted by: finleyd
» It keeps because all the nutrients are destroyed with irradiation...
Posted by: Prophit0
» Farm eggs sure seem to keep longer, too
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 7, 2009 5:40 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To mass produce cow's milk on a large scale via factory farming, cows have to be kept continually pregnant, giving birth, and lactating. The cows are genetically bred to produce excess cow's milk for humans. Male cows (bulls) are useless to the dairy industry, so they become veal. By supporting the dairy industry, one indirectly supports cow killing.
Vegetarians do cause far less animal cruelty than meat-eaters, but a nonviolent philosophy would carry greater weight from vegans than from vegetarians.
The meat-eaters, especially, exactly, are ready to find fault with us in this regard: do we love all animals, or only some animals (e.g., cows) and not others? And if we really do love the cows, why do we contribute to their death and suffering just to drink their milk?
Can children be raised without cow's milk? YES! Half the world's population (blacks and Asians in particular) are lactose intolerant, and can't digest milk after infancy. Dr. Michael Klaper has written books on vegan nutrition, pregnancy, and childbirth.
One of the first books I read on the subject of vegetarianism while in college was A Vegetarian Sourcebook by Keith Akers (1983). Describing the environmental damage caused by raising animals for food: topsoil erosion, deforestization, loss of groundwater, etc. as well as the economic inefficiency and waste of energy and resources in raising animals for food in an age of exploding human population growth, Keith Akers foreshadowed John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987), which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
In A Vegetarian Sourcebook, Keith Akers writes:
"Using grasslands for livestock agriculture creates great environmental problems, which greatly limit its usefulness. Grazing systems require ten times more land than feedlot agriculture, in which animals are simply given feed grown on cropland. Grazing systems have to be extensive in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences of overgrazing—which renders a piece of land unsuitable for any purpose.
"Overgrazing and the consequent soil erosion are extremely serious problems worldwide. By the most conservative estimates, 60% of all U.S. rangelands are overgrazed, with billions of tons of soil lost each year. Overgrazing has also been the greatest cause of man-made deserts.
"Even if we grant grazing a role in a resource-efficient, ecologically stable agriculture, milk should be the end result, not beef. Milk provides over 50% of the protein and nearly four times the calories of beef, per unit of forage resources from grazing.
"'When only forage is available, then egg, broiler and pork production are eliminated and only milk, beef, and lamb production are viable systems,' state David and Marcia Pimentel, scientists and authors of Food, Energy and Society. "Of these three, milk production is the most efficient.'
"An ecologically stable, resource-efficient system of grazing animals for human food could not be anything faintly resembling today's livestock agriculture," concludes Akers. "It would be a smaller, decentralized, less intensive system of animal husbandry devoted to milk production."
This is what the Vedas say as well: an acre of land, a cow and a bull, and you're all set! The Vedas also warn that when a population is sinful, their land becomes a desert...and overgrazing does lead to topsoil erosion, which in turn leads to desertification. So it may be possible to have animal agriculture (devoted solely to milk production) on a small scale—like the Amish.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Why would the Vedas say to have a cow and a bull?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Why would the Vedas say to have a cow and a bull?
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE:"ox provides traction for 60 million small farmers whose land feeds 80 percent of the Indian..."
Posted by: bcgirl125
» RE: "ox provides traction for 60 million small farmers whose land feeds 80 percent of the Indian..."
Posted by: lenioui
» RE: "ox provides traction for 60 million small farmers whose land feeds 80 percent of the Indian..."
Posted by: lenioui
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rational_moderate on Nov 7, 2009 6:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or how about a licensing process for consumers? Once they somehow prove that they're really knowledgeable about the risks and willing to make the trade-off, they get a license to buy raw milk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When in doubt
Posted by: cdlepthien
» RE: Libertarian principles
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Libertarian principles forget that the government is us.
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dcande01 on Nov 7, 2009 7:43 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, for one, don't care whether dairy milk drinkers get sick. Let them. They've brought it on themselves. AND, whether pasteurized or not, they will get sick from their abuse of other animals.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nature is exploitative
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» Finally, one of you is really honest
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Nov 7, 2009 9:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What about your community?
Posted by: suprmark
» Many are doing what you are doing. You can never legislate....
Posted by: Prophit0
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cooltruth on Nov 7, 2009 9:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Probably because pasteurized keeps longer...
Posted by: luanetodd
» I was raised on a dairy farm...
Posted by: Cooltruth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wrusssr on Nov 7, 2009 2:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political Ponerology: Andrew M. Lobaczewski
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldengrain on Nov 7, 2009 3:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After moving to the city and drinking whatever dairy was sold locally for years I became desperate, going from one doctor to the next. Finally, I landed in the Atkins clinic, which diagnosed a really bad milk sensitivity. Often when a person becomes sensitive to one food and continues abusing it, other food reactions start to occur.
After not having ANY dairy, even cakes, for years I can finally have occasional cream in coffee and iced cream, etc.
I am not a member of the ethnic groups that are known to have reactions to dairy, but have discovered that even in the remaining population - those with no observable problem with dairy - they are not digesting calcium and other nutrients from the milk that they do drink.
Advertising aside, dairy is a very bad delivery system for adult nutrients. I drink unwsweetened soy milk and now love it more than I once did dairy.
I agree with the comment on tuberculosis. I remember that being the main reason for treating milk. That was an excellent post and made very much sense to me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ooo, watch the soy
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kiel on Nov 7, 2009 5:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ronniejw on Nov 7, 2009 9:18 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I guess it’s not so funny for the poor cows that are raped to get them pregnant only to have their baby’s taken away and forced into slavery or murdered. And then their poor little babies’ milk is stolen from them to be given to people that can’t tell the difference between a cow and a human.
Seems a bit crazy to me.
Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Only modern, disembodied people write such things. Tell it to the Greeks and Turks, etc.
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: akarr1953 on Nov 7, 2009 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PeaceLove on Nov 7, 2009 11:28 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In California, raw milk is still available at Whole Foods in the Bay Area, at least.
However, the article is hardly balanced, being an interview with a raw milk proponent. They say about 50 people a year get sick from raw milk. Is this a small number? Or, considering the extremely limited availability of raw milk, is that actually kind of high? If raw milk were more widely available, would those numbers go way up?
Gumpert also makes some serious health claims for raw milk. How many of those patients would be improved even more if they eliminated dairy from their diets entirely?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dstauff on Nov 8, 2009 3:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DG: There was a time during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when raw milk was pushed by some in the medical profession as nearly a cure-all for conditions ranging from arthritis to diabetes to gout. Today, there are extensive anecdotal tales of improved health from raw milk, such as relief from lactose intolerance. There is also research from Europe in the last few years indicating that children who drink raw milk have reduced rates of asthma and allergies.
"
TRANSLATION: There is no hard evidence of any health benefits of Raw Milk vs. Pasturized Milk. Just this Anecdotal Shit that I should be too embarased to even tell you...lololol
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thedevil666 on Nov 8, 2009 5:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NET1 on Nov 8, 2009 12:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adidas Shoes
Puma Shoes
cheap nike dunk
Air Jordan Fusions Shoes
Nike Shox
Chanel boots
LV boots
D&G Boots
UGG Boot
Gucci boots
brand boots
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Air Yeezy shoes
Posted by: Wendiego
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bill n on Nov 9, 2009 12:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JCampbell on Nov 9, 2009 10:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pasteurized vs. Raw Milk: Which One Is Healthier for You & Your Family?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Nov 9, 2009 12:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is ESSENTIAL that you find a farmer you can trust. Ensure that the cow is tested at least every six months for pathogens (such as tuberculosis).
Remember that the reason raw milk is illegal is that it is DANGEROUS when mass porduced. Pasteurization is a major reason that the TB epidemic of the last century was brought under control! This is not right-wing propaganda.
I was raised on raw milk on a family farm in Arkansas. I am now sliding into middle-age, and have bones like Gibralter. No osteoporosis in my family (the "iron" well water may have helped, too).
Raw milk is great for lots of reasons, but you REALLY better know your supplier. For this reason, I'm deeply skeptical about commercial production of raw milk -- even on organic farms.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: betsy99 on Nov 9, 2009 12:42 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 10, 2009 5:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 10, 2009 5:36 AM
Current rating: rated excellent
topless bars would not make any money exploiting you, Even topless dancers and all nude bars would struggle imagine that a gift from god and where charged for just the thought of you no wonder money is always hungry and men look at themselves' It seems they have to be charged
because the anti Christ law won't let you take off your clothing when it's even hot. No wonder people are fat and obese there just hiding who they are' With the way they wished they where with topless bars would not make any money exploiting you, Even topless dancers and all nude bars would struggle imagine that a gift from god and where charged for just the thought of you no wonder money is always hungry and men look at themselves' It seems they have to be charged
because the anti Christ law won't let you take off your clothing when it's even hot. No wonder people are fat and obese' There just hiding who they are' With the way they wished they where with clothes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdlepthien on Nov 7, 2009 4:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bovine tuberculosis is contained by destroying cows that test positive for it. However, cows carrying it are often asymptomatic for years. States try to be vigilant enough to get tuberculosis-free status, but there are wild reservoirs of bovine tuberculosis in deer in Michigan and the Northeast. Cows have been infected by contact with the deer.
Cows can also carry human tuberculosis.
I find it astonishing that none of this was mentioned in an article on raw milk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The article states that better
Posted by: AndyF
» A lot of people could get TB before an "annual" test caught the problem!
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» RE: A lot of people could get TB before an "annual" test caught the problem!
Posted by: cats.anon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: buzzsaw on Nov 7, 2009 5:28 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Irradiation is so effective at sterilizing milk, that irradiated milk will keep for years-unrefrigerated. Of course, my fear is that both pasteurization and irradiation are likely to be used as substitutes for good sanitation practices, instead of insurance policies.
When disease among herds is, or would be, rampant without the heavy use of antibiotics and other drugs, we really need to re-evaluate our farming methods. It is interesting that organic milk keeps considerably longer that factory-farm produced milk, probably because it has a lower bacterial load to begin with. It also tastes like milk used to taste when I was a child.
Humans: The only species on Earth that 1) drinks significant quantities of milk after infancy, 2) gets this milk mainly from other species.
buzzsaw
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Irradiation? NO THANK YOU!!!!!
Posted by: wireup
» RE: Irradiation? NO THANK YOU!!!!!
Posted by: finleyd
» It keeps because all the nutrients are destroyed with irradiation...
Posted by: Prophit0
» Farm eggs sure seem to keep longer, too
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 7, 2009 5:40 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To mass produce cow's milk on a large scale via factory farming, cows have to be kept continually pregnant, giving birth, and lactating. The cows are genetically bred to produce excess cow's milk for humans. Male cows (bulls) are useless to the dairy industry, so they become veal. By supporting the dairy industry, one indirectly supports cow killing.
Vegetarians do cause far less animal cruelty than meat-eaters, but a nonviolent philosophy would carry greater weight from vegans than from vegetarians.
The meat-eaters, especially, exactly, are ready to find fault with us in this regard: do we love all animals, or only some animals (e.g., cows) and not others? And if we really do love the cows, why do we contribute to their death and suffering just to drink their milk?
Can children be raised without cow's milk? YES! Half the world's population (blacks and Asians in particular) are lactose intolerant, and can't digest milk after infancy. Dr. Michael Klaper has written books on vegan nutrition, pregnancy, and childbirth.
One of the first books I read on the subject of vegetarianism while in college was A Vegetarian Sourcebook by Keith Akers (1983). Describing the environmental damage caused by raising animals for food: topsoil erosion, deforestization, loss of groundwater, etc. as well as the economic inefficiency and waste of energy and resources in raising animals for food in an age of exploding human population growth, Keith Akers foreshadowed John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987), which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
In A Vegetarian Sourcebook, Keith Akers writes:
"Using grasslands for livestock agriculture creates great environmental problems, which greatly limit its usefulness. Grazing systems require ten times more land than feedlot agriculture, in which animals are simply given feed grown on cropland. Grazing systems have to be extensive in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences of overgrazing—which renders a piece of land unsuitable for any purpose.
"Overgrazing and the consequent soil erosion are extremely serious problems worldwide. By the most conservative estimates, 60% of all U.S. rangelands are overgrazed, with billions of tons of soil lost each year. Overgrazing has also been the greatest cause of man-made deserts.
"Even if we grant grazing a role in a resource-efficient, ecologically stable agriculture, milk should be the end result, not beef. Milk provides over 50% of the protein and nearly four times the calories of beef, per unit of forage resources from grazing.
"'When only forage is available, then egg, broiler and pork production are eliminated and only milk, beef, and lamb production are viable systems,' state David and Marcia Pimentel, scientists and authors of Food, Energy and Society. "Of these three, milk production is the most efficient.'
"An ecologically stable, resource-efficient system of grazing animals for human food could not be anything faintly resembling today's livestock agriculture," concludes Akers. "It would be a smaller, decentralized, less intensive system of animal husbandry devoted to milk production."
This is what the Vedas say as well: an acre of land, a cow and a bull, and you're all set! The Vedas also warn that when a population is sinful, their land becomes a desert...and overgrazing does lead to topsoil erosion, which in turn leads to desertification. So it may be possible to have animal agriculture (devoted solely to milk production) on a small scale—like the Amish.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Why would the Vedas say to have a cow and a bull?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Why would the Vedas say to have a cow and a bull?
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE:"ox provides traction for 60 million small farmers whose land feeds 80 percent of the Indian..."
Posted by: bcgirl125
» RE: "ox provides traction for 60 million small farmers whose land feeds 80 percent of the Indian..."
Posted by: lenioui
» RE: "ox provides traction for 60 million small farmers whose land feeds 80 percent of the Indian..."
Posted by: lenioui
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rational_moderate on Nov 7, 2009 6:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or how about a licensing process for consumers? Once they somehow prove that they're really knowledgeable about the risks and willing to make the trade-off, they get a license to buy raw milk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When in doubt
Posted by: cdlepthien
» RE: Libertarian principles
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Libertarian principles forget that the government is us.
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dcande01 on Nov 7, 2009 7:43 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, for one, don't care whether dairy milk drinkers get sick. Let them. They've brought it on themselves. AND, whether pasteurized or not, they will get sick from their abuse of other animals.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nature is exploitative
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» Finally, one of you is really honest
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Nov 7, 2009 9:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What about your community?
Posted by: suprmark
» Many are doing what you are doing. You can never legislate....
Posted by: Prophit0
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cooltruth on Nov 7, 2009 9:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Probably because pasteurized keeps longer...
Posted by: luanetodd
» I was raised on a dairy farm...
Posted by: Cooltruth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wrusssr on Nov 7, 2009 2:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political Ponerology: Andrew M. Lobaczewski
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldengrain on Nov 7, 2009 3:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After moving to the city and drinking whatever dairy was sold locally for years I became desperate, going from one doctor to the next. Finally, I landed in the Atkins clinic, which diagnosed a really bad milk sensitivity. Often when a person becomes sensitive to one food and continues abusing it, other food reactions start to occur.
After not having ANY dairy, even cakes, for years I can finally have occasional cream in coffee and iced cream, etc.
I am not a member of the ethnic groups that are known to have reactions to dairy, but have discovered that even in the remaining population - those with no observable problem with dairy - they are not digesting calcium and other nutrients from the milk that they do drink.
Advertising aside, dairy is a very bad delivery system for adult nutrients. I drink unwsweetened soy milk and now love it more than I once did dairy.
I agree with the comment on tuberculosis. I remember that being the main reason for treating milk. That was an excellent post and made very much sense to me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ooo, watch the soy
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kiel on Nov 7, 2009 5:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ronniejw on Nov 7, 2009 9:18 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I guess it’s not so funny for the poor cows that are raped to get them pregnant only to have their baby’s taken away and forced into slavery or murdered. And then their poor little babies’ milk is stolen from them to be given to people that can’t tell the difference between a cow and a human.
Seems a bit crazy to me.
Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Only modern, disembodied people write such things. Tell it to the Greeks and Turks, etc.
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: akarr1953 on Nov 7, 2009 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PeaceLove on Nov 7, 2009 11:28 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In California, raw milk is still available at Whole Foods in the Bay Area, at least.
However, the article is hardly balanced, being an interview with a raw milk proponent. They say about 50 people a year get sick from raw milk. Is this a small number? Or, considering the extremely limited availability of raw milk, is that actually kind of high? If raw milk were more widely available, would those numbers go way up?
Gumpert also makes some serious health claims for raw milk. How many of those patients would be improved even more if they eliminated dairy from their diets entirely?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dstauff on Nov 8, 2009 3:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DG: There was a time during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when raw milk was pushed by some in the medical profession as nearly a cure-all for conditions ranging from arthritis to diabetes to gout. Today, there are extensive anecdotal tales of improved health from raw milk, such as relief from lactose intolerance. There is also research from Europe in the last few years indicating that children who drink raw milk have reduced rates of asthma and allergies.
"
TRANSLATION: There is no hard evidence of any health benefits of Raw Milk vs. Pasturized Milk. Just this Anecdotal Shit that I should be too embarased to even tell you...lololol
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thedevil666 on Nov 8, 2009 5:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NET1 on Nov 8, 2009 12:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adidas Shoes
Puma Shoes
cheap nike dunk
Air Jordan Fusions Shoes
Nike Shox
Chanel boots
LV boots
D&G Boots
UGG Boot
Gucci boots
brand boots
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Air Yeezy shoes
Posted by: Wendiego
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bill n on Nov 9, 2009 12:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JCampbell on Nov 9, 2009 10:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pasteurized vs. Raw Milk: Which One Is Healthier for You & Your Family?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Nov 9, 2009 12:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is ESSENTIAL that you find a farmer you can trust. Ensure that the cow is tested at least every six months for pathogens (such as tuberculosis).
Remember that the reason raw milk is illegal is that it is DANGEROUS when mass porduced. Pasteurization is a major reason that the TB epidemic of the last century was brought under control! This is not right-wing propaganda.
I was raised on raw milk on a family farm in Arkansas. I am now sliding into middle-age, and have bones like Gibralter. No osteoporosis in my family (the "iron" well water may have helped, too).
Raw milk is great for lots of reasons, but you REALLY better know your supplier. For this reason, I'm deeply skeptical about commercial production of raw milk -- even on organic farms.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: betsy99 on Nov 9, 2009 12:42 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 10, 2009 5:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 10, 2009 5:36 AM
Current rating: rated excellent
topless bars would not make any money exploiting you, Even topless dancers and all nude bars would struggle imagine that a gift from god and where charged for just the thought of you no wonder money is always hungry and men look at themselves' It seems they have to be charged
because the anti Christ law won't let you take off your clothing when it's even hot. No wonder people are fat and obese there just hiding who they are' With the way they wished they where with topless bars would not make any money exploiting you, Even topless dancers and all nude bars would struggle imagine that a gift from god and where charged for just the thought of you no wonder money is always hungry and men look at themselves' It seems they have to be charged
because the anti Christ law won't let you take off your clothing when it's even hot. No wonder people are fat and obese' There just hiding who they are' With the way they wished they where with clothes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




