Raw Milk Victories

[countryboy]

If raw milk was legalized and sold commercially, they would have to have a means of bottling it immediately, as too many hands on, from the farm, without pasteurizing, would be touchy.
And, just as Karrie says, how can one monitor all farmers,
all the time, I guess there would have to be a government, or independent licenced 'handler' on the site, and on the job.
And, how can this tuberculosis problem be checked in the
milk, without pasteurizing it.

Here's some general info. on it:
Tuberculosis

Here's an excerpt from a British article:

"Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported."
Complete article at: Raw Milk Vs. Pasteurized Milk
Note: This is not new rocket science...the article was published in Britain in 1938!

 

[countryboy]

If raw milk was legalized and sold commercially, they would have to have a means of bottling it immediately, as too many hands on, from the farm, without pasteurizing, would be touchy.
And, just as Karrie says, how can one monitor all farmers,
all the time, I guess there would have to be a government, or independent licenced 'handler' on the site, and on the job.
And, how can this tuberculosis problem be checked in the
milk, without pasteurizing it.

Here's some more info. on tuberculosis and milk...
Sun and Soil: Raw Milk and Tuberculosis (from the U.S.)...
Note the last paragraph in this one:
"Clearly this provides no argument in favor of pasteurization, since often these organisms are viable following the process. These are but a few of the most recent examples of the ridiculousness of the campaign which continues against raw milk in much of the country."

 

[Cliffy]

Here's some more info. on tuberculosis and milk...
Sun and Soil: Raw Milk and Tuberculosis (from the U.S.)...
Note the last paragraph in this one:
"Clearly this provides no argument in favor of pasteurization, since often these organisms are viable following the process. These are but a few of the most recent examples of the ridiculousness of the campaign which continues against raw milk in much of the country."

Wow Dude! You be doin' a great service here with the research you are doing. As far as I'm concerned, most of the food safety stuff is bogus. People are too sterile and have no immunity to anything anymore. No wonder so many people are sick so often. Eat Dirt!

 

[countryboy]

Wow Dude! You be doin' a great service here with the research you are doing. As far as I'm concerned, most of the food safety stuff is bogus. People are too sterile and have no immunity to anything anymore. No wonder so many people are sick so often. Eat Dirt!

Actually, it's easy to get information but the 'net is crowded with pros and cons on the issue, as it is on any subject. It takes a lot of reading to swath through it all, but I've been doing it for a long time.

That's why I am parked where I am on this subject...after one discovers a few glaring problems in the food business, it gets easier to find the tricky stuff that keeps coming up almost every day. Like, substituting sweeteners in things like jams and jellies and they don't even have to tell you about it...that really p*sses me off.

I'm not a crusader per se, just a bit of a "foodie" who doesn't like scientists playing around with perfectly good eats to try and make things ship better, look better, save a bit of cost, etc. I just want good bloody food! Pretty simple, really.

It's so easy to eat crap these days, it's quite sad. I have to "forage" for good food...searching out good meat, good veggies, etc. is a hell of a tough job. But, it's worth it, in my opinion.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Simplest answer is that unpasteurized milk was proven to be a vector for tuberculosis. Pasteurization also retards spoilage.

Good point, as the world got bigger and so did markets ways had to be found to make food safer for much larger numbers of people. The world changed as millions of people from the late 19th century onwards moved from small towns to big cities. Distances increased and science found an acceptable answer.

This has however, lowered the quality of milk. Now people want milk with less drugs with modern sanitation. There is a smack of intolerance here forbidding milk outside "the system". One people, one church etc.

I would call this asymetrical food these days. The system still gets a bit bent out of shape over it.

 

[countryboy]

:-|"When it was first used, pasteurization was thought to make raw milk from any source safer to consume. More recently, farm sanitation has greatly improved and effective testing has been developed for bovine tuberculosis and other diseases, making other approaches to ensuring safety of milk more feasible; however pasteurization continues to be widely used in case infectious milk should enter the food supply."

"IN CASE INFECTIOUS MILK SHOULD ENTER THE FOOD SUPPLY"

Sounds reasonable to me.

However, you wanna drink it straight from Bossy, knock yourself out...........Providing you pay for your stay in the hospital in case something goes wrong.

On the other hand, it's a bit like taking antibiotics "in case an infection might come along." That's proving to be a bit of an error too...as in that disturbing "new" phenomenon known as "superbugs."

I'll pay for any stay in the hospital when the stupid drivers who cause accidents smarten up and quit driving stupidly, junk food eaters quit eating junk food, smokers quit smoking, drinkers quit drinking, cell phone users quit irradiating their brains, junkies quit shooting up, Febreeze users quit spraying chemicals all over their furniture, water suppliers quit using that nasty plastic for their bottles, and society in general suspends all their ignorant and stupid behaviours.

I think it's only fair to level up the playing field a bit here, if we're going to have a discussion on "self-destructive behaviour" and their corresponding impacts on health care costs, don't you?

 

[Tonington]

And it is a fact food has become less nutritious over the decades. It's time to roll back a little a system that hinders individuality in food.

What exactly is it in unpasteurized milk which makes it more nutritious? Since I don't know where my milk comes from, I'll gladly buy pasteurized milk over whatever nutritious benefit you could ever hops exists with raw whole milk.

Sterilizing milk does not harm the proteins, lipids, or any of the other molecules found in milk. Only the bacteria.

And don't get me started on cloned cows/meat. Cows have no trouble reproducing, they don't need scientists for assistance here. Cloned meat is caca meat.

So this is the argument? It's either raw milk or Frankenmilk? Sheesh.

Rubbish. I've been sick from Campylobacter. I wouldn't wish that experience on anybody.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Why do a needless process like sterilizing milk when it is often not needed for some people? What about choice? Freedom?

Cloned food is about corporate MNCs out of control. Systems nened to coexist here. What;s wrong with that?

 

[Nuggler]

On the other hand, it's a bit like taking antibiotics "in case an infection might come along." That's proving to be a bit of an error too...as in that disturbing "new" phenomenon known as "superbugs."

I'll pay for any stay in the hospital when the stupid drivers who cause accidents smarten up and quit driving stupidly, junk food eaters quit eating junk food, smokers quit smoking, drinkers quit drinking, cell phone users quit irradiating their brains, junkies quit shooting up, Febreeze users quit spraying chemicals all over their furniture, water suppliers quit using that nasty plastic for their bottles, and society in general suspends all their ignorant and stupid behaviours.

I think it's only fair to level up the playing field a bit here, if we're going to have a discussion on "self-destructive behaviour" and their corresponding impacts on health care costs, don't you?

Like I said; knock yourself out....... It's not at all like taking antibiotics and lowering one's resistance. It's about killing the buggies in the milk and thereby rendering it safe. You want TB, just visit a san sometime and you might be able to contract it without drinking raw milk. Lots of fun.

Or, you can shoot yourself in the foot. Or vote conservative. Lots of choices

 

[countryboy]

Like I said; knock yourself out....... It's not at all like taking antibiotics and lowering one's resistance. It's about killing the buggies in the milk and thereby rendering it safe. You want TB, just visit a san sometime and you might be able to contract it without drinking raw milk. Lots of fun.

Or, you can shoot yourself in the foot. Or vote conservative. Lots of choices

Nuggler - The only thing some of us ask for is a choice between pasteurized or raw milk. Currently, we don't really have one.

No need to drag politics into the discussion. Or gun control...(was that what the "shooting myself in the foot" was all about?) :lol:

 

[countryboy]

Why do a needless process like sterilizing milk when it is often not needed for some people? What about choice? Freedom?

Cloned food is about corporate MNCs out of control. Systems nened to coexist here. What;s wrong with that?

Some folks asked for information on the issue of raw milk vs. pasteurized and some info. has been presented on the posts. People don't have agree with the stuff, but I agree - the importance of having a free choice is the real issue for me. I don't have a problem with people drinking pasteurized milk - that's their choice.

 

[karrie]

Does co-op'ing get by the 'purchase' laws? If you pay into a co-op, can you take raw milk, and not be breaking the law?

 

[countryboy]

Does co-op'ing get by the 'purchase' laws? If you pay into a co-op, can you take raw milk, and not be breaking the law?

Not sure. It didn't work in Ontario until the latest ruling. I suspect that most if not all provincial Health regulations would override the co-op thing, but it's a good question - I'll ask the local health inspectors here in BC. They get all excited about farm fresh eggs, so I think I know what the answer will be...but it's worth an ask.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Farm fresh eggs. The dangers out there are monumental.

 

[countryboy]

What exactly is it in unpasteurized milk which makes it more nutritious? Since I don't know where my milk comes from, I'll gladly buy pasteurized milk over whatever nutritious benefit you could ever hops exists with raw whole milk.

Sterilizing milk does not harm the proteins, lipids, or any of the other molecules found in milk. Only the bacteria.

So this is the argument? It's either raw milk or Frankenmilk? Sheesh.

Rubbish. I've been sick from Campylobacter. I wouldn't wish that experience on anybody.

Tonington: Your question: "What exactly is it in unpasteurized milk which makes it more nutritious?"

The introductory paragraphs from a complete article found at: A Brief Overview Of The Health Benefits Of Raw Milk are below:

"There's little mention in the mainstream media these days, of traditional foods having healing properties. Sure, there's a ton of hype touting unfermented soy products, vegetable oils and supplements as modern saviors, but in reality, these items have risk-to-benefit ratios like many drugs do (1).

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century (2)(3). That's right. Milk straight from the udder, a sort of "stem cell" of foods, was used as medicine to treat, and frequently cure some serious chronic diseases (4). From the time of Hippocrates to until just after World War II, this "white blood" nourished and healed uncounted millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that (5)(6). What's in it that makes it so great? Let's look at the ingredients to see what makes it such a powerful food (7)."

The basic list of nutrients in raw milk (and they are shown with detailed explanations in the article) is:

Proteins
Carbohydrates
Fats
Vitamins
Minerals
Enzymes
Cholesterol

...none of which are affected by pasteurization if they come from raw milk.

Tonington: Your quote: "Sterilizing milk does not harm the proteins, lipids, or any of the other molecules found in milk. Only the bacteria. "

Re: Destructive Effects of Pasteurization...

"I shall rely upon the most orthodox authorities to show that the chemistry and physical structure of the milk are greatly altered, its vitamins destroyed, its calcium and phosphorus rendered useless, its digestibility impaired, its proteins rendered less valuable and its value as a food greatly reduced. The sugars of the milk are broken down and caramelized and to some extent the colloids are agglutinated. The original structure of the milk is broken down and the cream line is slightly reduced."

The above is a quote and excerpt from the complete article at: Destructive Effects Of Pasteurization

 

[talloola]

Here's some general info. on it:
Tuberculosis

Here's an excerpt from a British article:

"Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported."
Complete article at: Raw Milk Vs. Pasteurized Milk
Note: This is not new rocket science...the article was published in Britain in 1938!

14 cases of tuberculosis, I find that difficult to believe,
was this 50 years ago, or recently. Tuberculosis has been
reduced so far, 14 cases is very unusual.

It seems 'somewhere' there was an unusual outbreak of tuberculosis, which happens from time to time, and of
course, everyone would have been drinking pasteurized
milk, so I don't get the point or comparison here, doesn't
make any sense.
A stat like that would be easy to find, and the cases of tuberculosis wouldn't
have anything to do with pasteurized or raw milk.

 

[countryboy]

14 cases of tuberculosis, I find that difficult to believe,
was this 50 years ago, or recently. Tuberculosis has been
reduced so far, 14 cases is very unusual.

It seems 'somewhere' there was an unusual outbreak of tuberculosis, which happens from time to time, and of
course, everyone would have been drinking pasteurized
milk, so I don't get the point or comparison here, doesn't
make any sense.
A stat like that would be easy to find, and the cases of tuberculosis wouldn't
have anything to do with pasteurized or raw milk.

Tallooa, In your post #60 you asked: "And, how can this tuberculosis problem be checked in the milk, without pasteurizing it."

I was trying to supply you with some information on the situation of raw vs. pasteurized milk. The post to which you refer above was a report from 1938, which was clearly identified on the last line. If you take your mouse and click on the blue letters (the link), you won't have to wonder where "somewhere is"...it'll tell you that. That's why the link is there.

The point of it - combined with other information and links - was to show that raw milk performed rather well, in terms of TB in the milk, and has been doing so for a long time. That post also clearly states who drank what, and what the results were...the TB cases, in other words.

I don't expect you to believe any of this, but at least give it the benefit of a read before you dismiss it outright. Learning involves a lot of reading, listening, questioning...it's a lot of work.

I happen to believe in the benefits of clean, raw milk but I don't expect anyone else to...it's all an individual decision. And that's really all that I'm seeking in the long run...the freedom to make my own decision on which milk to drink.

I'll respect your decision if you'll respect mine!

 

[talloola]

Tallooa, In your post #60 you asked: "And, how can this tuberculosis problem be checked in the milk, without pasteurizing it."

I was trying to supply you with some information on the situation of raw vs. pasteurized milk. The post to which you refer above was a report from 1938, which was clearly identified on the last line. If you take your mouse and click on the blue letters (the link), you won't have to wonder where "somewhere is"...it'll tell you that. That's why the link is there.

The point of it - combined with other information and links - was to show that raw milk performed rather well, in terms of TB in the milk, and has been doing so for a long time. That post also clearly states who drank what, and what the results were...the TB cases, in other words.

I don't expect you to believe any of this, but at least give it the benefit of a read before you dismiss it outright. Learning involves a lot of reading, listening, questioning...it's a lot of work.

I happen to believe in the benefits of clean, raw milk but I don't expect anyone else to...it's all an individual decision. And that's really all that I'm seeking in the long run...the freedom to make my own decision on which milk to drink.

I'll respect your decision if you'll respect mine!

Didn't read the whole article, can't stand long drawn out
articles, that's my problem not yours, just happened to
notice that particular stat I mentioned in last post.

l938 you say, well that tells it all. There was lots of
tuberculosis back then, so that stat I was talking about
still doesn't prove anything to me.

this isn't anything to do with your decision, the article
is trying prove 'something', so it's a matter of believing
or not believing stats in the article.

somewhere is as good as anywhere.

 

[countryboy]

Didn't read the whole article, can't stand long drawn out
articles, that's my problem not yours, just happened to
notice that particular stat I mentioned in last post.

l938 you say, well that tells it all. There was lots of
tuberculosis back then, so that stat I was talking about
still doesn't prove anything to me.

This isn't anything to do with opinion, seems this article
is trying prove 'something', so it's a matter of 'who'
one wants to believe, not what milk you think is better.

Um, well, that's an interesting response for sure. Not sure what to say. I guess anything I say will be suspect anyway, so why don't we just leave it at that?

 

[talloola]

Um, well, that's an interesting response for sure. Not sure what to say. I guess anything I say will be suspect anyway, so why don't we just leave it at that?

I edited my post right after you hit the quote button I guess, so it is a little different.

No, I don't focus and read long articles, I zero in on
what interests me.

There are many long articles on the forum, I don't read
most of them, scan thru a few of them.

I'm not trying to impress anyone here with my knowledge,
just reacting to 'certain things' I read, with what I think.

I only responded to that particular point re: 14 compared to
2 or whatever it was cases of tuberculosis, just seemed
rather imaginative to me, and still does.

My comments to this particular article have nothing to do
with you, just the article.