Did you ever think you’d see this statement endorsed by dairy regulators?
“Milk fresh from the cow is a complete, living, functional food…the full benefits…are only realized when all of these components function as a complex interdependent and balanced process.”
Or how about this:
“Of all the milk constituents, the milk fat globule is the most drastically altered by the combination of pasteurization and homogenization.”
After endless reassurances from scientists and other officials in public health, agriculture, medicine, and government that there’s no difference between pasteurized and unpasteurized milk, we are now being told something entirely different by an organization that includes top dairy regulators and an agriculture university dean (along with a number of raw milk proponents). The organization is the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup, which includes among its members the two top dairy officials of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and a dean of the Michigan State University College of Agriculture.
The Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup, which I described in a previous post, is a committee that grew out of the ashes of the bizarre “string operation” against Michigan farmer Richard Hebron in October 2006. After forcibly confiscating $8,000-plus worth of dairy products the farmer was delivering to members of Ann Arbor’s Family Farms Co-op, Michigan’s Department of Agriculture sought to have Richard indicted on criminal charges. Instead, a county prosecutor refused to go forward with the case, and pushed the department to settle with Richard. As part of the settlement, the department agreed to allow herdshare arrangements. Subsequently, the department’s two top dairy officials, Katherine Fedder, who ordered the investigation and subsequent raid on Richard Hebron; and Susan Esser, agreed to join the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup, which is charged with answering the question: Where do we want to be in three to five years on access to fresh unpasteurized whole milk.
The workgroup has moved systematically, some might say tediously, to address ten topics relating to the question of access to raw milk. When it started meeting in early 2007, it expected to get through the topics in 18 months. Now, nearly three years later, it has formally addressed only two of the ten topics.
The statements I quoted from above come from the second topic and was just posted in recent weeks, on the subject of “Benefits and Values.” Part of the challenge facing the workgroup is that each of its eleven members must approve each and every word of each topic discussion. No majority-rules here. That’s the bad news in terms of pace, but it’s also the good news in terms of buy-in and impact. You know that the government and ag people have reviewed and signed off on everything posted.
From that viewpoint, the posting on Benefits and Value is remarkable, coming from the first state in the nation to require pasteurization, and prohibit the sale of raw milk, back in 1947. It provides detailed explanations in response to the questions: “What are the additional benefits of milk fresh from the cow?” and “What is the impact of pasteurization on fresh unpasteurized whole milk’s value?”
The posting never explicitly states what I say in my heading above—that raw milk is superior—but it’s impossible not to draw that conclusion from reading through the list of eleven criteria that are listed as “the additional benefits of milk fresh from the cow.” These include twenty “well characterized intrinsic enzymes”, “immune system enhancers,” and “antibacterial components.”
It comes out positively on four of the most explosive issues in the debate over the nutritional benefits and special properties of raw milk:
- Competitive inhibition: It says raw milk contains “microorganisms that suppress pathogens by competitive mechanisms.”
- Lactose intolerance: “Many people with professionally diagnosed lactose intolerance do not have the symptoms of this condition, even when consuming large amounts of fresh milk.”
- Pregnant moms: There’s “enhancement of mother’s breast milk quality by including fresh milk in her diet.”
- Reducing asthma and allergies: “Numerous well-controlled studies have shown the independent effect of drinking fresh milk on reducing asthma and childhood rhinitis in general and specifically in childhood allergic rhinitis.
On and on it goes:
“There are large numbers of different bacteria present in fresh milk. Some of these are included in the Standard Plate Count test; others do not grow under those culture conditions and so are not counted as a part of the test. Both the total numbers and the diversity of bacterial types (genus and species) are variable. Most of these bacteria are beneficial.”
“Therefore, milk is inherently a prebiotic since it contains lactose and numerous other components that beneficial bacteria can utilize.”
And I haven’t even addressed the section on “the impact of pasteurization,” but it’s equally devastating for the anti-raw-milk lobby. Here, the strong inference is that pasteurization offsets many of raw milk’s benefits. It concludes that pasteurization adversely affects milk’s proteins, carbohydrates, and enzymes. It also states that pasteurization un-does the immune-building benefits of raw milk: “Cell-mediated immune mechanisms rely on living somatic cells, but pasteurization kills those cells, losing that effect.”
When you think, these findings are part of what came out of the sting operation against Richard Hebron, you realize that life does work in strange ways. Guess I can’t wait for the workgroup to complete the next eight sections of its agenda.
***
I suspect the Michigan workgroup’s conclusions about the benefits of raw milk will have a wide impact. Initially, they may raise the decibel level of the debate (if that’s possible), especially as regards the farmer-vs-farmer side. I have to admit, I was caught off-guard by the intensity of the debate associated with the upheaval at Organic Valley co-op, as reflected in the comments on my previous post. Thanks to lola granola for the insights into what’s happening at Organic Valley.
The farmer-vs-farmer aspect of this mirrors to some extent the discussions over raw milk’s risks, as noted by Lykke and Sylvia, and the issue of rights, as noted by Bob Hayles and Miguel. But there’s a whole separate dimension related to the role of the farmer in the marketplace. Most farmers been so marginalized, they have nothing to say about pricing and distribution of not only milk, but most other farm products. And if Organic Valley takes the radical step of distributing raw milk, it may, as Milk Farmer suggests, potentially marginalize even the growing cadre of raw dairy producers.
In this debate as well as others, we see divisions among supporters of raw milk, especially between what might be called moderates and strict constructionists–those who are open to compromise with regulators, and those who want the regulators removed from the process and the marketplace. The division is asserting itself in the debate over the role of legislation to loosen the tight regulation of raw milk in Wisconsin.
But this issue isn’t open-and-shut—too much water under the dam to just let the established order of the agriculture marketplace take over. A chaotic time seems to be in store.
"Competitive inhibition: It says raw milk contains microorganisms that suppress pathogens by competitive mechanisms.
This statement is taken out of context, probably in order to mislead consumers into not considering the risks when making a decision.
The MI site on benefits is pretty to look at, but it does not represent appropriate (or ethical) education of consumers – it is one-sided without any information on risks. The site does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and should be taken down until they finish the questions on risks. The consumer is not making an informed choice if given only information on benefits (much of it anecdotal and incomplete). I certainly won’t use or recommend the link as it stands now, regardless of who in public health or ag supposedly signed off on it.
The consumer isn’t able to, or it is extremely difficult for them to make an informed choice when the hazards of consuming processed/chemically laden/adulterated phoods are pushed onto them. Again,why is raw milk being singled out? As stated numerous times, there are many other foods that have higher contamination rates.
http://www.dairyreporter.com/Safety-Hygiene/US-dairy-industry-plea-to-boost-raw-milk-regulation
I wanted to like the MI website (believe me – it would be great to have a model collaboration), but the site is not valuable as an educational tool snce they present only benefits and no discussion of risks. This strikes me as political – someone(s) decided to push public release of the preliminary work for some kind of gain?
I think they should take it down until complete.
If you MUST get your panties in a wad over a lack of education for the public, why not raise hell that there is no sign at the deli counter and no required label on deli meats that states, "The CDC has determined that of all foods sold in the United States, deli meat is the most dangerous, causing the most illness and death."?
Your one sided hipocritical BS is nauseating.
Bob Hayles
http://www.juicymaters.com
EVERY time you are in contact with a government bureaucrat or elected official, remind them, "We don’t work for you. You work for US."
What are you talking about? When did deli meats last cause HUS in children? Or, paralysis from Campylobacter? There are messages about deli meats and risk of listeriosis for pregnant women, though I agree they could be made clearer.
When you consider the small number of people who drink raw milk, it is statistically a high risk food. A better comparison would be raw ground beef, raw sprouts, and raw oysters or other seafood. But, those foods are not generally marketed for children and the immunocompromised.
Good point though on the educational materials – probably no one reads them anyway other than those who wrote them. That’s the limitaton of education and why we need regulation.
As for your argument re regulation vs education, wrong again. If the educational info is provided and the buying public doesn’t bother to avail themselves of it, then let them buy the nanny state approved garbage that passes for food. Its not the governments job to protect one from one’s own stupidity.
I’ve asked you before, and I’ll continue to ask, as I hounded McAffee about outrsourcing…WHERE in the constitution does it give the government the right deny people their own nutritional choice?
You refuse to answer because you can’t…without losing the argument.
Geeze at the nanny state sheeple…
Bob Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
When you are in contact with any elected official, remind them that , "We don’t work for you. You work for US."
Let’s give them a choice, and some freedom to choose, and some responsibility with that choice. You want and deserve that same freedom. We’re not stupid. We don’t need your protection. We need your support.
-Blair
Your deli meat comparison still makes no sense (where do you get your statistics)? Consumers were on the hill recently (relating to food safety bills) yelling about ground beef, produce, peanut butter paste, and imported foods contaminated with melamiine, as primary examples.
I think your view that there should be no regulations for safe food is in the minority. Even herdshare "owners" have sued the farmer after getting sick. The People think safe food is part of the infrastructure like roads, water, and sewers.
Blair,
I am an advocate of choice including raw milk. And, soda pop (some want to ban it from schools). But, that doesn’t translate into a free-for-all with industry putting whatever they choose up for sale, making false marketing claims, and ignoring consumer safety.
BTW, here’s how China dealt with their milk scandal. I’m glad I live in the US.
China executed a dairy farmer and a milk salesman Tuesday for their roles in the sale of contaminated baby formula…
http://cbs5.com/national/china.execution.milk.2.1332844.html
Get big or get out? No – get small and responsible or watch your children’s health deteriorate, and your freedom to choose die. Our forefathers drank raw milk, grew their own vegetables – they did not anticipate the USDA or the FDA decimating God’s food in lieu of global marketing opportunities. Back then, real food came from local farms.
And they had full mental capacity, great genius, and terrific spirit!
If you win this argument, you will destroy our vitality. Indeed, you already have.
-Blair
But, I buy local often, support a CSA, and grow seasonal veggies in a home garden. I see consumer safety as an integral part of the system – large or small, how does that destroy vitality?
I’ve been pregnant three times. When my midwife found out that we sell raw milk, she gave me a lecture about the risks of listeriosis associated with raw milk. Never, ever, did she mention that I could get listeriosis from deli meats and that I should avoid them. There is a double standard at play here, whether or not you want to admit it.
I think that with Lykke we should be reminded of advise that Dave Milano gave this group back on August 3 of this year (it was a great comment, Dave, and I have it taped to the wall next to my computer):
"Do not allow yourselves to be sucked into a political discussion that includes microbiology. That sort of talk should be among individuals only and has no place in the text of federal government rules. Work instead to win back individual rights. The ONLY effective way to do that is to fight government with its own founding documents. Begin with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."
Lykke, the reason there are people shouting for food safety on capital hill is because of an ‘enemy’ created by our government, real or imagined. I’ve heard reports that there were 20 USDA vehicles and many USDA employees on the road next to the field where the contaminated spinach came from, one week before the outbreak. False flag terror? Mysteriously, the newspaper article that reported this has disappeared from the internet. The reality is, is that the government stages ‘problems’ in order to give us the ‘solution’ – and chances are that the ‘solution’ will take more of our rights away. David Icke’s Problem-Reaction-Solution. How do you know that the whole raw milk fearmongering isn’t more of the government’s attempt to take our rights away, to take good food away, and to take our health away? If you don’t believe it, look up "eugenics" and "UN Agenda 21".
Lykke,
Is your CSA inspected and regulated? Is your home garden inspected and regulated? Should it be?
"There are thousands hacking at the branches of EVIL to one who is striking at the root"
Henery David Thoreau
Raw dairy is the king of all foods hence the war to stamp it out. Debating about good germs and bad germs is not a plan for victory. The only real victory will be our unfettered freedom to choose which is our G-D given right since the begining of Creation.
Site taken down? Why should it be censored? These are real results that deserve to be shared. Sure, a disclaimer could be added that the other portions are works in progress. But it makes me shiver that you would recommend closing down a site entirely because it’s not "balanced." I don’t see the FDA’s warnings on the alleged dangers of raw milk being balanced by acknowledging the potential benefits. Should its site be shut down too?
Why doesn’t the PMO require a license?The legislature has to word these statutes very carefully.The wording has to appear to require us to enter a contract in order to produce raw milk without actually doing so.If it clearly required a license it would be unconstitutional and therefore "no law at all".The same is true for all licenses and permits.The actual buyer is the only one who is in a position to make those kind of demands on the producer.
"This statement is taken out of context, probably in order to mislead consumers into not considering the risks when making a decision."
Please inform us what context it is meant and site your source.
Where Lykke? Where? Those are fairly short documents…you ought to be able to find backup for your side pretty quick.
Let us know how that is working out for you, eh?
Lick the hand Lykke…lick the hand.
Bob Hayles
http://www.juicymaters.com
EVERY time you come in contact with an elected official or government bureaucrat, remind them, "We don’t work for you. You work for US."
Don’t waste my time and I’ll stop wasting yours. If you guys want to be at the table, then give some consideration to consumer safety in the balance of discussing your food rights. If you can’t do that (and apparently you can’t). Hasta la vista.
Great post. This is a great day for raw milk where ever it is. My hat is off to the diversity of people that sat together patiently for the last three years and listened to one another. I was one of the people that addressed this group three years ago. I shared the details of the CA Raw Milk experience and was respected and allowed to share and speak. The mere act of opening discussions is a mature and couragous act of dignity and intelligence. This is something that the FDA has not and will not do. Sheehan is so corrupt, deft, dumb blind and paidoff….now it comes into clarity for all to see. He is not a leader…he is a puppet of the NCIMS. I witnessed this myself. Sheehan is Mr. FOOD INC!!
These are the ever widening cracks that are forming in the foundations of the sterile food paradigm and I am grateful for the intelligence and maturity of those on the Michigan Fresh Milk Working Group. I am especially grateful for allowing science to be printed in its pure form with out political corruption to serve NCIMS or the processors or Sheehan.
What will Sheehan say now?…..that pastuerized milk and raw milk are identical….ooops!!?? Not sure he can get away with this kind of scientifically biased and unsupported statement anymore. Remember that Sheehan is a lawyer and not a scientist. He is paid to lie and protect his guilty clients and he does that well.
Lykke, just let it go….the science of raw milks superior health giving value is clearly behind raw milk. As far as safety is concerned….I agree that raw milk safety can span the gambit between extremely safe to unsafe and needing to be pastuerized…..just like any other food. What is the heartburn over this. Why the drama in denial and the hardheaded position.
Just give it up.
This is a great day…..congrats Michigan. I will be posting this research at our website. We get a million hits per month. That should educate and inform some people.
Mark McAfee
Where in the constitution or the bill of rights is the government given the authority to deny citizens the right to make their own nutrition choices?
Bob Hayles
http://www.juicymaters.com
Every time you are in contact with an elected official or government bureaucrat, remind them, "We don’t work for you. You work for US."
Are scientists and regulators pressured by "Market Forces" to come to the conclusions that they do?This is about consumer safety.It is about who is making the decisions about what is safe to eat.Consumers would be safer if they were allowed to make their own decisions.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/the-genetic-engineering-of-food-and-the-failure-of-science/#more-958
By Don Lotter, PhD
The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science
November 29, 2009
" To quote renowned cellular biologist Barry Commoner, commenting on the results of the Human Genome Project: The fact that one gene can give rise to multiple proteins destroys the theoretical foundation of a multibillion dollar industry, the genetic engineering of food crops.
" Numerous scientific studies show that the process of the genetic engineering of plants is associated with genome-wide mutations, large-scale rearrangements or deletions of plant chromosomal DNA as well as insertion of superfluous DNA.[1] The main change to food resulting from this genomic disruption is that novel proteins are produced proteins that have never been in the human digestive system. These are often common food proteins that have a changed configuration such that the human body does not recognize them and reacts as if it is a disease. Allergies are just one of the outcomes."
" Of the many studies documenting these serious problems with transgenic foods, one example stands out, not only for its health effects, but also for what happens to scientists who discover these problems. For example, in the late 1990s, one of Europes top genetic engineers, Dr. rpd Pusztai, found that the process of genetic engineering of the potato caused test rats to develop potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract; inhibited development of the brain, liver, and testicles; caused partial atrophy of the liver; enlarged pancreas and intestines; and immune system damage."
"Pusztais subsequent termination from his senior position at a UK research institute following the release of his research results is discussed in my paper along with other examples of bias against and mistreatment of scientists whose research does not support transgenics. Pusztais paper in The Lancet, considered the top medical journal in the world, remains a landmark in food transgenics.[2]"
"Problems with transgenic foods dont end with toxicology. In an inexplicable lapse, genetic engineers mistakenly assumed that, upon passage through the human stomach, all DNA in transgenic food would be inactivated. However, DNA from GM foods can actually insert itself into a completely different species when a part of the foreign gene package used to make the process of genetic engineering work, encounters a DNA hotspot. These hotspots make it easier for foreign DNA to jump from one species to anothermeaning it is possible for genes from GM corn to jump to the bacteria naturally present in our stomachs. This is a very serious flaw with health implications that have not been adequately researched."
"The distortion of transgenics science and the loss of scientific integrity due to university dependence on industry funding is discussed extensively in Part 2 of my papers. While I cannot delve into this area in this short backgrounder, these problems can be summarized as:
Bias towards research that might make money for industry (patentable products and processes) and away from a focus on publicgoods research;
Tolerance by the scientific community of bias against and mistreatment of scientists whose work results in negative findings for transgenics, including editorial decisions by peer-reviewed journals;
Monopolization of expert scientific organizations on transgenics by pro-industry scientists;
Deficient scientific protocols, bias, and possible fraud in industry-funded and industry-conducted safety testing of transgenic foods;
Increasing politically- and commercially-driven manipulation of science within both the universities and the federal regulatory bodies such as the FDA; and
Manipulation of the information environment and media by pro-transgenics forces.
US science funding must be restructured to provide support for non-proprietary, ecological approaches to ensure the integrity of both our scientific process and our food supply. Simultaneously, federal regulatory bodies need a complete overhaul to restore their independence. Finally, transgenic crops need comprehensive scientific re-evaluation for a possible national rollback."
The article is too long to post the whole thing.These are just a few of the interesting parts.
We have actually come a long way since the events of October 2006. And I think it is significant that we all are at least talking. Given how much our communities (rural and urban) in Michigan are being financially/economically hammeredand I do mean hammered-having hope for some progress is important. (I include raw milk with the many other isues we are dealing with in regard to food sovereignty.)
Does government own the table? A fair translation of Lykke’s statement is: You have the freedom to order from my menu.
Lykke, Bobs question deserves a straightforward answer, as does miguels concerning whether your CSA, and perhaps even your home garden, should be government-permitted and regulated.
It is quite clear to me that the food safety paradigm pushed by government and corporate ag is terribly flawed (including the pass given to GMO crops, and its corollary, the government-bestowed right of corporations to patent GMO lifeforms). That that paradigm is being promoted as vital, and is occasionally enforced by violence, is frightening. Where can I turn for protection except to my basic natural rights (which say, by the way, that I may choose whether or not to allow your table discussions to impact my life)?
Where in the constitution or the bill of rights is the government given the authority to deny citizens the right to make their own nutrition choices?
Science changes. It is not a standard we can put faith in. It is every persons right to determine what food they eat. If someone else has authority to deny my that right I am their slave. Would you have us all be slaves?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Toothpaste labels warn not to swallow a pea-sized amount of toothpaste. The amount of flouride in a pea-sized glob is the same as the amount found in 8 ounces of fluoridated drinking water. Why does the toothpaste label say to call the Poison Control Center if it’s ingested, but water does not have such a warning?
How much fluoride are people consuming? Fluoride is added to foods and drinks, sprayed on crops with irrigation, etc. How much is in that can of coke, or that bowel of corn flakes? Exceeding the "optimal" dose of 1 PPM will result in health problems.
1 ppm equals 1 mg per 1 L. water
1 ppm equals 0.5 mg per 16 oz. water
1 ppm equals 0.25 mg per 8 oz. water
1 gram of toothpaste that contains fluoride has approximately 1 mg of fluoride
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bottledwater
Even bottled water is contaminated and tptb allow this to happen! bottled water is big $$$ as is the added fluoride to our tap water.
tptb allow so many items that are known toxins to the body to be sold without warnings.These 2 examples show how tptb really aren’t interested in food safety.
Article here:
http://hartkeisonline.com/2009/12/01/supercenter-store-welcomes-raw-milk-with-huge-fanfare/
I wonder if they even inform the ignorant public about the dangers they are playing with? They should just make it all illegal because, just like over here, the public is too stupid to understand such complicated issues as raw milk. Just watch, I’m sure there will soon be people dying left and right from these machines and they will all go away.
Here is another bit on the situation in Georgia. Apparently after Bob’s letter was sent to the Agricultural Commissioner some people started to take notice and have discussions (way to go Bob!!!!!):
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/112709/new_529263570.shtml
I love reading the comments in that article like this one:
"When someone dies from drinking raw milk, and it is GOING TO HAPPEN, who will catman blame?"
How did everyone get so programmed that raw milk is going to kill? Did I miss that class in High School chemistry? I mean whenever someone mentions pasteurized milk, why isn’t there the obligatory comments about how it can be dangerous and kill people too, because it does… What about hamburger? When there is an article about eating a McD’s hamburger, why don’t people post, "Oh how can people eat hamburgers? Don’t they know that hamburgers kill people?" Or what about spinach? Here we go with a supposedly healthy food. Why don’t we have the public saying we should all stop eating spinach? I just love how anytime raw milk is mentioned it seems like someone has to pipe up and state that raw milk is going to kill you.
I think I am going to stay in bed today, because I need to fear everything in my life.
Ok, I will stop being sarcastic now. Back to reality, I did find those articles interesting!
http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2009/12/01/20091201cooptour1201.html
As with our community here on David’s blog, the programmed people always leave their mark as in this comment below:
"There has to be something more constructive and contributory to society that these people could POSSIBLY be doing rather than wasting multiple hours per week to save 60 cents on a dozen lousy eggs (that are high in cholesterol anyhow) Grow some vegetables….less stench, less maintenance and healthier for you. Now get back to stimulating the economy and stop smoking so much grass and eating your shrooms, hippy freaks!"
Wow, now there is someone who believes the mantra that eggs are eggs or milk is milk no matter where and/or how it is produced. You know, if a person really does research the subject in question, it becomes readily obvious that there are benefits to society to raising your own chickens. Some of the other comments on the site were equally choice :).
Where is all of our general indoctrination coming from? I think I missed these classes. Hmmm…
Bob Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
EVERY time you come in contact with an elected official or government bureaucrat, remind them, "We don’t work for you. You work for US."
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/seeing-the-pattern-before-copenhagen-scientists-threatened-in-four-essential-areas-of-study/#more-965
"1. Agriculture and food safety
Fear: Starvation worldwide and death from contaminated food.
What is potentially gained through that fear?
Introduction of GMOs despite rejection by farmers, elimination of threat from local farming and local food supplies, control over food worldwide, ownership of nature at the level of DNA, mandated products and processes, permanent control over prices and profit, political control (the Kissinger plan: control food/control people).
Genetic engineering, including its companion product, pesticides, gives insight into what scientists have faced for telling the truth. Arpad Pusztai was released from the Rowett Institute after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. His research team was disbanded after reporting the dangers from GMOs though his work is valued by other scientists. Ignacio Chapela was threatened and denied tenure for exposing the crossover of genes from GMO corn to normal corn. I am living proof of what happens when biotech buys a university. Corporate biotechnology is killing this university.
Meanwhile corporations have been judged guilty in courts for false claims about product safety. Frances highest court has ruled that US agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as biodegradable and claimed it left the soil clean.
In the US, pesticide studies were flawed by conflict of interest, failure to meet ethical standards established by the Declaration of Helsinki, unacceptable informed consent procedures, inadequate statistical power and inappropriate test methods and end points. All studies were funded by pesticide manufacturers, and all ethics committees responsible for approving the study protocols were part of the contract research organizations paid by the company to conduct the studies
Political efforts to make use the corrupt tests followed. Corruption of science is not new, nor only in the area of pesticides. Industry studies used in support of GMOs contradict well established scientific principles. Chief among their [Pusztai and Seralini’s] concerns are the ways Monsanto explains away statistically significant effects.
Lying about food safety science, Clinton promoted HACCP, a program in which governments actually withdraw from inspection in favor of company-based inspection and turning US sovereignty over food safety to the corporations running the WTO. The 2009 food safety bills harmonize agribusiness practices to implement corporate global governance. Food safety is a con job. The festering fraud behind food safety reform gives yet more evidence of the distortion of science used to further corporate interests.
Media promotes fear of food shortages and corporate GMOs as the solution, without reporting studies that show organic farming can well feed people, and with no harm to their rights or the environment.
Upshot: Human access to food is at stake. Local food is safe food and outside the corporate food system, providing industry no profit, so corporations must get rid of local farmers and other independent sources of food, and eliminate access to all unpatented, uncontrolled food, seeds, animals, nutrients."
I see two statements about breastmilk:
"Enhancement of mothers breast milk quality by including fresh milk in her diet."
"The Workgroup does not have available information or studies on the affect of pasteurized milk a mother is consuming on the nutritional value of her breast milk."
Two on lactose intolerance:
"Overcoming the symptoms of lactose intolerance- Many people with professionally diagnosed lactose intolerance do not have the symptoms of this condition, even when consuming large amounts of fresh milk."
"Heating does not affect the level of lactose in milk. Although there are reports that many people with lactose intolerance do not experience symptoms when drinking fresh unprocessed whole milk, the Workgroup does not know if this affect is the result of pasteurization."
Two on asthma:
"The reduction of asthma and allergic rhinitis in children when raw milk is consumed is well documented. However, studies have not specifically determined if this is the affect of heating or of some other difference between FUW milk and commercial pasteurized milk."
"Reduction in asthma and allergic rhinitis- Numerous well-controlled studies have shown the independent effect of drinking fresh milk on reducing asthma and childhood rhinitis in general and specifically in childhood allergic rhinitis."
The asthma statements strike me as not having been written by a researcher. In the citations, we have the European farm milk study and a couple that discuss its findings. It’s an interesting study, but certainly is not "numerous" unto itself and it is not "well-controlled" in my opinion.
The competitive exclusion information is not incorrect, but it would mislead a consumer who does not know the literature, much like the WAPF does in its presentation of the literature.
Amanda
We American bacteriophobes think we are so much better off, but are we really? This is ancient animal husbandry practices that have been around for millennia, and although we look at this situation in this video as wretched, I, for one would not be on the bandwagon of accusing this mother of child endangerment. And just because a typical SAD individual from this country might not survive this environment would only be a testament to our weakened state of immunity rather than the third world country conditions in this video.