We had Brown Swiss cows like the one you see
above when I grew up;
I milked three of them morning and night by hand because we couldn't
afford a milking machine. They gave quantity like a Holstein and butter
fat
content like a Jersey. We made our own butter. The milk you buy in the
grocery
from CAFO farms, feedlot style, is not real milk and is not good for you. This
page
explains why and why you should seek out a local source of real milk and where
to get it.
Bottomline - pasteurized and/or
homogenized milk found in the
regular grocery store or gas station foodmarts is not good for you,
the only milk that is good for you is RAW MILK straight out of
pastured,
grass/hay fed cows fed no antibiotics or steroids. Same with the beef
and chicken and eggs you eat. This is a huge issue you need to take
time to explore.
There are several resources out there to help you locate raw
milk and
other dairy products, and the Farm-to-Consumer
Legal Defense Fund
provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws, in
case you don’t already
know what your state’s rules are.
 | The Campaign for Real Milk has a Real
Milk Finder, listing sources in various US states. You can find pastured beef and chickens as well as range free chicken eggs in those listings. |
| You can also contact your local Weston
A. Price chapter for a listing of raw dairy vendors |
One alternative to raw milk that is now available in some US
food stores
is lightly pasteurized and non-homogenized organic milk. But it's still
pasteurized,
which is not best for you. If your
local store doesn’t carry it yet, you can ask them
to do so. As a last
resort, if you cannot obtain raw milk, or for whatever reason
choose not to,
you could opt for organic pasteurized milk. At least you’ll avoid
many of
the detriments of CAFO (concentrated animal feeding
operations) dairy
that way—including antibiotics, recombinant
bovine growth hormone (rBGH),
and other drugs. You’ll also avoid a source
of genetically engineered organisms
(GMOs) and glyphosate,
as CAFO cattle are typically fed genetically
engineered grains.
There is a huge controversy today
regarding consuming milk; raw milk
versus pasteurized/homogenized milk, or don't drink milk at all. It is my
personal opinion milk is a healthy product only if it is raw milk straight
out
of a cow which is pasture/hay fed, not given steroids or antibiotics that
affect
their health and lifespan, and are not fed GMO genetically modified food.
Processed homogenized/pasteurized milk from concentrated feedlot animals
fed steroids/chemicals to increase production which you find at your local
grocery is not something you should be consuming. Your immune system
is greatly compromised by consuming milk made in this fashion. Monsanto's
bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is a genetically
engineered product that has
been linked to the proliferation of breast,
prostate, and colon cancer cells
in humans. Finding a local source of unadulterated non-pasteurized non-
homogenized raw milk is your only protection against consuming toxic milk.
One major issue is the pasteurization
of the milk which completely changes
the structure of the milk proteins (denaturization)
into something far less than
healthy. Then, of course there is the issue of the
antibiotics and pesticides
and the fact that nearly all commercial dairy cows
are raised on grains, not grass,
like they were designed to. This will change
the composition of the fats,
especially the CLA content.
Another major issue is homogenization of milk. Homogenized milk is one reason
why heart disease is the number one killer in
America, and we suspect that it
could actually be the main culprit.
Homogenization causes fat in milk to be
broken into such tiny particles that
milk does not separate from its cream.
These fat particles are so unnaturally
small that they are absorbed directly
into the blood stream without proper
digestion. These undigested fat particles
stress the immune system greatly and
cause extreme inflammation. There is
an enzyme in cow’s milk that becomes
dangerous when milk is industrially
homogenized. It is called "xanthine
oxidase" or simply "XO". This enzyme is
used by young calves to
aid with digestion, but it causes cardiovascular disease
in humans when it is
unbound from the fat by homogenization. With raw (creamline
milk) this toxic substance is not absorbed. Prior to homogenization, this
offensive enzyme was always chemically bound inside milk fats, which were too
large to enter into the human blood stream undigested. The natural particle size
of fats inside unadulterated cow’s milk acts as a shield to protect humans
from
the milk’s xanthine oxidase. Homogenized milk should always be avoided,
but
if complete avoidance is not an option, then some of its negative effects
can be
neutralized with folate or folic acid supplements combined with vitamin
C. Folic
acid is inferior to folate for supplementation purposes. Be advised
that the
homogenized fats will still be damaging to the heart, even if the
arteries are
somewhat shielded from the xanthine oxidase. We recommend whole
cream-line
(non-homogenized) milk that can be found at many health food stores.
Most soft dairy products are made with homogenized milk. Although they are
rarely labeled as being so. Some people eat yogurt in an attempt to become
healthier, and it is something that we have recommended many times in the past.
Overall, yogurt probably helps more than it harms, but due to homogenization, it
is not as healthy as most people believe. Most soft dairy products will cause
inflammation and arterial damage, because of homogenization. Those who eat
homogenized products should compensate somewhat with vitamin C and folate
(or
folic acid), in order to shield the body. Hard cheeses and butter are currently
not being made with homogenized milk, so they are safe. Goat milk and products
made from it are safe, because goat milk is never homogenized.
Pasteurized-homogenized milk you buy in the
grocery store is NOT the same thing
as real
raw milk. Click on "real milk finder" at the top of the page at www.realmilk.com
;
select your state, then your city or the city closest to you to find where you
can buy
wholesome raw milk that is good for you. Both the homogenization process
as well as the pasteurization process before your milk hits the grocery store
shelves greatly compromises the benefits real milk has.
http://www.realmilk.com/health/pasteurization-does-harm-real-milk/
You
can find more at: www.raw-milk-facts.com
Also see What
you need to know about milk below
Also see milk negatives for the opinions of
those who think humans
shouldn't be consuming cow's milk at all.
Here's his thoughts on milk - By Dr. Mercola
Raw milk dairy products from organically raised pasture-fed cows rank among some of the healthiest foods you can consume. It’s far superior in terms of health benefits compared to pasteurized milk, and if statistics are any indication, it’s safer, too.
While many believe that milk must be pasteurized before it can be safely consumed, it’s worth remembering that raw milk was consumed for eons before the invention of pasteurization.
It’s also important to realize that pasteurization is only really required for certain kinds of milk; specifically that from cows raised in crowded and unsanitary conditions, which is what you find in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). It really needs to be pasture-raised, NOT pasteurized.
Organically raised cows that are allowed to roam free on pasture where they can graze for their natural food source produce very different milk. Their living conditions promote and maintain their health and optimize their milk in terms of the nutrients and beneficial bacteria it contains.
The Case Against Pasteurization
Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamins, damages milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12 and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, and actually promotes the growth of disease-causing pathogens.
Normally, healthy microbes help keep pathogens in check, but since pasteurization kills everything, a massive void is left and it is very easy for disease-causing microbes to contaminate the great culture media in a pasteurized product.
Pasteurization also destroys many of the enzymes that are needed for digestion. As a result, drinking pasteurized milk can tax your pancreas, contribute to leaky gut or holes in the lining of your intestine, and promote disease—particularly allergies.
All of this makes the war on raw milk all the more disconcerting. There are many raw foods sold, yet raw dairy is being singled out for elimination.
Could you imagine if raw oysters, for example, suddenly became a “forbidden” food? Everyone knows there are risks to eating raw oysters. Yet people do it all the time and feed them to their children.
The fact is, ANY food, if poorly handled, carries the risk for disease. Ironically enough, the vast majority of foodborne illness is actually caused by highly processed foods, including pasteurized milk.
Raw Milk Access Threatened in Illinois
At present, my home state of Illinois is pushing to restrict raw milk sales. According to WGEM news:1
“The FDA estimates up to 400,000 Illinois residents drink raw milk and local dairy farmers say those consumers will lose out if new restrictions are put in place...”
For over 30 years, the unlicensed on-farm sale of raw milk has been legal by government policy in Illinois. It’s a policy that has worked well and with no reports of foodborne illness attributed to Illinois raw milk producers going back at least as far back as 1998, if not further back.
The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) issued proposed regulations on September 5 that a number of raw milk producers believe would put them out of business. The burdensome, restrictive rules include provisions that would require a producer with even just one cow or goat to have a permit and would be subject to regular inspections and testing; the rules would also prohibit unlicensed dairy farmers from giving raw milk to guests at their home.
A workgroup consisting mostly of IDPH officials and dairy industry reps drafted the proposed rules; raw milk producers and consumers were also part of the workgroup but their input was ignored. The group wasn’t funded by the legislature but rather by a grant from FDA, the most anti-raw milk government agency in the country. An FDA official who was part of that workgroup stated that FDA considers all raw milk potentially adulterated.
Opposition by raw milk producers and consumers to the rules is also understandable when you consider that the proposed rules would place regulation with an agency (IDPH) that was complicit in an attempt to ban raw milk in the state legislature earlier this year. In March, a consortium of county health departments tacked on an amendment to ban raw milk sales in a bogus bill to amend the Access to Restrooms Act (i.e., changing the word “the” to “the”). IDPH knew of the effort but did nothing to stop the consortium when it had the chance to do so. This happened just a few months after raw milk producers and consumers worked in good faith with IDPH to draft reasonable regulations governing raw milk sales and production in Illinois.
An official with IDPH has admitted that the regulations the department wants to become law would not be passed by the Illinois legislature if submitted as a bill. If it wouldn’t pass through the people’s branch of government, why should the agency adopt it as law?
IDPH will be holding a hearing on the proposed rules on Thursday, November 6, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.at the Illinois Building on the Illinois State Fairgrounds in Springfield. Shortly after the hearing, the state legislature’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) will begin its review of the proposed regulations. JCAR has the power to reject the regulations. Illinois residents are encouraged to attend the November 6 hearing and to contact JCAR, asking its members to reject the proposed rules.
Raw Milk Issue Goes to Wisconsin Supreme Court
Meanwhile, parties to three different cases in Wisconsin are petitioning the state’s Supreme Court to decide, among other matters, whether obtaining and consuming raw milk is in fact a constitutional right. As reported by the Green Bay Press Gazette:2
“The plaintiffs ‘believe they have a fundamental constitutional right to choose what they eat and to choose where that food comes from,’ food rights activist Gayle Loiselle said. ‘We have constitutional rights to conduct business directly between farmers and citizens without government interference and without middlemen like food processors or distributors.’"
At present, Wisconsin allows “incidental” sales of raw milk; however, the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) interprets “incidental sales” in such a way as to limit the availability of raw milk to the consumer as much as it possibly can (e.g., one-time purchase at a given farm).
In one of the cases, a suit brought by members of the Nourished By Nature food buyers club (NBN) and farmers Mark and Petra Zinniker to get a court order upholding an agreement in which the Zinnikers boarded cows wholly owned by NBN and provided raw milk to club members, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler declared that
Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd. Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow. Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer. The Zinniker Plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the States' police power. Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice. In another of the cases, dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger was acquitted on three of four criminal charges for violations of the state Food and Dairy code, but was convicted on a fourth charge for violating a holding order when he removed food from refrigerators in his farm store that had been sealed by DATCP during a farm raid. Jurors later complained that the judge presiding over the trial, Guy Reynolds, prevented them from hearing evidence that would have changed their verdict on the hold order.
The judge’s conduct was biased against Hershberger throughout the trial; at one point, the judge admonished attorneys and witnesses for Hershberger that they were not to say the words “raw milk” and “liberty” before the jury.
The Wisconsin court cases typify what is happening elsewhere in the country where judges rubber-stamp the actions of overreaching government agencies interfering with people trying to obtain the foods they want to eat.
Raw Milk Bans Are Not Really About Food Safety; They’re About Market Control...
While the US government, public health, and dairy industry officials say they want to restrict the sale and distribution of raw milk because of safety concerns, it’s quite clear that safety isn't the motivating factor.
The REAL issue is control of the dairy market.
You might think that, should raw dairy become the norm, the dairy industry would simply follow suit and switch over to producing raw products. But it’s not that simple. In fact, it would be virtually impossible for a CAFO operation to start producing safe raw milk.
CAFO cows tend to produce milk that is unhealthy and unsafe to drink raw because grains, antibiotics, and growth hormones, are necessary since the animals live in such unsanitary conditions. This changes the pH balance and the natural bacteria present in the cow's gut. This in turn affects the natural beneficial bacteria and pathogens can widely contaminate the milk.
The fact of the matter is that Big Dairy depends on pasteurization, and this is why dairy lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government agencies to restrict or outright ban raw milk produced by much smaller organic or pastured dairy farms.
It’s really about eliminating competition, not about eliminating a major safety hazard. If it were, raw seafood and uncooked meats would surely be outlawed as well. Another control factor relates to the processing industry itself. He who controls the processing controls the market, including pricing.
Data Shows Superior Safety of Raw Milk Compared to Other Foods
Three years ago, Wise Traditions published research by Dr. Ted Beals MD,3, 4 which reveals that you are 35,000 times more likely to get sick from other foods (most of which are processed) than you are from raw milk. If those aren’t reasonable odds for choosing raw milk, I don’t know what is. In his 2011 presentation given at the 3rd International Raw Milk Symposium, Dr. Beals also noted that:5
The CDC estimates more than 845,000 Americans acquire diarrhea caused by contaminated food, but only an average of 34 of those cases are attributed to drinking raw milk CDC estimates an annual average of more than 63,150 Americans acquire diarrhea caused by food contaminated with E. coli. On average, just five of those are attributed to drinking raw milk CDC estimates an annual average of more than 1 million Americans acquire diarrhea caused by food contaminated with Salmonella. On average, three of those are attributed to drinking raw milk Furthermore, “those who wish to ban all milk that is not pasteurized use the horrors of Listeria monocytogenes’ systemic diseases to support their cause,” he says. “They consistently broadcast the high mortality and focus on the susceptibility of women who might be pregnant, fetuses, newborns and the elderly. However, Listeria monocytogenes has never been a significant public health risk from drinking fresh raw milk.”
Citing health concerns make absolutely no sense whatsoever when statistics are reviewed. As of 2010, there were well over 9.3 million consumers of raw milk in the US, yet only an average of 42 illnesses annually could be traced back to raw milk consumption. Meanwhile, there are an estimated total of 48 million cases of foodborne illness occurring each year in the US—from foods other than raw milk! As noted by Dr. Beals in his 2011 presentation:
“It is irresponsible for a senior national government administrator to testify that because of those 42 people, raw milk is inherently hazardous, parents should not be allowed to decide which foods they serve their children and milk should be banned across the nation unless it has been pasteurized.”
If you’re curious, you can check the CDC’s Foodborne Outbreak Database6 for yourself to see which foods, and which pathogens or contaminants, have reportedly caused illness over the past decades. At present, the database contains reports from 1998 up until 2012. All sorts of foods are represented, from salads to breads, pastas, various meat dishes, potatoes, and even beer... So while raw milk is featured as a cause of illness, if we use 2012 as an example, coleslaw, chicken, fish, and salad were still more common sources of illness that year. Yet no one is suggesting we ban the sale of any of those foods “to protect human health.”
The Benefits Clearly Outweigh the Potential Risks of Drinking Grass-Fed Raw Milk
While pasteurized milk have few if any redeeming qualities besides being readily available at every convenience store, raw milk from grass-fed cows has a number of health benefits you simply will not obtain from drinking pasteurized and homogenized CAFO milk. For example, raw grass-fed milk is:
Loaded with healthy bacteria that are good for your gastrointestinal tract High in omega-3 and low in omega-6, which is the beneficial ratio between these two essential fats Full of more than 60 digestive enzymes, growth factors, and immunoglobulins (antibodies). These enzymes are destroyed during pasteurization, making pasteurized milk much harder to digest Loaded with vitamins (A, B, C, D, E, and K) in highly bioavailable forms, and a very balanced blend of minerals (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and iron) whose absorption is enhanced by live Lactobacilli Rich in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which fights cancer and boosts metabolism Rich in healthy unoxidized cholesterol Rich in beneficial raw fats, amino acids, and proteins in a highly bioavailable form, all 100 percent digestible It also contains phosphatase, an enzyme that aids and assists in the absorption of calcium in your bones, and lipase enzyme, which helps to hydrolyze and absorb fats
The report that Monsanto
and Fox TV didn't want you to see. Published for the first time. See bottom for
another discertation on the demerits for milk.
Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, a
respected reporting team at WTTV, a Fox Network Station in Tampa, Florida, were
fired from their jobs after
refusing to broadcast what they knew and documented to be false and distorted
information about Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (BGH) -- a genetically
engineered product that has been linked to the proliferation of breast,
prostate, and colon cancer cells in humans.
On August 28, 2000, a Florida jury
unanimously decided that Akre had been fired for threatening to blow the whistle
on Fox for pressuring her and Wilson to broadcast a false, distorted and slanted
news report and awarded her $425,000 for lost wages and damages. Fox is
appealing.
This is the first time that the script
that got the reporters in trouble has appeared in print. This important document
has been edited for length but not censored. For the full version, go to the
website: http://www.foxbghsuit.com
Reporters' Version - Part I
"Nature's most nearly perfect
food" - that's how most of us have always thought of milk; wholesome,
nutritious and pure just like it says on some of the trucks that deliver it. But
down on the farm where most of us never see? Some Florida farmers have been
quietly squeezing more cash from their cows by injecting them with an artificial
growth hormone so they'll produce more milk than nature intended.
Thurman Hattan, Florida Dairy
Farmer: "Yes I would say,
people in Florida are using it. (Reporter Jane Akre) And you yourself? (Hatten)
Ahh&
Narration:
Hatten is one of many Florida dairymen reluctant to admit that they're injecting
their cows every two weeks
Hattan continues:
"it's possible I could be using it."
Narration:
The drug some Florida farmers don't want you to know they're using is a Monsanto
laboratory version of bovine growth hormone known as BGH.
Here's how it works: when the cow gets
injected with extra BGH, it stimulates the production of another hormone called
IGF-1. That's really the stuff that speeds up the cow's metabolism, causing her
to produce up to 30 percent more milk.
But some scientists like Dr.
Samuel Epstein are warning what might be good for the farmers' bottom line might
be big trouble down the line for people drinking the milk from treated cows.
Samuel Epstein, Scientist,
University of Illinois:
"there are
highly suggestive if not persuasive lines of evidence showing that consumption
of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer."
Narration:
Dr. Epstein is a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public
Health. He's earned three medical degrees, written eight books, and is
frequently called upon to advise Congress about things in our environment which
may cause cancer. He and others like Dr. William von Meyer point to what they
say is a growing body of scientific evidence of a link between IGF-1 and human
cancers which might not show up for years to come.
William Von Meyer, Research
Scientist: "We're going
to save some lives if we review this now. If we allow BGH to go on, I'm sure
we're taking excessive risks with society."
Narration:
Dr. Von Meyer has spent 30 years studying chemical products and testing their
effects on humans. He's supervised many such tests on thousands of animals at
schools such as the University of London and UCLA. He's headed agricultural,
chemical and genetic research at some of America's most prestigious companies.
Monsanto is the giant chemical company
which sells the synthetic hormone under the brand name PosilacSand Monsanto has
consistently rejected the concerns of scientists around the world.
Dr. Robert Collier, Chief
Monsanto BGH Scientist:
"In fact, the FDA has commented several times on this issue after there
were concerns raised. They have publicly restated human safety
confidence&this is not something knowledgeable people have concerns
about."
Narration:
While other companies have dropped by the wayside, Monsanto has invested a
mountain of money into Bovine Growth Hormone.
Company sales tapes encourage
farmers to use it as a tool to milk more profits out of every cow.
Video Clip of Monsanto
sales tape: "Of course
you'll want to inject Posilac into every eligible cow, as each cow not treated
is a lost income opportunity."
Narration: A
number of critics, including at least one state agriculture commissioner, have
called it "crack for cows" for the way it speeds up the cow's milk
production&but despite its promise of profit, some dairymen say the product
doesn't always lead to happy trails for the cows or for those who tend them.
Charles Knight, Florida Dairy
Farmer: "It's a tool that
can be used, but you better be careful, 'cause it can burn you..."
Narration:
Near Wachula, Charles Knight won't use Monsanto's synthetic BGH anymore. He is
one of many farmers who say they've watched Posilac burn their cows out sooner, shortening
their lives by maybe two years.
Narration:
Knight says he had to replace 75 percent of his herd due to hoof problems and
serious udder infections. Those are two of more than 20 potential troubles
listed right on the product warning label. But apart from potential suffering
for the animals, the major concern is how the hormone injected into the cow
changes the milk that ends up on our tables.
Robert Collier:
"&this is the most studied molecule certainly in the history of
domestic animal science."
Narration:
While that claim may be open to dispute, Monsanto&did put the product
through a decade's worth of testing before it was approved by the FDA's Center
for Veterinary Medicine as an animal drug. But that's part of the problem,
according to many scientists who say since BGH alters the milk we drink, it
should meet the higher safety standards required of human drugs. The critics say
tests on BGH milk that could have answered these concerns about long-term risk
to humans were just never done.
Dr. William Von Meyer, Research
Scientist: "A human drug
requires two years of carcinogenic testing and extensive birth-defect testing.
BGH was tested for 90 days on 30 rats at any dose before it was approved."
Robert Collier: "But
suffice it to say the cancer experts don't see the health issue and it's
unfortunate the public is being scared by an issue that shouldn't be of
concern."
Narration:
Monsanto's dairy research director points to what the FDA has repeatedly said
since the day it approved BGH back in 1993: "The public can be confident
that milk and meat from BGH-treated cows is safe to consume."
Part II
Narration:
You won't find Ol' Flossie and Bossie on Fred Gore's dairy farm in Zephyrhills.
On Fred's farm, all the cows have numbers instead of names - and they're watched
by electronic eyes 24 hours a day.
Farmer Gore, Florida Dairy
Farmer: "They help tell
me if proper procedures are being followed."
Narration:
At a modern dairy farm, cows wear transponders that even tell a computer how
much milk she gave today.
Farmer Gore:
"She's giving 121 pounds a day."
Narration:
In the competitive business of dairy farming these days, productivity is
paramount. That's why Fred Gore and others like him were all ears when the giant
Monsanto chemical company started promoting its new product called Posilac.
Video Clip from Monsanto sales
tape: "Posilac is the
single most-tested product in history and it helps increase your profit
potential."
Narration:
Monsanto promised that Posilac - a laboratory version of the cow's natural
growth hormone - could get Ol' 2356 and her friends to produce up to 30 percent
more milk. That was good news to Florida farmers who need all the help they can
get in a state where high heat, humidity and little local grain make dairy
farming a struggle.
The "promise of Posilac"
sounded great to dairyman Charles Knight&but he says it didn't turn out that
way.
Charles Knight, Florida Dairy
Farmer: "About
the same time we began having a lot of foot problems with our cows because they
got so crippled they couldn't walk."
Narration:
Right after he started using the drug on his herd near Wachula three years ago,
Knight says his animals were plagued with those problems and serious infections
of his cows' udders. Troubles he attributes to Posilac eventually caused him to
replace the majority of his herd. He says when he called dairy experts at the
University of Florida and at Monsanto, they both had the same response.
Farmer Knight:
"[T]hey said you're the only person having this problem so it must be what
you're doing here. You must be having management problems."
Narration:
The University of Florida, by the way, did much of the research on BGH and has
received millions in gifts and grants from Monsanto. Knight says neither the
university nor the company ever mentioned Monsanto research that showed hundreds
of other cows on other farms were also suffering hoof problems and mastitis, a
painful infection of the cow's udders.
Farmer Knight:
If untreated, the infection can get into the cow's milk so farmers try to cure
it by giving the cow shots of antibiotics&more drugs that can find their way
into the milk on your table, which could make your own body more resistant to
antibiotics.
Dr. Michael Hanson, Consumers
Union Scientist: "In
fact, there is over 60 drugs that they believe can be used on farms and they
test for a very small percentage of them.
File video of protesters
chanting: "Boycott BGH.
Boycott BGHS"
Collier: "There
are no human or animal safety issues that would prevent approval in Canada once
they've completed their review, not that I'm aware of."
Narration:
But long-term human safety is exactly the concern expressed by a Canadian House
committee on health. Here are the minutes of a 1995 meeting where members voted
to ask Canada's Health Minister to try and keep BGH off the market for at least
two more years. Why? "&to allow members of Parliament to further
examine the human health implications" of the drug.
It's still not legal to sell the
unlicensed product north of the border, despite the company's efforts to gain
the approval of government regulators.
Narration:
In the Fall of 1994, Canadian television quoted a Canadian health official as
reporting Monsanto offered $1-2 million if her government committee would
recommend BGH approval in Canada without further data or studies of the drug.
Another member of her committee who was present when Monsanto made the offer was
asked: "Was that a bribe?"
File Video Clip of CBC
documentary - CBC Correspondent to committee member:
"Is that how it struck you? (Dr. Edwards) Certainly!"
Reporter Jane Akre on camera:
"Monsanto said the report alleging bribery was "a blatant
untruth," that Canadian regulators just didn't understand the offer of the
money was for research. Monsanto demanded a retraction. The Canadian
Broadcasting Company stands by its story..."
Hansen:
"Monsanto has a very checkered history with some of its other
products"
Narration:
Dr. Michael Hansen of Consumers Union is another American scientist still very
skeptical about BGH. He says Monsanto was wrong years ago when it convinced the
government PCB's were safe. Those were put inside electrical conductors for
years&until researchers in Japan and Sweden showed serious hazards to human
health and the environment.
And you've heard of Agent Orange,
2-4-5-T, the defoliant used in Vietnam? Monsanto convinced the government it,
too, was safe. It was later proven to be extremely harmful to humans&and a
government investigator found what she said was "a clear pattern of
fraudulent content in Monsanto's research" which led to approval.
In the case of BGH, Monsanto was required
to promptly report all complaints from farmers. Florida dairyman Charles Knight
says he was complaining loud and clear that Posilac was decimating his
herd
but four months later he
found the company had not passed one of his complaints to the FDA as required.
Charles Knight, Florida
Dairyman: "so how
many more hundreds of complaints out there sat and were not registered with
FDA?"
Narration:
Monsanto admits a long delay in reporting Knight's complaints. A company
spokesman claims despite a series of on-farm visits and telephone conversations
with Knight, it took four months for them to understand he was complaining about
BGH. As for those safety claims for previous Monsanto products that turned out
to be dangerous, the company offered no comment.
Part III
Narration:
Whether you know it or not, by the time it's bottled, chances are milk from
treated cows ends up in the jug you carry home. It's made the milk on your table
one of the first genetically engineered foods ever to be fed to your family&
and the population at large.
Jeff LeMaster, Consumer/Dad: "And
for her, now that she's eating people food, we want to give her as much good
stuff without the chemical additives as possible."
Narration:
Grocers and the dairy industry know synthetic BGH in milk worries consumers like
Jeff and Janet LeMaster. A whopping 74 percent of those questioned in this
University of Wisconsin study released just last year expressed concern about
unknown harmful human health effects which might show up later.
Robert Collier, Chief Monsanto
BGH Scientist: "What they
need to know is that the milk hasn't changed...."
Narration:
That's the assurance of Monsanto& It's the company position, despite
scientific studies which show the milk we're getting from BGH-treated cows has a
higher level of something called IGF-1, a hormone believed to promote cancer.
Narration: Government
regulators in Canada, New Zealand and all of Europe have expressed similar
concerns and refused to license the drug for sale in all those countries.
File Video, consumer protesters
chanting: "Boycott BGH!"
Narration:
So three years ago when the drug was approved in America and protesters started
dumping milk that contained the synthetic hormone, your grocer and your milkman
decided something had to be done to protect sales.
Riley Hogan, Tampa Dairy Co-op:
"For good business reasons, Publix [a marketing chain] and I both wanted to
avoid the use of the product until there was public acceptance."
Narration: Maybe
you recall these media reports from 1994 when Albertsons reassured Florida
consumers "we will do our utmost to ensure that (people) don't get
it" in their milk. Publix issued similar assurances
The truth is, nobody ever did
anything but go through the motions of asking farmers to keep BGH out of the
milk supply&
And when we visited seven Central Florida
dairy operations chosen at random, how many were heeding the grocers' request? Not
a one.
Albertsons acknowledged:
"It is widely accepted in the industry that most all dairy farmers now use
BGH" but "we do not know which or how many dairies use it."&
But not everybody's using it. Ben and
Jerry, America's icons of ice cream, don't want anything to do with it& and
they're leading the fight to give you a choice at the grocer's dairy case.
Part IV
Ben Cohen, Ben and Jerry's
Ice Cream: "A big part of
the issue is that consumers are well aware that what the FDA said was fine and
healthy 10 and 20 years ago, the FDA is saying is really bad for you today
Narration:
It's one of the big reasons Ben and Jerry, makers of some of America's favorite
ice cream, are so opposed to farmers injecting their dairy cows with Bovine
Growth Hormone genetically engineered in a Monsanto chemical lab
Narration: Our
investigation has found only one dairy in Florida which produces milk from cows
not treated with BGH and what happened when the folks at the Golden Fleece dairy
in Central Florida wanted to label their products as synthetic BGH-free?
Well, first they say Commissioner
Crawford's people strongly discouraged it, but what really deterred them was a
fear Monsanto - the company which makes the hormone - would come after them in
court.
Glen Norton, Golden Fleece Dairy:
"From the information I heard and read, I was afraid at some point that if
we tried to do extra labeling, that Monsanto could cause damage to my small,
fragile business."
Narration:
Norton and others like him may have reason to be scared. Right after Monsanto
started marketing its BGH three years ago, a number of dairies that didn't use
it began to label their products so consumers would know.
Robert Collier: "In
fact, there are quite a few co-ops that do just that and we have not opposed
that at all."
Narration:
But that's not true. Monsanto did file lawsuits against two small dairies,
forcing them to stop labeling. Then the company spread the news with follow-up
letters to other dairies that apparently saw the writing on the wall&and
they also stopped&
The labels on Ben and Jerry's ice cream
will soon be different, too& The label will also carry wording that says the
FDA has said there is no significant difference between milk from treated and
untreated cows - a claim some scientists sharply question. That wording, by the
way, was written by Michael Taylor, an attorney who worked for Monsanto both
before and after his time as an FDA official.
Some dairy people say Ben and Jerry have
jumped on the anti-BGH bandwagon as just a way to sell more of their ice cream.
Ben Cohen:
"The tremendous amount of chemicals that's used in conventional agriculture
is having a horrible effect on the environment and on the health of our citizens
and our customers and you know, (laugh), if you want to say is it our
self-interest? Yeah! We want to keep our customers alive. They eat more ice
cream when they're alive!"
Narration:
As part of an effort to influence these reports, a lawyer hired by Monsanto
wrote a Fox television executive saying the discussion of any possible link
between the use of synthetic BGH and cancer is "&the most blatant form
of scaremongering."
In a second letter, he said Monsanto
critics are in all probability "scientifically incompetent." He is
referring to critics such as Dr. Samuel Epstein at the University of Illinois
School of Public Health. Epstein has three medical degrees, he's the author of
eight books, and is frequently called to testify before Congress about the
environmental causes of cancer.
Like other BGH critics, Epstein contends
it's just wrong to introduce a product into the marketplace when there are so
many important and still-unresolved human health questions.
Samuel Epstein, Research
Scientist: "We're living
in the greatest democracy in the world in many ways but in other ways were in a
corporate dictatorship in which big government and big industry decide what
information the consumer can and should have and it's the objective of me and
the Cancer Prevention Coalition to
assure that this information be made available and let the public decide and
let grassroot citizens take over where government and industry has failed."
This is the first time that the script
that got the reporters in trouble has appeared in print. This important document
has been edited for length but not censored. For the full version, go to the
website: http://www.foxbghsuit.com
Earth
Island Journal - Summer 2001 Vol. 16 #2
What you need to know about milk
On your way to greater self-sufficiency, you have purchased a dairy cow or goat. You should feel proud that you are taking responsibility for your family's health and you are doing what's right for the environment and the economy. However, I would like to offer even more motivation for your daily trudges to the barn. You may not be aware of the amazing array of health benefits that raw milk offers.
The Darwin of Nutrition
Weston A. Price, known as the “Darwin of Nutrition”, was a dentist who wanted to understand the increase in degeneration he was seeing in his dental practice – crowded arches, cavities, crocked teeth. So, he took to the field (a man after our own hearts). He traveled to isolated pockets of people, the so-called “primitives” such as the Inuits, the Maori, South American Indians, the Gaelics of the Outer Hebrides, the Aborigines, and the Swiss in the Alpine villages.
On his travels he found people who were relatively free of degenerative diseases and tooth decay. They had straight teeth, strong bodies, easy reproduction, and emotional stability. While living in such diverse locations, these healthy people shared one thing in common: a traditional diet. A diet free of refined or denatured food and full of animal protein, saturated fats, and some raw animal products. Once a group of people abandoned the traditional diet for a Western diet, the changes evident in one or two generations was stunning – crowded teeth, narrow faces, and the onset of “Western” diseases, including emotional ones.
Benefits of Raw Milk
Milk and dairy products are some of the raw animal products that are consumed. Here are some of the benefits of raw milk that you can think about as you milk the cow at 5 AM. Raw milk contains:
|
All twenty standard amino acids – a complete protein.
| Anti-microbial molecules such as Lactoferrin, Lysozyme, and lactoperoxidase.
| Lactic acid, which boosts the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and iron and makes protein more digestible.
| CLA – an Omega 6 fatty acid that stokes metabolism, helps eliminate abdominal fat, increases muscle growth, reduces insulin resistance, boosts the immune system, decreases food allergy reactions, and has anticancer properties.
| All of the vitamins, including, of course, calcium. It also contains the proper balance of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium for best absorption.
| Cholesterol; yes, we do need cholesterol, especially for the production of hormones.
| Beneficial bacteria that suppress the bad bacteria in the milk and in our guts.
| Nearly fifty percent of the calories in raw milk are from butterfat. Yum. Butterfat contains higher amounts of vitamins A and D, which are necessary for the assimilation of calcium and protein. The fatty acids in butterfat also help to stimulate the immune system and contain lipids which prevent intestinal distress.
| Raw milk doesn't contain additives, unlike the coloring in typical butter, the bioengineered enzymes in mass cheese production, and the neurotoxic amino acids in skim milk. |
The Problems with Commercial Milk
So what's the big problem with typical commercial milk? Here are the facts you can share with your well-meaning relatives who are appalled by the idea of drinking milk straight from the cow. It's a long list, so hold on. Pasteurization kills enzymes, diminishes vitamins, denatures milk protein, destroys vitamins C, B12, and B6, kills good bacteria, promotes pathogens, leads to growth problems in children, and increases the likelihood of allergies, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease, and cancer. Many calves that are fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. Whew. No wonder milk has been getting such a bad rap lately. However, it's the pasteurization and the homogenization that's the real problem.
Homogenization has been linked to heart disease. When fat globules are broken up mechanically, an enzyme known as xanthine oxidase is released and penetrates the intestinal walls. Once xanthine oxidase reaches the bloodstream, it is capable of creating scar damage in the heart and arteries. This, in turn, causes the body to release cholesterol into the blood in an attempt to cover the scar with fatty material. Thus, the likelihood of arteriosclerosis developing.
Safety
The big issue the opponents of raw milk bring up is one of safety. However, pasteurized milk is actually linked to higher numbers of illnesses than other regulated raw milk products. There are four factors to look at when it comes to food safety: the health of the cows, feed, confinement, and collection.
Collection is an easy one to consider. Some workers in commercial plants figure that the milk's going to be pasteurized anyway and so they don't have to be as stringent about sanitary rules. Also, they're not drinking it, so who cares? Most small farmers and homesteaders know the importance of washing hands, washing udders, keeping the collection area and equipment clean, and refrigerating the milk soon after collection.
The care of the cows is a more complex issue in terms of safety and milk quality. Cows fed mostly grains have higher levels of pathogenic bacteria in their milk. It has been noted that pasture raised, grass-fed cows live about 15 years and can birth 12 calves in that lifetime; however, cows fed soy meal live about six years and birth three calves. Commercial cows are fed not only soy and grains but bakery waste, citrus peels laced with pesticides, and pellets with chicken manure in them.
Pesticides, estrogens, antibiotics, trans fats and other toxins can all make their way into the milk. The milk is only as healthy as the cow it came from. On the other hand, cows fed a healthy diet of green grass supplemented with hay, silage, and root vegetables in the winter months, have milk with higher levels of beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacilllus, which in turn keep the bad bacteria, like E. Coli, in check. For instance, the Swedes pasture-raise their cows and have no incidences of Salmonella in their milk.
Types of Cows, Types of Milk
So you're convinced that raw milk is good for you (thank goodness, since you have that cow lowing in the field out there). But it's never as easy as you would think because not all milk, even raw milk, is considered equal.
Many people find that their milk allergies and intolerance vanish once they start drinking raw milk. However, this isn't always the case and some of this has to do with the breed of cows that are most common in the U.S. - the Holstein. This is discussed in Dr. Keith Woodford's book, The Devil's in the Milk.
Milk is comprised of three parts: the fat, the whey, and the milk solids. The milk solids contain different proteins, one of which is casein, and it's the beta-casein that may cause problems. Milk from old breed cows such as Jerseys and Asian and African cows (known as A2 cows) have the “original” form of beta-casein but new breeds (known as A1 cows), such as Holsteins, have a mutated version.
The “A1 milk” doesn't bond as well with a small protein called BCM 7. The problem with BCM 7 is that it is an opiate-like substance that may cause neurological problems, most notably, autistic and schizophrenic changes. BCM 7 also interferes with the immune response and may increase the likelihood of Type 1 diabetes. Dr. Woodford has shown a direct correlation between widespread consumption of A1 milk and the rise in type 1 diabetes, autism, schizophrenia, auto-immune disease, and heart disease.
It is interesting that the French have never accepted these A1 cows due to the belief that these cows produce inferior milk.
The good news is that the absorption of BCM 7 is lower in people with healthy digestive systems. Also, BCM 7 is not found in goat's or sheep's milk.
There are some other arguments for choosing Jersey milk. According to High Lawn Farm, Jersey milk is comprised of 18 percent more protein and 29 percent more milk fat when compared to an average of the other breeds. Jersey milk also contains over 20 percent more calcium over other milks, more vitamins A and B1, and a higher percentage of riboflavin. The nutrition found in a 9.64 ounce helping of Holstein milk can be obtained in an eight ounce helping of Jersey milk.
The Alternative: Goat's Milk
Goat's milk has the advantage of being easier to digest; this is in part because the protein curds that are formed in the stomach are softer than that of cow's milk. This, in turn, makes digestion faster and easier. Almost half the people who are lactose intolerant can drink goat's milk. In addition, goat's milk contains only trace amounts of an allergenic casein protein, alpha-S1, which is found in cow's milk. Scientific research has not discovered a lower incidence of milk allergy with goat milk; however, many mothers would disagree and this may be another case where mother's wisdom and attention overrides the evidence of a laboratory.
Another advantage is that the medium chain fatty acids in goat's milk are believed to help with several diseases such as cystic fibrosis, gallstones, heart disease, and digestive problems. Goat's milk is comprised of 35 percent of these medium chain fatty acids as compared to cow milk's 17 percent.
The mineral content of goat's milk and cow's milk is generally similar; however, goat's milk contains 13 percent more calcium, 25 percent more vitamin B-6, 47 percent more vitamin A (and the vitamin A is pre-formed, unlike cow's milk which must be partially converted from carotenoids), 134 percent more potassium, and three times more niacin. It is also four times higher in copper and contains 27 percent more of the antioxidant selenium than cow's milk. An eight ounce serving of goat's milk contains nine grams of protein as compared to eight ounces of protein in cow's milk. Cow's milk contains five times as much vitamin B-12 as goat's milk and ten times as much folic acid. Since goat's milk is lower in folic acid, it is usually fortified with folic acid when used in formula or as a milk substitute for children.
In the goat world, the Saanen is comparable to the Holstein in that it produces a high quantity of milk with a lower fat content. On the other hand, the Jersey of the goat world is the Nubian, which produces less milk but with a higher fat content. The LaMancha, Toggenburg, Alpine, and Oberhasli fall in between the two extremes.
Law Regarding Raw Milk
Sales of raw milk is allowed in twenty eight of the fifty states. In another five states, raw milk may be sold for “pet consumption”. In some of these states, there are laws under consideration that would require all “pet milk” to be treated with a charcoal dye so that humans will be sure not to drink it.
In some of the remaining states, such as Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia, raw milk is available by “cow sharing”. Cow sharing or “herd sharing” is when a group pays a farmer fees for maintaining and milking a cow and then they pick up the milk from the “shared cow” - but they do not pay for the milk itself. If cow sharing is not allowed, some people have organized “farm sharing” in which a group of people buy non-voting shares in a farm and are therefore able to obtain milk from the farm in which they own shares.
Obviously there are other benefits to be had from consuming raw milk. Raw milk bequeaths a myriad of health benefits but it also makes greater economic and environmental sense. Drinking raw milk may be your best economic option because you already have the animal; however, even if you have to purchase your raw milk, you are supporting a small farmer and helping him or her maintain their lifestyle. Raw milk is also the best environmental choice because a small dairy production allows for a “mixed-use” farm, which is the most in-sync with nature. So, if you already have your dairy animal(s), congratulate yourself on (yet another) wise decision. If not, consider supporting a local farmer and buying raw milk and raw milk products. And if you are banned from buying raw milk, fight for your Constitutional right.
Raw Milk sources
Bremerton:
| Blackjack Valley Farms, (see Port Orchard listing).
Contact Karen Olsen, phone: 360-731-3382, email: bljkvalleyfarms@aol.com.
Thursday deliveries.
| CJ’s Evergreen General Store, Cynthia Jeffries (owner),
1417 Park Ave., phone: 360-479-2708, email: cj@cjgeneralstore.com.
Carries raw Jersey cow milk from Dungeness Valley Creamery (see listing
under Sequim). Hours: Mon-Fri 9-8, Sat 10-8, Sun 10-7. Milk comes in on
Mondays. Orders taken until Friday 12pm.
| 9170 Baird Ct NW, Bremerton WA 98311, phone:
360-307-8500. Drop point for milk from Dungeness Valley Creamery (see their
listing under Sequim), as well as a drop point for Wildly Organic (wildly-organic.com)
Certified Organic produce.
| http://www.fernwoodcreamery.com
off Glenwood off Sidney in Port Orchard
Local chapters of the Weston Price Foundation help you find locally-grown organic and biodynamic vegetables, fruits and grains; and milk products, butter, eggs, chicken and meat from pasture-fed animals. - See more at: http://www.westonaprice.org/get-involved/find-local-chapter/#wa Spokane: Wendy Fairman (509) 230-0804, nourishtoflourishus@gmail.com |
