Skip to main content

The public has been badly served by the media.  Government raids against farmers are not being covered and most particularly the connection between the raids and the vested corporate interests being served in eliminating these farmers is not looked into.  Independent farmers who are not using corporations as (unnecessary) middlemen are the only ones being attacked.

The article below was published first in Counterpunch in April of 2008, reporting on the second raid against a Pennsylvania dairy farmer.  Since then, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has raided this same man for a third time.  

The second two raids were led by a man who previously worked for Hersheys and Dean Foods, giant corporations with a vested interest in dairy farmers receiving little for their milk and in stopping the growing public move to NON-corporate, local, independent, straight to consumer sale of milk.  This man now works for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, raiding peaceful Amish and Mennonite dairy farmers, stealing their equipment and product, still helping Hersheys and Dean Food.

And what was the dairy farmer selling?  Unprocessed, plain milk, which the USDA is working state to state to make illegal by using "food safety' as the argument and treating this pure milk as a major threat to US public health.  This milk is the only food in the US being banned, while hamburger, tomatoes, spinach, and more foods have made people ill and even killed them, but those only fresh milk which people do out of their way to get aware of any dangers, is being criminalized across the country.

Yet the reality is that raw milk greatly supports local, sustainable agriculture and is produced in ways consistent with reducing global warming and is growing popularity as more and more people are learning that it is not dangerous and, in fact, especially healthy.  

It is rich in vitamin D which is crucial to health

http://www.westonaprice.org/...

but which the industry removes and substitutes with a synthetic that doesn't work.

http://www.ajcn.org/...

Raw milk is also rich in bacteria that Yale University has shown to be protective against type 1 diabetes.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/...

The findings, reported in the journal Nature, support the so-called “hygiene hypothesis” – the theory that a lack of exposure to parasites, bacteria and viruses in the developed world may lead to increased risk of diseases like allergies, asthma, and other disorders of the immune system. The results also suggest that exposure to some forms of bacteria might actually help prevent onset of Type I diabetes, an autoimmune disease in which the patient’s immune system launches an attack on cells in the pancreas that produce insulin.

The root causes of autoimmune disease have been the subject of intensive investigation by scientists around the world.

In the past decade, it has become evident that the environment plays a role in the development of some overly robust immune system responses. For instance, people in less-developed parts of the world have a low rate of allergy, but when they move to developed countries the rate increases dramatically. Scientists have also noted the same phenomenon in their labs. Non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice develop the disease at different rates after natural breeding, depending upon the environment where they are kept. Previous research has shown that NOD mice exposed to killed (i.e., non-active) strains of tuberculosis or other disease-causing bacteria are protected against the development of Type I diabetes. This suggests that the rapid “innate” immune response that normally protects us from infections can influence the onset of Type 1 diabetes.

In the Nature paper, teams led by Li Wen at Yale and Alexander V. Chervonsky at the University of Chicago showed that NOD mice deficient in innate immunity were protected from diabetes in normal conditions. However, if they were raised in a germ-free environment, lacking “friendly” gut bacteria, the mice developed severe diabetes. NOD mice exposed to harmless bacteria normally found in the human intestine were significantly less likely to develop diabetes, they reported.

These bacteria are absent in corporate milk because they are killed through pasteurization. though corporations retain or extract some bacteria and then sell it separately as a "special" aid to digestion under the corporately-invented high-falutin name of "L-casei immunitas."

Welcome to

The Criminalization of Raw Milk

A Mennonite Farmer is Hauled Away

Jonas Stoltzfus, a friend, fellow farmer, and Church of the Brethen, was asked by Mr. Nolt to speak for him, and said of the raid yesterday - "Six state troopers and a man with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture trespassed onto his property, and stole $20-25,000 of his product and equipment."  

Mr. Stoltzfus explained that Mr. Nolt did not have a permit because "he chose to turn his permit back in because it did not cover all the products he was selling.  He felt he was being dishonest selling stuff that was not covered by the permit.  He is a man of great integrity."  

"According to reports from neighbors and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, several officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture participated in the raid, and while Mark was being transported by police car to the courthouse, PDA officials confiscated $20,000 to $25,000 worth of dairy products and production equipment. Neighbors reported the farm had been closed and that a large group of officials had gathered, with videos prohibited."

"Mr. Nolt was told that people had gotten sick from eating his food, but no one ever came forward and no proof was ever offered."

"This is a Gestapo raid," Jonas Stotlzfus said, "complete with state troopers, raiding a hard-working farmer selling milk to friends and customers.  And his customers ARE his friends."  Mr. Nolt

Mr. Stoltzfus said of Mr. Nolt, "he is not going to stop [selling raw milk] til he is ready to stop.  He is the equivalent of that little black lady in Alabama who wouldn't go to the back of the bus.  He is doing the same thing, he won't go to the back of bus."  Mr. Stoltzfus said "she got arrested for that and so did Mr. Nolt.  He ignored [the threat] and kept on selling.  He is a courageous man."  Mr. Stoltzfuz said "Mark believes it is his right to sell, according to the constitution, just like it was Rosa Park's right to sit wherever she wanted on the bus.  Same deal.  There is nothing in the constitution to prevent Mr. Nolt from buying and selling, especially to his friends," Mr. Stoltzfus said.  

Stoltzfus commented that Mr Chirdon of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture used to work for Dean Foods and Hershey Foods, big corporate operations, and that Chirdon was "jealous that farmers make a better product" and called the raid by Mr. Chirdon "a vendetta."

This case is similar to that involving Meadowsweet Dairy LLC in New York, in that both Pennsylvania and New York allow raw milk sales, but adamantly oppose the sale of other raw dairy products.

Mr. Nolt was doing things the way his community has for generations, selling milk straight from his cows to those he knows.  

Mr. Nolt contends that the regulations have not been approved by the legislature and shouldn't apply to him because he is selling directly to consumers, via private contracts that are outside the purview of the state, making a privilege out of a right he believes he has - the right to private contracts.”

The permitting issue, ostensibly for food safety, is contradicted by a look both at raw milk itself and at its competition, corporate milk - pasteurized and often from cows injected with rBGH.  

Four issues stand out:

1. INDEPENDENCE of farmer and customers [better known as "freedom"]

Raw milk:  Farmer sell raw milk from their own cows, to neighbors and friends at a price farmers set themselves, paid by people who value their product, without a middleman.  

A growing number of people prefer raw milk (unpasteurized milk), considering it not only safe but healthier than pasteurized milk because it is still rich in pro-biotics not killed off by pasteurization. l

Farming communities have consumed raw milk for generations.  The exchange between farmers and neighbors play a central part in the web of relations sustaining those communities.  Yet raw milk is banned in many states.

Corporate milk:  Dairy farmers sell their milk to milk "producers" who pasteurize it, may add things to it, bottle it, distribute it, often at great distances.  Dairy farmers must accept a price set by others, in a large competitive market.  Nothing in the process promotes local farming communities.

"...The system of influence and control..is highly skewed in favor of the corporate and financial system." - Vincente Navarro, (Professor of Health and Social Policy, John Hopkins U.).

2. HEALTH

Raw milk:

"[For years, m]illions [in California] consumed commercial raw milk, ... not a single incidence was reported. During the same period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized milk, some of which resulted in death.  [I]f we withdrew ... every food type responsible for a case of food poisoning, there would be virtually nothing left to eat. But only raw milk has been singled out for general removal from the food supply.

"... the bacteria in raw milk is the healthy bacteria of lactic-acid fermentation while the bacteria in pasteurized milk is the bacteria of spoilage. ... Both raw and pasteurized milk contain E. coli, normally a benign microorganism. The most likely source of the new strains of virulent E. coli is genetically engineered soy, fed to cows in large commercial dairies. If there is any type of milk likely to harbor these virulent breeds, it is commercial pasteurized milk. ... Children fed raw milk have more resistance to TB, scurvy, flu, diphtheria, pneumonia, asthma, allergic skin problems and tooth decay. In addition, their growth and calcium absorption was superior."   (In California, there is currently an effort to ban raw milk.

"Four distinct groups of bacteria survive pasteurization....the strep of pasteurized milk are the most frequent cause of rheumatic fever --the most deadly disease of childhood.'" - USDA

Corporate milk:

During the Clinton administration, a new study was released "conclud[ing] that milk from cows injected with [genetically engineered bovine growth hormone - rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in humans.  
....
"rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered," warned Samuel Epstein M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine .... "The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for.  Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?"

Since 1986, independent scientists have expressed concern about the lack of research on rBGH milk.

Michael Colby, Executive Director of Food and Water said, "Monsanto 's claims that rBGH is perfectly safe have been proven dead wrong today .... Only Monsanto is benefiting from this drug.  It's time for dairy companies to side with consumers by adopting a policy that they will not allow rBGH, under any circumstances, to be used by their farmers."

Epstein said:  "The entire nation is currently being subjected to a large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterized and unlabeled biotechnology product which is very different than natural milk."

In 2007 - when Mark Nolt was first arrested for selling raw milk (natural milk) -  a citizens' petition to the FDA on rBGH milk showed 30 scientific journals indicating an up-to-7-fold increased risk of breast cancer, and an increased risk of colon and prostate cancern.

3.  PROMOTION

Raw milk is sold primarily through word of mouth [and often underground because of the repression of the USDA].  

Corporate milk is promoted through large, expensive ad campaigns.  

The California Milk Processor Board is now targeting teens:

"Goodby, Silverstein and Partners created a page on MySpace to promote White Gold and the Calcium Twins, a team of new fictitious characters turned rock stars who spread their love of and devotion to milk through music. TV spots, print ads and PR will also support the promotion.

"The Milk Processor Education Program ... is funded by the nation's milk processors ... committed to increasing fluid milk consumption." http://www.thinkaboutyourdrink.com.

4. LABELIING

Raw milk is just milk.  Those who buy it know that and seek it out for that reason.

On the corporate side, Monsanto continues pushing bans on labeling rBGH-milk.  Customers usually do not know they are consuming rBGH milk.

During its approval process,

"FDA scientist, Dr Richard Burroughs concluded ...  Monsanto was manipulating the [test] figures. In 1989 he was sacked after complaining to Congress ... To deal with the ... controversy Monsanto assembled ...PR companies ... of which [BURSON-MARSTELLER] was one."  

During the Clinton administration,  Monsanto employees were appointed to run the FDA.  Monsanto's rBGH - the first genetically engineered product ever, was approved.

"[In]1994, people at the FDA [wrote] an anonymous letter to ... Congress, [fearing] retribution ... The basis of our concern is that Dr. Margaret Miller ... wrote the FDA's opinion on why milk from [rbGH]-treated cows should not be labeled. However, before coming to the FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller was working for the Monsanto company as a researcher on [rbGH].”  

In 1996, there was a press conference on rBGH's medical risks.  "Given the potential health impacts of consumption of milk and other dairy products derived from rBGH treated cows, all such products at a minimum be labeled so that consumers are aware of what they are purchasing and consuming. More prudently the FDA approval of rBGH should be withdrawn until the agency performs adequate long term testing ..."

"... Wisconsin, Minnesota, California and Vermont attempted to enforce labelling of milk produced with, and containing, this hormone. Their efforts were thwarted by Burson-Marsteller acting on behalf of these companies."

Burson-Marsteller has been a long-term (now campaign) advisor to Hillary Clinton, through its CEO, Mark Penn.  And Monsanto's effort to ban labeling of the milk continues today.  

Banning of labeling of rBGH milk in effect puts millions of Americans into a human experiment with genetic engineering, exposing them to greatly increased risk of cancers.  The Nuremberg Code makes clear that experimental subjects must give informed consent.

Mr. Stoltzfus added up losses for Mark Nolt:  "Trepass on private property, private personal merchandise stolen, being deprived of a significant amount of hard work he and his family put together.  He is being deprived of the opportunity to market his product now, they are throwing it away.  It's a shame."

Mr. Nolt did not have a permit.  He has twice lost thousands of dollars of work or material, and faces jail.  

Monsanto sells rBGH-milk associated with cancers, Clinton hired Monsanto employees which approved their own genetically engineered product, Hillary Clinton has been silent up to today about the risk rBGH poses to women, PR firms strongly push the milk on all ages.  None face jail or fines for altered facts, for PR campaigns encouraging even children to drink rBGH-milk, or for banning labeling of it, which has put the entire US population at medical risk for years.  Monsanto, the Clintons, Burson-Marsteller and Goodby, Silverstein and Partners are all making millions.

Mr. Nolt, released after being taken off by state troopers, refused to accept a ride from them.  He started walking.  Friends gave him a lift home.

Take action -Contact your local newspaper and Congress to demand laws to allowing unlimited freedom for US farmers to produce and sell fresh milk and for US citizens in every state in the country to buy and drink fresh milk.

Originally posted to Scaredhuman on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:11 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  When I was a kid my grandpa was the guy that (8+ / 0-)

      picked up the milk at the farm and took it to the creamery.  I loved the taste of the cold milk just after we mixed it up and put in our samples and got ready to put the milk in the truck to move. Wonderful stuff.

      (-7.0, -6.4) "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson

      by NearlyNormal on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The real cream at the top? Delicious! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mint julep, jimreyn, NearlyNormal

        We used to get it delivered in glass bottles. I swear it tastes better, it's about a half a day from the cow.

        •  Join us in making this a civil rights movement (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mint julep, marina, jimreyn

          for farmers and for our access to organic, pure, real food.  

          NAIS - the National Animal Identification System - http://74.125.47.132/...

          is now under Homeland Security laws,

          Monsanto democracy preemption laws are removing rights to decide what happens on farms across the country,
          http://environmentalcommons.org/...
          seed cleaning laws,
          http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/...
          are already in place to destroy it all.  

          and Canada's Bill C-51 is threatening us.  It will criminalize all natural substances and that will include seed banking and seed collection and our use of seeds.
          articles.mercola.com/.../archive/2008/06/ 19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx?source=nl

          From Say NO to NAIS wrote on Jan 25, 2006 2:24 PM
          http://www.tristateneighbor.com/...

          The Patriot Act brought the USDA under the umbrella of Homeland Security. Now besides Congress making our laws, as they are supposed to do as representatives of the citizens of the USA, we have USDA creating laws, as well. The USDA using power given to it under Homeland Security, and an initial 33 BILLION dollars is, in fact, usurping power, that was by the Constitution, given to the people, and to those that we elect to represent us in Congress. It is very important to protect our constitution, our Congress, and our Bill of Rights. We did not elect the USDA. All of the following has come about under the Patriot Act; 1.) The whole vast pet/animal/agriculture husbandry industry, that tis nation's economy is based upon, is under attack by our own government. 2.) Homeland Security, as U.S. Customs took part in a raid on a Louisiana dog breeder, 3.) creation of NAIS/NAID/USAIP the invasion of government into the bodies of our animals through mandatory microchipping, and overweaning reporting. 4.) there have been warrantless seizures of medical records, 5.) citizens arrested because they have refused to identify themselves, and many more civil rights violations. 6.) Congress's powers to make laws have been given to a bureaucrocacy, the USDA, thus removing power from the people 7.)Soon every animal, fish, bird, gerbil, dog, cat goat, horse, ox, reptile, every privately held animal will be mandated to be microchipped by the USDA, under the Patriot Act /Homeland Security. I go not want the government in my home, or in my animal. The government has no vested interest in our animals, but it will, and also in our premises. We will all have to obtain USDA Premises ID's in order to be able to show, take our animals to the vet, go for a trail ride, etc. When our animal is taken off our premises we must make a full report as to any or all other animals that our animal has come in contact, or proximity with. We need to stop this from happening! Nicole, a 4-H mom in Nebraska.

        •  Yes. (6+ / 0-)

          My grandmother churned milk from her own cow for buttermilk and butter.  Commercial buttermilk simply is not buttermilk - it's milk with vinegar stirred into it, or something.

          It's criminal to criminalize this great pleasure of fresh milk.

          •  Another grandma story (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mint julep, jabney, willb48

            During the war, grandpa was a brakeman for the railroad shuttling freightcars around industrial sidings on the outskirts of the city.

            Now, a) being during the war, butter rationing was in effect; b) sometimes emptied out milkcars would have a thick layer of cream left hanging near the top; and c) a rear brakeman spends a lot of time just sitting in the caboose between the throwing of the switches and such.

            So they got a butterchurn for the caboose.

            One time, grandma says to a workmate, Say, I think I could get a little extra butter. Would you like some?

            And the workmate would have thought, An extra quarter or half pound of butter? Why, that would be wonderful.

            So the next day, grandma brings her in something like twenty pounds.
             

      •  That's a great memory and history. Hope you'll (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mint julep, NearlyNormal

        join us in fighting this out of respect for your grandpa.

        We are planning to hold human rights events to fit into Amnesty's 100 days of human rights after the inauguration, bringing farming and access to pure food into their true frame - the human right to survive.  

        Go here

        http://www.amnestyusa.org/...

        and  sign on and let them know you don't need material on torture because you'll be joining farming groups around the country in talking about NAIS and 24 hour spying on every farmer in the country and Homeland Security regulations that allow for warrantless searches and seizures and NO DUE PROCESS before kill-offs of animal stocks and destruction of crops and more.  

        If Mark Nolt = Rosa Parks

        then

        what is happening to farming = a new civil rights movement.

        This one is about food and survival itself, so this time it involves us all.  

        Thank you for writing.

      •  I grew up on raw milk. 62 years later, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mint julep

        I'm still here. Stuff sold in the stores today is insipid.

        About bacteria, when I travel to the Middle East or Subcontinent, I start on day one by eating or drinking small quantities of local yogurt or milk. I ramp up the quantity as I go along. I rarely have problems from the food and have even gotten away with having to drink unfiltered water in a pinch.

        "Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it." ML King

        by TheWesternSun on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:12:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is a great recommendation for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheWesternSun

          handling travel.  Thank you.  

          And I am grateful for your comment about drinking raw milk.  I think for those who are grew up being told to be afraid of it, they need to hear a lot of people like you.

          It is impossible to describe the huge difference in taste and texture to someone used to drinking pasteurized, homogenized milk.

    •  Gosh, how did humans survive (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep, allep10

      for millennia before the gov't was there to protect our food?  God forbid that someone should get food from someplace other than a supermarket.

      don't always believe what you think...

      by claude on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:21:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Geez, I know and have gotten (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Halcyon, jimreyn, bluebuckaroo

      food from this farmer.  It is truly scary how agribusiness has gotten the govt to do its bidding.  I have been doing raw dairy with myself and my kids for over five years now.  I have had no problem with my food sources even as spinach has been killing kids and hamburger gets recalled all the time.  I sure would like to see the Constitution restored.  Frankly I don't know what business it is of government to choose what I eat.

    •  Raw milk is, yeah. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep, Void Indigo

      Imagine the reaction if it were legal and someone got sick from it.  The nanny-staters would be livid.

      At any rate, there's a weird underworld of raw milk drinkers.  You can probably find them if you're motivated.

      We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

      by burrow owl on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who gets sick from milk? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leo in NJ

        "The president was writing checks to the Georgians without knowing what he had in the bank," said a senior administration official.

        by perro amarillo on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:25:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pasteurization kills bacteria. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marykk, Rich in PA

          You should be able to work backwards to the legal history and animating concerns.

          We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

          by burrow owl on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:29:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It used to be a real problem (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, ER Doc, marykk, Rich in PA, Jane Lew

          and pasteurization has saved coutless lives.

          I'm not an expert, but IIRC, one disease you could get from raw milk was tuberculosis.

          •  We have antibiotics now & better vet med. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mint julep, antirove, ER Doc, FreeStateDem

            As the diarist wrote California allowed raw milk for years without problems.

            Milk pasteurization is necessary for agribusiness milk because they can cut corners then rely on pasteurization to protect them.

            "It's the planet, stupid."

            by FishOutofWater on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:03:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you and yes, pasteurization covers up (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mint julep, FishOutofWater

              industrial methods (which created the problems originally).  It also, as with the USDA not pushing the pasteurization of almonds, sets barriers that make small farmers captive to industry.

              http://www.organicconsumers.org/...

            •  Part of the problem is, massive doses of the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mint julep

              antibiotics are injected into the cows daily, so the milk that comes out of the cow is hardly pure anymore, as their food source is so compromised.

              •  I left that off. Thank you. Yes, and the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mint julep

                antibiotics go through into the milk.  

                I also feel terrible for the cows, living on concrete which is hard on their legs and in giant barns, rather than on grass, and fed grains which are not their natural diet and those filled with hormones having painful udders infected with mastitis and then dying young.  They kill them so young that if they are infected with Mad Cow, the dairy farmer has had no chance to see the symptoms express themselves, and the cows go into the food chain anyway.  With normal cows, the farmer can see something is wrong and pull the cow out.

                Thank you for your point about the conditions for the cows.

          •  Tuberculosis. (6+ / 0-)

            ... [C]ompelling evidence of the superiority of raw milk appeared in The Lancet in 1937, in a report on the work of the medical officer to a group of orphanages. The physician gave pasteurized milk for five years to one group of 750 boys, while giving raw milk to another group of 750. All other conditions were alike except for this one item. During that period, 14 cases of tuberculosis occurred in the boys fed pasteurized milk, while only one occurred in those fed raw milk. The article also discusses the dental health of the children brought up on raw milk: “Dr. Evelyn Sprawson of the London Hospital has recently stated that in certain institutions children who were brought up on raw milk (as opposed to pasteurized milk) had perfect teeth and no decay. The result is so striking and unusual that it will undoubtedly be made the subject of further inquiry.”[xiii] [xiv] Instead, the report has been conveniently forgotten.

            http://www.drrons.com/...

        •  Babies used to die from milk when (4+ / 0-)

          producers watered the milk down and when cows were raised and fed under terrible conditions in cities.  

          Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk do poorly and many die before maturity. Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid; processors must remove slime and pus from pasteurized milk by a process of centrifugal clarification. Inspection of dairy herds for disease is not required for pasteurized milk. Pasteurization was instituted in the 1920s to combat TB, infant diarrhea, undulant fever and other diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. But times have changed and modern stainless steel tanks, milking machines, refrigerated trucks and inspection methods make pasteurization absolutely unnecessary for public protection. And pasteurization does not always kill the bacteria for Johne’s disease suspected of causing Crohn's disease in humans with which most confinement cows are infected. Much commercial milk is now ultra-pasteurized to get rid of heat-resistant bacteria and give it a longer shelf life. Ultra-pasteurization is a violent process that takes milk from a chilled temperature to above the boiling point in less than two seconds. Clean raw milk from certified healthy cows is available commercially in several states and may be bought directly from the farm in many more.

          (Sources are listed on http://www.realmilk.com.)

          Distillery Dairies, Pasteurization, Certified Raw Milk and the Milk Cure

          “Raw milk cures many diseases.” [viii] - J.E. Crewe, MD, The Mayo Foundation, January, 1929

          The War of 1812 with England resulted in the permanent cutting off of the whiskey supply America procured from the British West Indies. As a result, the domestic liquor industry was born, and by 1814, grain distilleries began to spring up in the cities as well as the country. Distillery owners then began housing cows next to the distilleries and feeding hot slop, the waste product of whiskey making, directly to the animals as it poured off the stills. Thus was born the slop or swill milk system.

                     Slop is of little value in fattening cattle; it is unnatural food for them, and makes them diseased and emaciated. But when slop was plentifully supplied, cows yielded an abundance of milk. Diseased cows were milked in an unsanitary manner. The individuals doing the milking were often dirty, sick or both. Milk pails and other equipment were usually dirty. Such milk sometimes led to disease. By the last decade of the nineteenth century, a growing number of influential people throughout the country believed that American cities had a milk problem.

                     Pasteurization, begun around 1900, was a solution of sorts. The other was the certified raw milk movement, which insisted on clean, fresh milk from healthy, grassfed animals. Henry Coit, a medical doctor, was the founder of the first Medical Milk Commission and the certified milk movement. Physicians in cities throughout the country considered raw milk essential in the treatment of their patients; they worked together to certify dairies for the production of clean raw milk. This resulted in the availability of safe raw milk from regulated dairies. Initially, from around 1890 to 1910, the movements for certified raw milk and pasteurization coexisted and in many ways even complemented one another. From about 1910 until the 1940s, an uneasy truce existed. Certified raw milk was available for those who wanted it, while the influence of the pasteurization lobby saw to it that most states and municipalities adopted regulations that required all milk other than certified milk be pasteurized. The end of this truce (detailed below)has led to the subsequent outlawing of all retail sales of raw milk in most states and even of on-farm sales in many.

                     Many people today find it surprising that support of raw milk among physicians was widespread in the first half of the twentieth century. The use of raw milk as a treatment of chronic disease has a rich and well-documented history. In 1929, J. E. Crewe, MD, one of the founders of the Mayo Foundation, the forerunner of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, published an article entitled “Raw Milk Cures Many Diseases.” Here are excerpts from Dr. Crewe’s account of his experience with raw milk:

                     “For fifteen years the writer has employed the certified milk treatment in various diseases and during the past ten he had a small sanitarium devoted principally to this treatment. The results obtained in various types of disease have been so uniformly excellent that one’s conception of disease and its alleviation is necessarily changed.”

          http://www.drrons.com/...

      •  "nanny-state" always sets me on edge.. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Albatross, ER Doc, Norbrook

        The nanny-staters would be livid.

        Food safety standards. Yet another fascist attack against our freedoms!

        •  In this case it's appropriate. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, FishOutofWater, JeffW

          That some states ban raw milk is absurd.

          We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

          by burrow owl on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:30:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't disagree (7+ / 0-)

            I drink raw milk myself. But I think it's important to remember that pasteurization has saved thousands of lives and that any return to the general availability of raw-milk ought to be accompanied by tightly regulated food safety standards including regular farm inspections, random testing, and extensive labeling.

            •  Which is is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Foxwizard

              There are very, very few licensed raw milk producers.  They are required to undergo regular testing of their cows (or goats), pass stringent safety standards, etc.  It's very, very tough to keep it going, and any single violation puts you out.  

              Now, in this case, it looks like the farmer in question was simply milking his cows and then selling the milk as-is.  Yes, that is a violation of the public health laws in most states.  

              I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

              by Norbrook on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, the milk is tested. The issue was (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mint julep, Halcyon

                his refusing to get a permit because he believes he does not need a permit to do what the constitution allows him.  

                Those who fear government (and I have become one in watching what is happening to farmers and my access to food, as well as on the health substances and what is happening to alternative health practitioners) believe "permits" are a serious threat to freedom and the logical extension I see is to our needing permits to have children, to feed them what we choose, etc.  

                There are fundamental freedoms involved here and to use "food safety" or any other government control as a means of denying a basic freedom is no different from using the incessant threat of "terrorism" to hand over our liberties and constitutional rights.  "Food safey" is controlled by corporations which promoted bottle feeding over nursing, pushed Vioxx for years, still allows people to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol though both are known to kill.  

                There is a very clear monetary logic here.  The melamine story is the clearest recent example of how this works.  The FDA is protective of corporations over the public every time they are in conflict.
                http://www.naturalnews.com/...

                •  Riiight. Sure (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ahianne, Pd

                  Let me make this clear to you.  You have just demonstrated that you disagree with the entire series of food and drug laws that have ever been passed, but you want them applied elsewhere.   On one hand you're screaming about "corporations" while totally ignoring that those same corporations control most of the organic production in this country, and the lack of safety, while on the other you're claiming safety rules are not needed, and personal choice is dandy.  

                  That's fine.  You can go buy your own cow or goat, and produce your own milk for your personal consumption.  You're allowed to do that. What you are not allowed to do is to sell it to someone else.   You also seem to feel that liability laws don't apply.  They do.  You sell raw milk to someone in violation of those laws, and they get sick - you know what?  You're liable.  In fact, you're criminally liable.   How do I know that?  Because it's happened.  

                  I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

                  by Norbrook on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 07:29:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A couple of responses to what you said. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mint julep

                    "Let me make this clear to you.  You have just demonstrated that you disagree with the entire series of food and drug laws that have ever been passed,"

                    You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

                    "but you want them applied elsewhere."

                    I think the industrial food system is scary and unregulated in the sense of not being inspected or held accountable while the independent and small producers are being regulated into extinction by corporations which are pushing the FDA and USDA to do this.

                    "On one hand you're screaming"

                    I haven't been screaming but giving one link after another with no vituperation, even.

                    "about "corporations"

                    Yes, I do believe and most people know that the FDA and USDA are controlled by corporations and not working for our benefit or that of our non-corporate farmers.

                    "while totally ignoring that those same corporations control most of the organic production in this country,"

                    You are right but I have been consistently talking abut NON-corporate farmers and making the distinction there, not at the organic level which can be corporate and which I dislike.

                    "and the lack of safety,"

                    Whose lack of safety do you mean?

                    "while on the other you're claiming safety rules are not needed,"

                    I've said repeatedly that testing is good and farmers want it.  That is the safety as is heating the milk briefly if there is any concern.

                    "and personal choice is dandy."

                    No, personal choice if not dandy, it's a constitutional right and this is a civil rights issue not a food safety one.  People have a right to farm and to sell what they produce to others and those others have an absolute right to choose food that they consider more healthy for themselves and their family.  This is a discrimination issue in which multinational corporations are the George Wallace blocking the door, not to education for little black kids, but to access to normal and natural and unprocessed food for an entire population.

                    "That's fine.  You can go buy your own cow or goat, and produce your own milk for your personal consumption.  You're allowed to do that."

                    No, NAIS is going to make that impossible.

                    "What you are not allowed to do is to sell it to someone else."

                    Based on what?  Poor science?  The banning of the most central food in the human diet because corporations have a stake in doing that?  I have a human right to buy that from others and if I produce it, to provide it to others.

                    "You also seem to feel that liability laws don't apply.  They do.

                    I believe that liability is important.  Farmers like it.  They consider that very fair versus what the government is doing with fake lab results they then retract out wrecking someone's business.    

                    "You sell raw milk to someone in violation of those laws,"

                    No, if I sell raw milk and it makes someone ill, I am accountable.  Liability laws should not stop the selling itself but hold people accountable for actual harm.  

                    "and they get sick - you know what?  You're liable.  Yes, if someone gets sick and I didn't warn them to heat the milk because there was a poor lab test, then yes.  But you are making a deal over something that can be remedied in 5 minutes.

                    "In fact, you're criminally liable."  That is what needs to be changed.  There is nothing criminal about selling milk but civil costs if someone is hurt is a way of ensuring good standards.

                    "How do I know that?  Because it's happened."  

            •  Farmers would be fine with that. They are fine (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mint julep, Halcyon, jimreyn, JeffW

              with testing and like labeling (Monsanto doesn't like it for rBGH milk so most Americans don't know their milk comes from cows where there is often pus in the milk and it is associated with breast, colon and prostate cancer).  

              Farmers believe that what keeps food safe in a local community is knowing the farmer and if someone becomes ill, farmers can be sued by customers.

              Pasteurization may have saved lives during the period when milk was being watered down and cows raised under terrible and industrial conditions.  

              I'm going to repeat a comment from above because the history of pasteurization is one people need to know, as well as the Mayo Clinic routinely using raw milk as a cure for a number of diseases.

              The War of 1812 with England resulted in the permanent cutting off of the whiskey supply America procured from the British West Indies. As a result, the domestic liquor industry was born, and by 1814, grain distilleries began to spring up in the cities as well as the country. Distillery owners then began housing cows next to the distilleries and feeding hot slop, the waste product of whiskey making, directly to the animals as it poured off the stills. Thus was born the slop or swill milk system.

                         Slop is of little value in fattening cattle; it is unnatural food for them, and makes them diseased and emaciated. But when slop was plentifully supplied, cows yielded an abundance of milk. Diseased cows were milked in an unsanitary manner. The individuals doing the milking were often dirty, sick or both. Milk pails and other equipment were usually dirty. Such milk sometimes led to disease. By the last decade of the nineteenth century, a growing number of influential people throughout the country believed that American cities had a milk problem.

                         Pasteurization, begun around 1900, was a solution of sorts. The other was the certified raw milk movement, which insisted on clean, fresh milk from healthy, grassfed animals. Henry Coit, a medical doctor, was the founder of the first Medical Milk Commission and the certified milk movement. Physicians in cities throughout the country considered raw milk essential in the treatment of their patients; they worked together to certify dairies for the production of clean raw milk. This resulted in the availability of safe raw milk from regulated dairies. Initially, from around 1890 to 1910, the movements for certified raw milk and pasteurization coexisted and in many ways even complemented one another. From about 1910 until the 1940s, an uneasy truce existed. Certified raw milk was available for those who wanted it, while the influence of the pasteurization lobby saw to it that most states and municipalities adopted regulations that required all milk other than certified milk be pasteurized. The end of this truce (detailed below)has led to the subsequent outlawing of all retail sales of raw milk in most states and even of on-farm sales in many.

                         Many people today find it surprising that support of raw milk among physicians was widespread in the first half of the twentieth century. The use of raw milk as a treatment of chronic disease has a rich and well-documented history. In 1929, J. E. Crewe, MD, one of the founders of the Mayo Foundation, the forerunner of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, published an article entitled “Raw Milk Cures Many Diseases.” Here are excerpts from Dr. Crewe’s account of his experience with raw milk:

                         “For fifteen years the writer has employed the certified milk treatment in various diseases and during the past ten he had a small sanitarium devoted principally to this treatment. The results obtained in various types of disease have been so uniformly excellent that one’s conception of disease and its alleviation is necessarily changed.”

              http://www.drrons.com/...

              Farmers need to be protected by a public that isn't fed lies by the government, just as much as the Iraqis need to be.  Lies are convenient for industry to wipe out its small "betters."

          •  How is it appropriate? Because of licenses? (5+ / 0-)

            No licenses are required to sell tomatoes and other things sold directly to customers.  You don't need a license for a bake sale or to give food to your friends.  The people who buy raw milk have made a private contract with the farmer.  

            And I assume you are aware of how these licenses are being used to flush out where the farmers are to then raid them on some other basis, or that the Pennsylvanian Department of Agriculture is accusing farmers of having milk with salmonella but independent labs do not agree, yet the farmers are closed down for weeks, their businesses collapsing, their customers driven off, to have the PDA come back later and say the dairy is cleared.  This is happening repeatedly.  

            Meanwhile, customers trust these dairymen, are willing to buy the milk regardless, and ALWAYS have the alternative (never mentioned by the PDA or suggested to the public) to simply heat the milk for 5 minutes to kill any salmonella or other problems the PDA is claiming is an issue.  

        •  One need only look at how the FDA and USDA (5+ / 0-)

          behave around food safety to realize this has nothing to do with safety.

          Look only at what happened to cherry growers once they found out that cherries are potentially 10 times stronger than aspirin and ibubrofen in controlling pain so could save us from 7000 to 8000 deaths a year or 80,000 hospitalizations that go along with the NSAIDs.  

          Actually, this article shows the deaths are considerably higher:
          http://www.cpmission.com/...

          "It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in the United States. This figure is similar to the number of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and considerably greater than the number of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical cancer, or Hodgkin's disease.

          If deaths from gastrointestinal toxic effects of NSAIDs were tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most common cause of death in the United States. Yet these toxic effects remain largely a "silent epidemic," with many physicians and most patients unaware of the magnitude of the problem.12 Furthermore, the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDs."

          The URL for the full text is below. content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/340/24/1888 (www is not part of the URL)

          So how did the FDA and its pharmaceutical friends greet this wonderful news?
          http://www.lef.org/...

          If the state is a nanny, it's a deadly one.  

          I agree with your assessment.

          Thanks for writing.

      •  Are you aware that during the same period when (5+ / 0-)

        raw milk was sold in California for years, there was no one incident of illness but there were illnesses and even deaths for pasteurized milk.

        If we banned foods that ever made anyone sick, there would be no food left.  This is not about food safety, and the FDA proves so beautifully with its behavior around melamine.

        http://www.naturalnews.com/...

      •  There is nothing weird about us (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brooklyn137

        Maybe you should educate yourself about how much shit and pus is allowed in pasteurized milk under USDA regulations.  They count on the pasteurization to clean up their crappy product.  I will take raw milk from a grass fed cow any day over Frankenmilk.   People get sick from pasteurized dairy often enough as well. So you still take a risk and your milk is less nutritionally valuable as well.

        •  Thank you. And good point about people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mint julep

          getting sick from pasteurized milk as well but not finding the same nutritional value even when it is safe.

          Truth and Lies About Raw Milk

          “The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend.” – Benjamin Disraeli, English statesman and social reformer

          At the end of World War II, 3.7 million of America’s 5.4 million farms had milk cows.  Most still sold raw milk directly to neighbors and through local distribution channels, a situation that would change drastically under relentless official pressure for compulsory pasteurization of all milk. A series of articles in popular magazines in 1944, 1945 and 1946 served to frighten the public into support of these efforts. A side effect of this movement was the demise of America’s small farms.

                     Ladies’ Home Journal began the campaign with the article “Undulant Fever,” claiming - without any accurate documentation - that tens of thousands of people in the US were suffered from fever and illness because of exposure to raw milk.[xxi] The next year, Coronet magazine followed up with “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” by Robert Harris, MD.[xxii] The outright lies in this article were then repeated in similar articles that appeared in The Progressive[xxiii] and The Reader’s Digest[xxiv] the following year.

                     The author of the Coronet article represented as fact a town and an epidemic that was entirely fictitious:

          “Crossroads, U.S.A., is in one of those states in the Midwest area called the bread basket and milk bowl of America….What happened to Crossroads might happen to your town - to your city - might happen almost anywhere in America.” The author then gives a lurid account of a frightful epidemic of undulant fever allegedly caused by raw milk, an epidemic which “spread rapidly…it struck one out of every four persons in Crossroads. Despite the efforts of the two doctors and the State health department, one out of every four patients died.”

          But there was no Crossroads, and no epidemic! Author Harris admitted this in a subsequent interview with J. Howard Brown of Johns Hopkins University.[xxv] The outbreak was fictitious and represented no actual occurrence. Harris’ own public statements both before and after the Coronet article show that not only was the article a complete fiction, but that he knew that such a thing could not possibly happen. In an article he wrote in 1941, Harris stated: “Mortality in acute cases of undulant fever was formerly about two percent, but this has been greatly lowered by modern methods.” [xxvi] In a 1946 paper he read before the Maine Veterinary Medical Association in Portland in 1946, he stated, “The small proportion of deaths from acute illness, varying from two to three percent, rarely higher, can be made almost, if not quite zero.” [xxvii]

          Official statistics of the US Public Health Service, which compiles such information on a nationwide basis, show the possible extent of any undulant fever problems associated with raw milk in the years prior to the Harris article. In the years from 1923 through 1944, there were recorded in the entire United States 32 outbreaks of undulant fever attributed to milk, with 256 cases and a total of three deaths.[xxviii] [xxix] It is clear that Harris’ synthetic epidemic had no counterpart in reality. The claim that “what happened to Crossroads might happen to your town - to your city - might happen almost anywhere in America” was not only completely false but indeed malicious.

          These claims and many others like them were repeated in subsequent magazine articles read by tens of millions of people, as well as in countless newspaper articles in the ensuing years. Writing in The Rural New Yorker in 1947, Jean Bullitt Darlington made a particularly fine effort to set the record straight with an article titled “Why Milk Pasteurization? Sowing the Seeds of Fear.” [xxx] Darlington exposes the lies and distortions in the magazine articles referred to above.

          http://www.drrons.com/...

      •  Not so wierd; I drank raw milk (0+ / 0-)

        when I lived out west and had friends who were dairy farmers. But I was always careful, and didn't keep it more than a couple of days. Had the authorities found out, the folks could have lost their dairy license and (probably) their farm.

        Raw milk can be problematic when mishandled, kept too long or stored improperly. Pasturization neutralizes bacteria in the milk, and almost certainly removes some of its salutary effects; but it is really the only way to assure the safety of mass-marketed milk.

        OTOH, I found it vary salutary and helpful.

        •  If you read some of the links I provided, you'll (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mint julep

          see that pasteurized milk goes putrid when it goes bad but raw milk doesn't.  It just sours.  That doesn't mean it can't have a problem which is why testing should be depended on.  If there is a problem, heat the milk for 5 minutes.  

          How simple is that versus banning it?

      •  Weird Underground? (0+ / 0-)

        I grew up drinking milk from the cow.... as in cows that I and my friends and neighbors milked ourselves... you have the cows tested for TB... make sure the teat and milk bucket are clean and get yer milk... tastes a LOT different from the weird crap in plastic bottles that is laden with weird hormones and antibiotics...

        I think you have your weirdness on backwards...

        •  Let's not give anyone a hard time for (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zzyzx, mint julep

          saying that think this is weird.  It is weird given what we have been told for so long.  Give people time and lots of information and let them decide for themselves.  This is about opening up the idea that we've been sold a bill of goods that might have been right for some industrial milk in the 1900s when it was so degraded but have not seen that something very important to health was lost and that we haven't developed a broad enough idea of medical science or biology if we don't realize that bacteria is important to us and health giving.  Exposure to it makes us strong and it also does many things for us that we must have and can't do without.

          So, let's make a safe place here for people to question and let's bring more and more information and learn together.  

          Thanks for commenting.

          •  I was REPLYING to a comment (0+ / 0-)

            where the commenter stated that raw milk drinking is some a practice of some kind of weird underground....

            As for exposure to bacteria... I lived (with my family) in Mexioco for several years and am very aware of the effects of living in a "bacteria free" zone (which is why gringos get Montezuma's revenge)...

            My wife's father is a doctor... in Mexico... he buys his milk from a guy who rides down the street every morning on a bicycle with two big milk cans stapped on behind,,,

            I understand perfectly well what is happening to the Amis/Mennonite farmers and others like them...

            •  Thanks so much for your comment. (0+ / 0-)

              People in this country have really bought the sterilization/pasteurization model so thoroughly, it will take a while for them to realize how off it is, how much we depend on exposure to build our immune systems, and how the gut is actually where it stems from.  We need bacteria and if we live too clean a life, we become vulnerable.

              We need to stand up for our farmers including the Amish and Mennonite and not stand by and let innocent people be run down like this.  Never mind we depend on them.

              Thanks for writing.

    •  yes, but if the milking glove don't fit... (0+ / 0-)

      you got to acquit

    •  Yes. Corporate milk is legal and Monsanto (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep, antirove, second gen, JeffW

      is protecting you from labels that would let you know if it comes from cows treated with rBGH.

      Real milk is mostly illegal across the country.
      http://www.realmilk.com/...

      And where it has been legal and harmed no one, such as California, the USDA is working aggressively to criminalize it.
      http://www.westonaprice.org/...

  •  And it's illegal to criticize meat in Texas... (5+ / 0-)

    "The president was writing checks to the Georgians without knowing what he had in the bank," said a senior administration official.

    by perro amarillo on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM PST

    •  There you go. What kind of freedom of speech (0+ / 0-)

      is that and what kind of "food safety" and who does all of that serve?  Not us and not those raising grass-fed cattle the clean and decent way - only giant feedlot situations and filthy slaughter houses and the big meat packers and the corrupt FDA and USDA.

  •  The Amish and Mennonite people (12+ / 0-)

    wouldn't sell raw milk if it was harmful to human health. They feed it to their own families!

    •  Amen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep, FreeStateDem

      They would consider themselves to be in serious danger if they committed the sin of selling a deadly or dangerous product.  I have worked among the Amish (including this farmer's community) as a birth assistant to a midwife.  They would know first if there was something wrong because they drink it as well.

      •  Thanks so much for these good points and personal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mint julep

        connection to what is going on.  People here are still somewhat sold on the lies being pushed on them as "science" or as "public health" which is odd because they are very critical of other agencies, always seeing the corporate connections and corruption and distrusting them.  But when it comes to food, liberals tend to trust the FDA like conservatives trust the military.

        Forgive me, but we need to distrust them all and realize they benefit corporations (whether arms dealers, airplane manufacturers, contractors, security forces, or the poultry industry and the big meat packers, etc.) and are not working for us.

        Really glad to have your comments here.  Hope you will write a diary about your experiences.

    •  Another great point. They aren't keeling over (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep

      or losing family members.  What better assurances of care can one have?

    •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

      And the Christian Scientists wouldn't deny blood transfusions to their own families either, I gather?

      •  I have been learning a lot from people who (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zzyzx

        value freedom very deeply and who believe that the government not only doesn't have the right to interfere in their lives but that it has become frighteningly totalitarian in what it is doing.  I didn't start in this place at all but I have come to agree.

        i believe that Christian Scientists should have the right to raise their children as they believe and that we all have the right to refuse medical treatments for ourselves and our children based on our own beliefs and knowledge.  

        Having seen too much of what the medical establishment has done to people I know and how little that establishment knows about health or respects the intelligence or needs of its patience, I understand much more deeply and personally why people don't want to be controlled by it or government acting based on orthodox medical thinking.  

        This issue of raw milk is a very serious example for me of how wrong a profession can be and how much it can promote that view to a naive public while denying it healthy and natural things.  And what the medical establishment did not only to Linus Pauling about vitamin C but to the American public in terms of keeping from them treatments that are safe and beneficial and yet powerful in fighting cancer or heart disease, I consider criminal.    Meanwhile the drug companies, seeing how valuable vitamin C is, is pushing to criminalize it in Canada and that would become law here - without our voting on it - if the North American Union passes.  

        So at some point I began to feel sympathy for Christian Scientists and for anyone who wishes to live their lives in their own way - which excludes violence against family members.  

        I couldn't be more surprised at having come to this place but the raids on farmers and on alternative practitioners - all for the benefit of corporate control over food and drugs - and the fascism of it, brought me to this place.

  •  SWAT Team Raids Ohio Food Coop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mint julep, JeffW, RubyGal

    How long before this gets way out of hand and turns into a massacre?

  •  This diary lacks context. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, Ahianne, Pd, marykk, Foxwizard

    I remember the arguments over raw milk here in CA in decades past. But I don't remember what the regulations are today and who the players are.

    I'm familiar enough with the rGBH battles and labelling battles. And I understand enough to know the difference between the conditions of the market place back in the day when pasteurization began (which saved lives) and today.

    But in order to understand the magnitude of what happened, we need some context. What do credible organic food experts say? What are the safety parameters of raw milk.

    This issue and this event don't exist in a vacuum and before people ramp up their outrage they need some facts.

    "Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."

    by homogenius on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM PST

    •  I assumed there were facts here but I'll add (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Halcyon

      more for you.

      The situation in California:
      http://www.westonaprice.org/...

      From the organic community as represented by the Organic Consumers Association, a group that is currently suing Whole Foods over not adhering closely enough to organic standards:
      http://www.organicconsumers.org/...

    •  I suggest you educate yourself. (0+ / 0-)

      You ask for a lot more than one can expect from one diary. Many of your questions are answered already in the comments. If you revisit this diary and read them you will find links you can read, such as this one: Raw Milk - History, Health Benefits and Distortions

      If you want to keep up with this issue then read The Complete Patient, a blog devoted to raw milk and related health/food/farming (NAIS) topics.

      •  No so sure I agree there; the diarist is (0+ / 0-)

        making an assertion about the value of raw milk and the wrongness of the state enforcing food safety laws. It is not too much to ask that a context be provided.

        •  This diary is part of an ongoing (0+ / 0-)

          series. Your comments are gratuitous.

          •  Your attack is gratuitous; nowhere does it say (0+ / 0-)

            it is part of an ongoing series.

            I am mightily tempted to TR your response here but, well... I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

          •  It's okay for someone to come in late and (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zzyzx, mint julep, Halcyon

            feel things are missing though I appreciate your explaining this is an on-going set of diaries and discussions.  But I want people to feel free to ask for what they need.  This is a very big thing to take in because it overturns deeply held beliefs.  

            Yet those are the same trusting of science impulses that the Germans counted on with racial hygiene and eugenics itself.  

            Just like with American history, we only learned a "cleaned up" version of reality, leaving off what we did to people and what ordinary people did for this country.  Without Zinn's a People's History of the United States, we only a "pasteurized" version of our history.  

            And we have only a pro-pasteurization model of health, getting stuck there, and not catching up to how valuable bacteria and "balance" is for health.  We have a shock and awe approach to healthy with little knowledge of how the world can work beautifully on its own when we don't degrade or upset that balance or learn how to use nature to reestablish it when balance is lost (when there is illness).

            http://www.drmirkin.com/...

            •  Thanks for admonishing me kindly, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zzyzx

              and for your persistence in posting your informative diaries. It was Foxwizard's other comment to me that irritated me in combination with this one. If (s)he read the discussion then would (s)he have made these comments? In other words, the way in which the comments were written showed disrespect rather than engagement in the discussion.

              There is no equivalence between pointing out that none of Mark Nolt's customers has yet gotten sick from his dairy products, and the Bush administration claiming they protected us from further terrorist attacks since 9/11. That's disrespectful, snide, gratuitous, false equivalence, and shows that Foxwizard doesn't take your work seriously. Can you explain to me why you find that an appropriate comment?

              The PDA persecuting the Nolts for not harming anyone is equivalent to what? To the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? I don't get it.

              Why did Foxwizard not reply to this comment, of yours? And this one?

              •  Hi Halycon. You follow who says what better (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Halcyon

                than I do.  I just see a comment and do the best I can to respond as fully as I can and as thoughtfully as I can.

                In some ways I don't judge the comments appropriateness, having gotten fairly thick skin here because some of the people commenting on Dailykos can be kind of wildly rude.  So, just a snarky tone that is still relatively focused on the discussion and has some actual interest arrives as an absolute delight compared to the ones which are purely about ripping me.  

                Also, what matters a lot to me is having people feel they can relax with each other here and there is room to be wrong or off and not get slammed for it.  Benefit of the doubt and just liking discussing stuff for the sheer pleasure of it and not any winning aspect or being right aspect or ego aspect.  I'm after people being curious and playing with the ideas involved and being open to stuff.

                But for people who are the least familiar or the least comfortable for that reason or who come from a really different perspective, they are likely to be tense and snap and bit and they need more room to peck at things and test them out and push against them and see if there are holes or keep comparing to what they know so they can try out the new ideas and see if they hold up.

                If we get upset at those people, we shut down their chance to ask what they need and they need to be comfortable to learn whatever they are seeking to understand.

                So, going gently is good and being tolerant of people is a nice thing in general, though I snap sometimes if I have gotten tired and I feel others are being ugly for no reason other than some pleasure in it.  

                I thought it was nice of you to try to support me.  Thank you.  I was okay but it was nice of you to be thoughtful.  But what would be really great is for you and Foxwizard to enjoy talking to each other.   Both very attentive and bright and think how much you take a subject and turn it every which way and maybe help us all understand where the nub of things is or where the sticking points are, by toying with it together.

                If Foxwizard didn't reply to those comments and you're truly curious and not judging, ask and maybe there'll be a good answer.  Or maybe when someone doubts things and related comments are made, a slew of them go right past for while and don't get looked at or dealt with because people are still homing in on things they need answered more.  That's okay.  We all go at things in our own way.    

                Give room and you'll get it in return.  

                When I was in college, I was friends with some people whose way of discussing was the be so perfecting about things, they left no "play space" for anyone.  No one every knew enough or said things right enough or there was a lot of ridicule, whereas others I knew accepted naivete and it was fine to believe anything you liked and with those second ones, I was a pleasure to talk about things and there seemed infinite room to talk and to learn and it was a kind of a happy communal activity, not a battle or competition.   I'd like it to feel good like that here, for you and for Foxwizard and for everyone.  

                Thanks for commenting.    

  •  Thanks For This Diary. There Is More Overt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Halcyon, Calamity Jean, FreeStateDem

    Governmental repression under the aegis of "public health" than in almost any other sector of our society, save perhaps drug enforcement.

    As a former health care professional, I can state truthfully and emphatically that the biggest fascists I have ever known were public health officials.

    And picking on Mennonites, who simply want to be left the hell alone, is about as reprehensible as anything I've ever heard.

    And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

    by terry2wa on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM PST

    •  Hope you will post as widely as possible in (0+ / 0-)

      your community of health care professionals as well as register with Amnesty's 100 days of human rights events to hold an event yourself about farming and what our government is doing for corporations and against us through this.

      I couldn't agree more with you about leaving the Amish and Mennonite alone.  

  •  Here is another example from Oregon (0+ / 0-)

    Genesis Juice Cooperative was forced to close it's doors after deciding not to comply with FDA demands to quit selling raw, non-pasteurized juice.

    They have since reopened using a non-heat pasteurization method.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone

    by DCBlue on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM PST

    •  Oh and there is now a law to prohibit raw almonds (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep

      and that has vegans and raw foodists up in arms.  I have friends buying up every raw almond they can find before the law takes effect and freezing them.

    •  Thank you, and the comment after yours is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep

      right on point - they are doing the same with pasteurizing almonds.  The government sets corporate standards under the excuse of "food safety" when what they are actually doing in eliminating whole, natural and organic substances and the farmers who grow or produce them.  

      It's not different from our government providing "freedom" in Iraq.  It's as wholesome and benevolent and truthful as that.

  •  It is ironic that I was just thinking about the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mint julep, ER Doc

    lifestyles of the Amish and Mennonites today and thought that they are in a good place, having never really gotten caught up in the technical complexities of the modern world...and now this..well well well..we will have to keep an eye on this and I am curious about who Obama will choose to be the Secretary of Agriculture and the Surgeon General et al...

    •  I am so glad that you see this as something to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mint julep, RubyGal

      watch and connect it immediately to who Obama chooses to head the USDA.  Not looking at all good so far and he will need to push from trusting Obama people to let him know this is a BIG DEAL and the public which wants sustainable agriculture as he promised, wants laws that guarantee COMPLETE freedom to small farmers and that will undo regulations allowing warrantless seizures by Homeland Security measures and stops NAIS entirely.

      He needs to hear this from his supporters who need to work with MoveOn about this and getting word out til this is a huge issue and known set of lies.

  •  Can't we keep our issues straight? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, Foxwizard

    There is a legitimate public interest in banning raw milk, and in deference to your not having been born yesterday, I'll spare you the details.  

    Yes, we live in an era where corporate greed is trying to suppress options with regard to organic, additive-free, and middleman-free food.  But this doesn't mean all state intervention against traditional foodways is repugnant to progressive values.  

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 05:54:44 PM PST

    •  This is a civil rights/individual liberty issue (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen, brooklyn137, FreeStateDem

      Maybe you call corporate food progressive, but I don't. Traditional Mennonite milk is part of a very old and healthy way of life.

      As the diarist said, California allowed raw milk for years without problems.

      I know, I drank it. I used raw milk and raw yogurt and cheeses without any problems like thousands of other Californians.

      "It's the planet, stupid."

      by FishOutofWater on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:10:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All kinds of justly banned things are mostly safe (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc

        Most people who consume raw milk don't get listeria and die.  However some do, whereas nobody who consumes pasteurized milk gets listeria and dies. I'm not an absolutist about banning it, but there is an honest reason for it that's not derived from a corporate agenda. In my opinion, you can stand in line with the no-helmet motorcyclists, the smokers, and the handgun enthusiasts in claiming the supremacy of individual preference over aggregate health and welfare.

        -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

        by Rich in PA on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ground beef kills people every year. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mint julep

          Why don't you suggest banning hamburger?  That might accomplish something.

          Raw milk was safe in recent times in California. It has an excellent record. You can't say that ground beef is safe. Year after year without fail people die from bad ground beef.

          "It's the planet, stupid."

          by FishOutofWater on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:23:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, and we treat it as a major problem. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Foxwizard

            The prevailing view here seems to be that any sickness and death caused by consuming raw milk is just collateral damage in the struggle for freedom, and I've been down that road before.  

            I've spoken my peace on this.  I only object to the diary because it's spuriously invoking an anti-corporate agenda that's much less relevant here than to the other food-related issues the diarist invokes.

            -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

            by Rich in PA on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:33:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, one more thing. (0+ / 0-)

              If you ban ground beef, people will likely grind it themselves, and more of them will get sick than in our centralized beef-grinding regime.  If you ban raw milk, people won't start raising dairy cattle on their own.  So it's a more effective public health measure to ban raw milk.

              -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

              by Rich in PA on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:35:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  safer to grind it yourself (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mint julep

                I don't do it, but I've had people tell me they grind whole cuts to get hamburger. The point is, the grinding is where the contamination comes in, if the equipment is not clean. At home, you can assure yourself that the equipment is clean.

                •  Yes, and more. If it is not clean, millions of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mint julep

                  people are not exposed.  If raw milk has a problem, it would be limited to a small community and one which knows exactly where the milk came from.  And the answer, to heat the milk slightly, would be a simple solution, just as cooking meat to a high enough temperature is one is not sure it is safe.  

                  Thank you for your comments.

              •  You have it just backwards in term of (0+ / 0-)

                trusting our centralized food system?    

                Michael Pollan  

                ... there's nothing sentimental about local food--indeed, the reasons to support local food economies could not be any more hardheaded or pragmatic. Our highly centralized food economy is a dangerously precarious system, vulnerable to accidental--and deliberate--contamination. This is something the government understands better than most of us eaters. When Tommy Thompson retired from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2004, he said something chilling at his farewell news conference: "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." The reason it is so easy to do was laid out in a 2003 G.A.O. report to Congress on bioterrorism. "The high concentration of our livestock industry and the centralized nature of our food-processing industry" make them "vulnerable to terrorist attack." Today 80 percent of America's beef is slaughtered by four companies, 75 percent of the precut salads are processed by two and 30 percent of the milk by just one company. Keeping local food economies healthy--and at the moment they are thriving--is a matter not of sentiment but of critical importance to the national security and the public health, as well as to reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

                http://www.michaelpollan.com/...

            •  Is it spuriously invoking a corporate agenda to (0+ / 0-)

              say that we went to war in iraq for oil?  Or is that simply true?

          •  Thank you. You're right. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FishOutofWater

            The issue is that we were propagandized and it has taken and it will take some time for people to realize they are being misled and have fully bought into a lie.  

            Corporate "milk" is a just sludge, and when it comes from cows injected with rBGH, is associated with cancers, and has only synthetic vitamin D in it and lacks bacteria needed to absorb the nutrients and minerals in it.  It is a food that makes animals sick.  

            That's a hard truth to take in.  We believe in milk and have trusted pasteurization for decades and decades.  it is the very bedrock of our belief in how far we have come with "modern medicine."  Accepting that it only was good for covering up industry horrors and actually replaced something MUCH healthier, is not easy.  It means we have been fools and that we have to rethink all we know about what is healthy and what science has brought us.

            That is a lot to let go of, just as it is a lot for conservatives to believe we hurt other countries for our own gain and not to bring them freedom.  We both have our Achilles heels and we both need to be much more open and watchful and be willing to give up shibboleths.

        •  If you're not an absolutist (0+ / 0-)

          about banning it, then can you agree that at least a small Mennonite farmer in Pennsylvania should be allowed to sell raw milk from his farm to people he knows who trust him and his practices and the safety of his milk?

          •  I think it's a legitimate issue for debate (0+ / 0-)

            The fact that he knows them doesn't have any relevance, so I wouldn't let him do that unless I'd let him sell to people he didn't know.  In our society we generally don't put the burden on consumers to determine whether food products will kill them.

            -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

            by Rich in PA on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:30:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  By using your argument for safety, we should not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zzyzx

              allow people to buy automobiles which routinely kill people.  

              Do we not have the right to make decisions about our own food choices, especially when people are choosing for health, not death?

              Do you not see they are being denied what they have decided is healthier (having had to face and reject all the constant messages about the milk being dangerous)?  

              And they are being denied by those with a vested interest in selling corporate milk which is linked to cancers and absent real vitamin D which is crucial in preventing cancers and avoiding MS.

              You act as though corporate milk were all good when it is in fact terrible, being associated with long term serious illnesses and with death.

              •  Disagree. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne

                Pasteurized milk is healthier than unpasteurized milk. Your claims about cancer and vitamin D are unsubstantiated. There is a strong anti-intellectual tendency on the left as on the right, although recently it hasn't been as influential. But it is dangerous nonetheless.

                The arguments you make for unpasteurized milk are no different in kind from those the Christian Scientists make against blood transfusion, and as serious, given that most milk is drunk by children, who cannot decide for themselves.

                Among the diseases that can be spread by unpasteurized milk is tuberculosis, an anti-biotic strain of which is increasing in incidence. We don't need to add another vector. My father had TB and I can tell you it isn't pleasant.

                •  A number of more virulent strains of bacteria (0+ / 0-)

                  are occurring because of industrial agriculture - not just raising animals in filth and injecting them with antibiotics continuously to deal with diseases but because of feeding them grains.
                  http://www.foodmarketexchange.com/...

                  You can disagree about what is being said about unpasteurized milk but where is your evidence?  

                  This makes pretty clear that we have gotten the whole "stay clear of exposure to bacteria" wrong and need it for our immune system.
                  http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

                  What I am writing is the opposite of anti-intellectual.  It is saying the science we trusted was incomplete to begin with and now is actually out of date, and that the raw milk issue is really about getting a misinformed culture to recognize - past the corporate advantage of keeping people ill-informed and biased - that milk that has been unsullied is extremely valuable "as is."

                  The arguments for raw milk are, yes, very like the Christian Science arguments in this respect - that people should have a right to raise their families - and decide what makes sense to them medically - according to their own beliefs and with out government interference.  I hold beliefs that are counter to orthodox medicine at this point and I don't believe the government should be allowed to force it on me or my family.

                  But families doing as they decide with their children does not include violence against them.

        •  Really? Nobody? (4+ / 0-)

          Most people who consume raw milk don't get listeria and die.  However some do, whereas nobody who consumes pasteurized milk gets listeria and dies.

          3rd man dies after consuming Massachusetts dairy products tainted with bacteria

          The 87-year-old man fell ill in November and died Thursday, said Donna Rheaume, spokeswoman for the state department of public health.

          The number of people sickened by listeria bacteria also rose to five after health officials linked a 31-year-old woman's listeriosis, diagnosed in September, to products from the diary.

          The infection was detected while the woman was in the hospital to deliver a baby, and "both mother and child are doing well," Rheaume said.

          Health officials say the bacteria entered Whittier Farms' milk supply after it was pasteurized. Two of those victims, a 78-year-old man and a 75-year-old man, died in June and October. Another elderly man and a pregnant woman survived, although the woman miscarried.

        •  That is complete bullshit! (0+ / 0-)

          People have consumed and died from pasteurized dairy products.  Next you will say that they need to outlaw steak tartare and sushi to prevent the teeny percentage of folks who might get sick.  Down with the nanny state!

        •  It is important not to believe things that are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brooklyn137

          untrue but promoted by those how benefit from you believing them.  Many people believe that there are WMDs in Iraq because they were told it over and over and over again.  We were all told over and over and over again that pasteurization is safer than not pasteurizing and that it was a great contribution to health but we were not told that it covered up terrible industry problems and that real milk is immensely beneficial and that pasteurized milk lacks bacteria we desperately need to be healthy.

          You imply that no one who consumes pasteurized milk gets sick.  They may not get listeria but they do get sick and they even die.  

          While health officials continue to rail against the dangers of raw milk, we like to point out that since 1999, Organic Pastures dairy of Fresno, California has sold over 30 million servings of raw milk without one health incident. During the same period, the state of California issued at least 20 recalls of pasteurized milk products. In one example, bacteria in pasteurized milk was blamed for a recent outbreak of gastroenteritis that struck 1300 inmates in 11 California state prisons. Twenty-five thousand half-pint cartons of pasteurized milk produced between May 8 and May 18 were thrown out but officials could find no problems at the dairy from which they were shipped (Associated Press, June 6, 2006). Other recent outbreaks of food poisoning were caused by raw oysters on the West Coast and Cadbury's chocolate in Great Britain. The biggest source of food-borne illness is fresh produce (causing 554 outbreaks totaling 28,315 cases between 1999 and 2003) and poultry (blamed for 476 outbreaks with 14,729 cases) during the same four-year period. Another 812 outbreaks totaling 23,126 cases were traced to multiple-ingredient foods, such as pizza and salads (cidrap.umn.edu, December 1, 2005).

          And people buying raw milk can simply check the test results for their dairy if they are worried or they can heat their milk briefly.  So what is the deal?  One can't give back to pasteurized milk all that it is lacking.

          Here is some information on pasteurization:

          Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk do poorly and many die before maturity. Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid; processors must remove slime and pus from pasteurized milk by a process of centrifugal clarification. Inspection of dairy herds for disease is not required for pasteurized milk. Pasteurization was instituted in the 1920s to combat TB, infant diarrhea, undulant fever and other diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. But times have changed and modern stainless steel tanks, milking machines, refrigerated trucks and inspection methods make pasteurization absolutely unnecessary for public protection. And pasteurization does not always kill the bacteria for Johne’s disease suspected of causing Crohn's disease in humans with which most confinement cows are infected. Much commercial milk is now ultra-pasteurized to get rid of heat-resistant bacteria and give it a longer shelf life. Ultra-pasteurization is a violent process that takes milk from a chilled temperature to above the boiling point in less than two seconds. Clean raw milk from certified healthy cows is available commercially in several states and may be bought directly from the farm in many more.

          http://www.realmilk.com/...

          You are not alone in what you believe and it is as hard to let go of these misconceptions as it is for conservatives to let go of theirs, but we need to distrust "science" pronouncements from the government just as much as we need to mistrust military ones, ESPECIALLY when people are being harmed and it is almost always those who have found a way around corporate control of their lives.

      •  Absolutely right about it being a civil rights (0+ / 0-)

        issue - the most profound one in the history of mankind because it is about denying all people the right to access to natural substances by corporations that are privatizing everything down to DNA itself.

        Thank you for your comment.  Join with Amnesty's 100 days of human rights and do an event on this or NAIS or Monsanto's take over of seeds and its destruction of seed cleaners (all of which Homeland Security regulations not promote, they being written with Monsanto's help).

        http://www.amnestyusa.org/...

        Amnesty doesn't see what is happening, just as they didn't do anything about apartheid but that doesn't mean we can't jump on what they are doing and begin making clear that the war on terror includes what is happening across this country to farmers.  A bio-terrorism lab is planned for Kansas and farmers are angry and terrified how it will be used against them.

        Thanks for your comments.

    •  You are missing what is happening and how (0+ / 0-)

      "food safety" is being used in a police state way to destroy these communities.  

      We are down to 700,000 farmers in the US.  In the 1940s, they accounted for 40% of the population.  Now they are .5%.  And we are losing 170 a week.

      We need to make sure regulations are not being used by government in the service of corporations.  It's very clear that raw milk is the better milk and that it is safe, and actually safer that pasteurized milk.

      Who needs regulating?  The regulators just told us, having hidden the fact that there is melamine in OUR baby formula, too, that melamine is now safe for infants in the amount that it is present in formula.  

      So when you want regulations for raw milk, realize that you are promoting people in this country not having the right to buy something from a farmer they know and which at worst could simply be heated slightly.  For this, are you willing to deny people freedom to choose they own food?  Do you realize how large that is?  Or how it can be extrapolated from there to any foods?  And are you willing to do that knowing that corporations are driving all of this and benefitting?  

    •  heh. The progressive movement was part (0+ / 0-)

      and parcel of the adoption of food safety laws in the first place. The conservative response at the time made the same arguments I see being used here tonight -- appeals to freedom and ignoring the ramifications of not having food safety laws in an urbanized, industrialized society.

      Fact is, most raw food ARE better for us, when consumed close to the source (ie., on the farm). But almost no one lives on farms anymore, and the number of people who eat only what their farm produces can probably be listed on a page or two.

      When food is produced far from where we consume, days or weeks after it is produced, food safety laws are most certainly appropriate and needed.

      •  Just because conservatives feared what might come (0+ / 0-)

        out of food safety regulations doesn't mean they weren't right.

        Have you thought that the regulations that support an INDUSTRIAL food system (read "global warming" because industrial agriculture is responsible for a third of it) might be structured in such a way as to PREVENT a local, sustainable, organic one from developing and is killing what little currently exists?

        You raise a good point, though, because we need to recognize that the industrial system needs an incredible amount of regulation and INSPECTION (which the USDA won't do) and what is needed is an entirely separate set of PROTECTIONS to ENCOURAGE small family farmers and businesses who are doing local, sustainable, organic farming and food production.  

        They need freedom to exist, testing to let their customers know what is safe, and freedom for customers to choose whatever food they wish.

      •  You are absolutely right about the progressive (0+ / 0-)

        movement and I think you just helped me see why the left is slower than the right in letting go of its faith in science enough to see how they are being used.  

        Progressives have prided themselves on and identified so strongly with certain public health changes that they seem stuck there, not understanding that that science was limited and has become more - outdated.  And that ironically, the very traditional practices and beliefs progressives believe they "improved" upon, have stood the test of time better and are proving to be healthier and more about "wholeness."

        Breast versus bottle feeding is a good example.  It was progressives and educated women who first used bottle feeding out of belief in it being more hygienic and poor and uneducated people who were last to shift to it.  But then a more "whole" science brought us back to where humans had been before science "improved" on nature, and made us away of the range of immunity enhancing benefits of breast milk as well as of the bonding that happens with it.

        So, science was wrong and then it caught up with nature enough to appreciate it (though certainly doesn't yet understand the extent of what is being transferred to the baby or mother).  

        The very same thing is true of raw milk.  We are just catching on that nature is incredible and we have tampered with it, pasteurized it, controlled it, fragmented it, screwed with it, poisoned it, etc. etc. and missed its power and value.  

  •  Where Is The Study? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    During the Clinton administration, a new study was released "conclud[ing] that milk from cows injected with [genetically engineered bovine growth hormone - rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in humans.

    I have no trouble at all finding studies like this:

    Scientists in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after reviewing the scientific literature and evaluating studies conducted by pharmaceutical companies, have concluded that the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) in dairy cattle presents no increased health risk to consumers. Bovine GH is not biologically active in humans, and oral toxicity studies have demonstrated that rbGH is not orally active in rats, a species responsive to parenterally administered bGH. Recombinant bGH treatment produces an increase in the concentration of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in cow's milk. However, oral toxicity studies have shown that bovine IGF-I lacks oral activity in rats. Additionally, the concentration of IGF-I in milk of rbGH-treated cows is within the normal physiological range found in human breast milk, and IGF-I is denatured under conditions used to process cow's milk for infant formula. On the basis of estimates of the amount of protein absorbed intact in humans and the concentration of IGF-I in cow's milk during rbGH treatment, biologically significant levels of intact IGF-I would not be absorbed.

    See here.

    There is no intention to claim that is the final word. Still shouldn't a claim that a study many years ago showing rBGH is causing cancer be made available for inspection by interested parties - like myself, fer instance?

    Children fed raw milk have more resistance to TB, scurvy, flu, diphtheria, pneumonia, asthma, allergic skin problems and tooth decay.

    You gotta be shittin' us.

    This stuff has all the believability of an infomercial.

    We once bought raw milk when we could in Oregon BTW, not to mention that I grew up on a farm with cows we milked.  I think I heard you can no longer buy fresh milk in Oregon. When we bought ours, it had to have a bacteria count.

    "Four distinct groups of bacteria survive pasteurization....the strep of pasteurized milk are the most frequent cause of rheumatic fever --the most deadly disease of childhood.'"

    Rheumatic fever was once all too common.  My wife, my father, many relatives on both sides had rheumatic fever.  It is very rare these days.

    You might have mentioned strep can cause necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating bacteria).  That should liven up discussion.  A brother-in-law BTW had that extremely rare bastid.

    But how exactly does it help to know that pasteurization may not prevent necrotizing fasciitis when non-pasteurization most assuredly does not?

    Best,  Terry

    •  I know it feels hard to believe but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zzyzx

      raw milk has studies showing it is good for the thing listed.

      Allergies:
      http://www.allergy-details.com/...

      TB:
      http://www.modern-diets-and-nutritio...
      http://www.realmilk.com/...

      Scurvy:
      http://chestofbooks.com/...
      http://74.125.45.132/...

      Diphtheria:
      The Bacteriology of Diphtheria: Including Sections on the History, ... - Google Books Result
      by George Henry Falkiner Nuttall, George Stuart ... - 1908 - Diphtheria - 718 pages
      Montefusco came to the conclusion that sterilized milk was a good medium for diphtheria bacilli, but that no further growth took place in raw milk ......

      http://books.google.com/...

      http://www.modern-diets-and-nutritio...

      I am putting out reference after reference but missed the cancer one.
      http://www.cqs.com/...
      http://www.preventcancer.com/...
      http://www.purefood.org/...
      http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/...
      http://www.prwatch.org/...
      http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/...
      http://www.organicconsumers.org/...

      •  Where is the Study? (0+ / 0-)

        I know it feels hard to believe but raw milk has studies showing it is good for the thing listed.

        In response to my request for any scientific study of the possible danger  of cancer from rBGH, you provided:

        a. A link to supposed cures for allergies. That included another link to such as promos in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not exactly the Journal of New England Medicine.  There was no scientific study mentioned on rBGH causing cancer in the many and varied wikipedia links nor any scientific study anywhere near as I could tell.  

        Admittedly I did only a cursory examination of the voluminous material. You see I have cataracts and can only do so much besides being stupid as hell.

        b. Then there is this link:

        J. R. Crewe, MD, published an article in Certified Milk Magazine, January 1929, describing a milk treatment for a number of unrelated diseases. Dr. Ron Schmid, ND, of Middlebury, CT was credited for finding this article. This article was subsequently obtained from the Weston A. Price Foundation.

        Dr. Crewe was one of the founders of the Mayo Foundation, a forerunner of today’s Mayo Clinic.

        The milk cure he described featured the only kind of milk available in those days, raw whole milk, rich in butterfat, from pasture fed cows...

        Dr Crewe used the milk cure for 15 years with a variety of illnesses. The last 10 years he had a small sanitarium. His patients were wild about it because it worked. It required no drugs or other "modern" medical intervention.

        Unfortunately his fellow medical practitioners were not very enthusiastic about the treatment...

        Yeah I would bet that other doctors were not all that enthusiastic about the milk cure.  Cynics are like that.

        Years ago there was a clinic in Tijuana that provided cancer patients a vaccine made from a horse's urine.  The promos featured the accommodations, which did indeed look inviting.  I have heard some of the whiskey in Tijuana tastes like horse's urine.  Haven't heard it will cure cancer.

        I gave up at this point. My eyes, finger and lips were getting tired.

        Got any controlled study of any kind anywhere, published or unpublished, that provides reasonable evidence that rBGH causes cancer?

        When the Baptists did a study of the power of prayer, they at least had some accursed plants, presumably at a safe distance from the blessed plants, to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer.

        BTW I am not denying that synthetic rBGH could cause all manner of disease.  I would just like some evidence.

        Best,  Terry

        •  Terry, I listed a slew of cancer links. (0+ / 0-)

          i don't understand what you want beyond that.

          The milk cure point was that the Mayo clinic itself used it.  It was that respected and that standard.

          •  Slew of Cancer Links? (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't find just one.

            Admittedly I am old, stupid, tired, with growing cataracts and incipient Alzheimer's.  I got bogged down in the lengthy catalog you provided starting with wikipedia.  

            Wikipedia can be a handy tool for a quick reference but as an authority it ranks right up there with George Bush on fighting terrorism.

            So I have piddled around some on my own.  You take this from something that calls itself the "Cancer Prevention Coalitions:"

            Monsanto's Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks of Breast Cancer, Besides Other Cancers, Warns Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health

            That sounds pretty scary all right.  

            As reported in a May 9 article in The Lancet, women with a relatively small increase in blood levels of the naturally occurring growth hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-1) are up to seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer than women with lower levels.

            Bummer for sure but where's the linkage?

            Let me give you an analogy.  For a time eggs were verboten.  Seemed they were the scariest things on the planet considering that there was nothing at all with higher cholesterol content.  The problem was that eating high cholesterol eggs and having high cholesterol in the blood stream was not synonymous - leaving aside that all cholesterol is not created equal.  The scare is largely over I think.

            There is no doubt in my mind that Monsanto would feed little kids rat poison if they could make a buck and not get bad PR, but that says nothing whatever about dairy cows given rBGH causing cancer.

            My problem remains exactly as it was.  I see no evidence that rBGH causes cancer or any other disease nor that raw milk cures anything at all.  That is exactly what the FDA found, though admittedly I am not overly taken with those folks.

            Take care, Scaredhuman.  Maybe it is a wise precaution to avoid milk from dairy cows fed the synthetic hormone but I prefer evidence of deleterious effects.  Just my own thing.

            Best,  Terry

            •  Hi Terry, it's good you keep asking for what you (0+ / 0-)

              feel is not adequate.  I am involved in other stuff right now so am not in a place to provide the links you want.  Why don't you start looking and see what you can find.  They are certainly there.

              Let me know what you find.

              Thanks for writing.

  •  As someone whose great-grandfather died from TB.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, Foxwizard

    contracted from drinking raw milk.  I have difficulty believing some of what has been posted in this diary.  As a former dairy goat farmer, I have drunk my share of raw milk.  My kids and wife seemed to have more health problems and illnesses while we were consuming raw goats milk.  Now, that they have gone back to regular processed milk, my kids are having fewer illnesses.  I am not oppose to letting farmers sell raw milk, but I would want the USDA to license them and inpsect their farms.

    •  No one opposed testing. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zzyzx

      But you are the only farmer I have every heard who says his family is "less" healthy on raw goat milk.

      Without its good bacteria, you aren't even able to absorb most of the nutrients and minerals in milk.

      For those concerned about eliminating bacteria and who feel safest with the most sterile foods, you might consider this Yale and University of Chicago study, out this year:

      In a dramatic illustration of the potential for microbes to prevent disease, researchers at Yale University and the University of Chicago showed that mice exposed to common stomach bacteria were protected against the development of Type I diabetes.

      The findings, reported in the journal Nature, support the so-called “hygiene hypothesis” – the theory that a lack of exposure to parasites, bacteria and viruses in the developed world may lead to increased risk of diseases like allergies, asthma, and other disorders of the immune system. The results also suggest that exposure to some forms of bacteria might actually help prevent onset of Type I diabetes, an autoimmune disease in which the patient’s immune system launches an attack on cells in the pancreas that produce insulin.

      The root causes of autoimmune disease have been the subject of intensive investigation by scientists around the world.

      In the past decade, it has become evident that the environment plays a role in the development of some overly robust immune system responses. For instance, people in less-developed parts of the world have a low rate of allergy, but when they move to developed countries the rate increases dramatically. Scientists have also noted the same phenomenon in their labs. Non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice develop the disease at different rates after natural breeding, depending upon the environment where they are kept. Previous research has shown that NOD mice exposed to killed (i.e., non-active) strains of tuberculosis or other disease-causing bacteria are protected against the development of Type I diabetes. This suggests that the rapid “innate” immune response that normally protects us from infections can influence the onset of Type 1 diabetes.

      In the Nature paper, teams led by Li Wen at Yale and Alexander V. Chervonsky at the University of Chicago showed that NOD mice deficient in innate immunity were protected from diabetes in normal conditions. However, if they were raised in a germ-free environment, lacking “friendly” gut bacteria, the mice developed severe diabetes. NOD mice exposed to harmless bacteria normally found in the human intestine were significantly less likely to develop diabetes, they reported.

      “Understanding how gut bacteria work on the immune system to influence whether diabetes and other autoimmune diseases occurs is very important,” Li said. “This understanding may allow us to design ways to target the immune system through altering the balance of friendly gut bacteria and protect against diabetes.”

  •  There is a way to get around USDA legally... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen

    by selling people stock on cows so that they own part of cow and could pay farmer milking "fee".  The raw milk is legally the stockholders and so there is no sale.  They just simply paid the farmer milk their cow for them.  This has been successfully tried in Ohio.

    •  It's a good idea but I am hearing that it (0+ / 0-)

      is being blocked in various ways now and besides, NAIS will finish off those dairies in any case, as the raids will, not matter how the sale is arranged.

      But it's good to keep thinking.

      Better to change the laws to make the production and sale and purchase and consumption of that milk completely legal.

  •  Pasteurization (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen, Calamity Jean

    is an excuse to run a dirty operation. Why worry about the health of the cow or the cleanliness of the milking area as long as those nasty germs are going to get zapped.

    I grew up drinking whole raw milk. Fantastic stuff. A local dairy here sells raw milk and it's great.

    Tips for those buying raw milk. Get to know the dairy. Is it a clean operation? Are the cows on grass or a muddy lot? Ask about or inspect the dairy barn. What kind of diet do the cows have and do they receive hormones, antibiotics or other supplements?

    •  You assume everyone lives in a small town and (0+ / 0-)

      knows dairy farmers. That's been true for me, but I was raised and now live in a big city. There is no way for the vast majority of people to do the inspections you speak of, so we rely on the state and federal governments to do it for us.

      This is the regulation that is being condemned here.

      •  No, what is condemned here is the destruction (0+ / 0-)

        of dairy farmers in exactly the communities you say they could function in, small and local.  But even in California where raw milk is sold in groceries in large cities, it works fine and without incident.

        What is condemned is the corporate destruction of its competition based on lies that the public has come to accept as important for "food safety" when what they are getting is terrible for health and what they are allowing to be criminalized is excellent natural food.

      •  No, there is no problem with inspections. (0+ / 0-)

        Farmers want testing and inspections.   None of this is about testing but about banning of a central food that people want, that is full of value, that is safer than the pasteurized version, and the only one with the live bacteria needed to allow us to absorb the nutrients and minerals actually in milk.

    •  These are great points. The health of the cow (0+ / 0-)

      as well as the treatment of them matter a great deal.  The industrial milking conditions are horrific for cows.  Those on rBGH are milked 3 times a day and are burned out after 1 or 2 lactation cycles versus 10-12 years for a normal cow to be productive.

      And getting to know a dairy is also a pleasure.

      Thank you.

Click here for the mobile view of the site