# Anyone else have a child who hates "store bought" milk but LOVES raw milk?



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

My ds is 28 months. He's NEVER wanted regular (organic) milk. A couple of days ago my father brought over some raw milk from his cows for Bay to try. WELL--- he LOVED it! He chugs it right down. I'm trying to figure out if it's the rawness of it that reminds him of his breastmilk that he loves so much or if he just loves it because his Grandpa brought it to him. Anyone? Also, I'd like to continue getting it for him... is there a problem with a youngster drinking raw milk?


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Yes. Cows carry so many diseases (Campylobacter, toxic E. coli, etc) that don't affect them but are carried in their milk. This sort of disease is especially harmful to little ones. :/


----------



## mystic~mama (Apr 27, 2004)

i would disagree with a blanket answer of Yes, raw milk is harmful...dd and I eat raw goat cheese and I have researched on this and feel totally comfortable with it...i would look into raw goat milk personally it seems more gentle and less mucous forming.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sly Soprano*
Yes. Cows carry so many diseases (Campylobacter, toxic E. coli, etc) that don't affect them but are carried in their milk. This sort of disease is especially harmful to little ones. :/

I totally disagree with this statement that raw milk is not safe to give children. Clean raw milk from pasture-fed cows is far superior to give toddlers than pasteurized milk. If raw milk is so dangerous and rife with pathogens how come my children, who have never consumed anything but raw milk, haven't ever suffered food poisoning?

FWIW, there has never been an epidemic proven to have been caused by raw milk. All epidemics from milk were proven to be from pasteurized milk.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

If raw milk is so dangerous and rife with pathogens how come my children, who have never consumed anything but raw milk, haven't ever suffered food poisoning?
That's a game of roulette. You could eat raw chicken for years and not get food poisioning either, but that doesn't mean it's safe. Children are especially susceptible to illness and fatalities from these types of food borne illnesses

These are Canadian, but all are incidents recorded in public health departments in regard to food poisioning from raw milk:

In Chilliwack, 5 members of a family became ill with Salmonella from raw goat's milk.

On Central Vancouver Island, 9 out of 13 kindergarten children became ill with Campylobacter after drinking raw milk while on a school visit to a local farm.

In a separate outbreak, also on Central Vancouver Island, five children from different families were diagnosed with an infection of E. coli 0157:H7 after drinking raw goat's milk from the same farm. Two of the children had to be hospitalized. Samples of the raw goat's milk were tested and found to have the same strain of E. coli 0157:H7 that caused the illnesses.

In Vernon, a number of cases of Campylobacter were traced to the consumption of raw milk.

In the Kootenays, a 35 year old woman needed surgery and a long stay in hospital due to Brucella infection. She had previously drunk raw milk from several sources.

On the Queen Charlotte Islands, 2 people developed Toxoplasmosis after drinking raw goat's milk.

From: http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile03.stm

Also, a fantastic article from quackwatch on raw milk: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/rawmilk.html -- discusses the lawsuit against Alta-Dena, a major raw-milk supplier, and the harmful levels of bacteria found in the milk.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *white_feather*
Also, a fantastic article from quackwatch on raw milk: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/rawmilk.html -- discusses the lawsuit against Alta-Dena, a major raw-milk supplier, and the harmful levels of bacteria found in the milk.

QUACKWATCH? Please. Nothing personal white_feather, but IMO, nearly everything on that site is bilge. The man is against anything that has even a tinge of being unconventional or non-mainstream, and twists whatever he can find, relevant or not, to feed his witchhunt.

Anyone who wants the real story on raw milk, potential for poisoning or disease transmission, possible health benefits, etc., needs to get the book The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Unfortunately, my older son loves store bought milk, though I have begun mixing it with about 1/4 cup of raw milk ... hoping to get him to where he drinks more raw milk than the pasteurized/homogenized yuck. (yuck, imo
















In terms of the danger of raw milk ... of course there is danger just as there is danger with most any other food if it isn't handled properly. I can recall many samonella (or was it e. coli?) outbreaks from people eating canteloupe and watermelon ... so do we start pasteurizing those too? Actually, if you search for the records, you'll find the problems are with the pasteurized milk ... not with raw milk. Visit RealMilk.com and RawMilk.com ... the answers are out there.







But in terms of nutrition, raw milk (cow or goat) is an excellent source of good bacteria, enzymes, vitamins ... stuff you don't get from pasteurized milk. So, to the OP, if you son likes it, and you know it's coming from a clean source (ie: not just buying it from someone selling it on the corner







), then I say let him drink!


----------



## chocomoto (Nov 21, 2001)

My kids do prefer raw milk and will choose it over the store-bought if I have them both in the fridge. Their friends ask for it when they come over.

We can get a raw milk locally and this is a relatively common practice here, especially with the older generation. My husband's great uncle will be 100 this year and has put warm milk straight from the cow on his porridge every morning his whole life.

I believe that whole, unprocessed foods such as raw milk have advantages in terms of nutrition and taste. The key is in how the milk is handled. I wouldn't drink raw milk from an unknown source, or raw milk that had been transported a long distance, nor from a farm that sold it's milk for pasteurization because they may not be as strict with hygiene. I pick up my milk once a week from a biodynamic farming community.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

Visit RealMilk.com and RawMilk.com ... the answers are out there. But in terms of nutrition, raw milk (cow or goat) is an excellent source of good bacteria, enzymes, vitamins ... stuff you don't get from pasteurized milk.
So, quackwatch isn't OK, but these other obviously biased sources who are trying to sell something (from selling an industry to actually selling the product) make a good place to refer someone to research?

The only nutrients that are heat sensitive in milk are vitamin c and thiamine - and neither are in milk in any sort of significant quantity. Even at that, pasteurization kills off less than 30%.

Even certified raw milk harbors the potential for dangerous bacteria. Pasteurization is really a fancy word for cooking. I don't eat raw meat, and I don't drink raw milk.

It doesn't even begin to make the least bit of sense to me that there would be MORE disease in milk that's been cooked. The only possible thing that would make sense is that the pasteurized milk was bad to begin with and pasteurization didn't kill off all the bacteria or wasn't done properly. But then the solution is to drink pasteurized milk from sources you trust OR pasteurize it yourself.

As for cantelope and fruits -- I wash them. As for meats, I cook them. As for milk, we pasteurize them. I don't play with food borne illnesses.

I also believe in whole, unprocessed foods. I just don't see pasteurization as processing. If someone else didn't do it, I would. Just as if someone else didn't cook my chicken, I would.

An argument to buy organic milk from local raw milk farmers and then pasteurizing it oneself at home makes a lot of sense to me. I could totally get into that, and supporting the farmers who treat their cows so well. I still believe the milk would be superior to what you get at grocery stores, but the risks of serious, life-threatening illnesses would be diminished.


----------



## member (Apr 15, 2002)

Organic raw milk from pastured cows is the best dairy you can give IMO. I am glad to hear that your son likes it, I love it too!

It makes awesome ice milk too.


----------



## chocomoto (Nov 21, 2001)

Does anyone have any current research showing that raw milk carries diseases?
I know that back in the 20's when the push was on for pasteurization, tuberculosis was thought to be transmitted in milk, but this was never proven.

Why cook milk? I don't cook my breastmilk.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

Does anyone have any current research showing that raw milk carries diseases?
I know that back in the 20's when the push was on for pasteurization, tuberculosis was thought to be transmitted in milk, but this was never proven.
Well, I just listed a whole bunch of recent outbreaks that public health officials traced to raw milk in Canada, and I gave the link to that.

Here's another listing of diseases related to outbreaks and includes in what journals they were published: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/food...eaksummary.pdf

This article also lists some outbreaks from raw milk, some in the US: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/food/milk.htm

Quote:

Why cook milk? I don't cook my breastmilk.
Are you serious? Cooked breastmilk, add a little nutmeg. What a delicacy!

Well, you'd presumably know if you were carrying salmonella or a deadly version of ecoli. And you probably don't let your baby nurse from strangers that you don't know who could be carrying goodness knows what kind of diseases.

Also, breast milk is the natural source of milk, filled with wonderful immunities and proteins made just for baby. Cow's milk is foreign. Many cow germs are foreign to our bodies. AND, breastmilk is essentially clean but for what's on your nipple. Cow's milk gets contaminated (or has the potential for contamination through the many series of steps it takes to milk and get to your door).


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Here's an article about pasteurization versus raw milk and why raw is better. It also gives some stats about disease and pasteurized milk.

I have found the following quote (and I've read similar on other sites too) very interesting:

Quote:

And calves will die if fed pasteurized milk as their normal diet.
Next shall we tackle the homogenization process?







:

Seriously, though, getting raw milk from a reputable source is so much better for you than store-bought pasteurized milk. There is almost no point to drinking the store-bought pasteurized milk as any value to the milk is lost when it is pasteurized.


----------



## momofelise (Apr 13, 2005)

Anyone know anything about Golden Fleece raw milk? They do sell pausteurized milk too (at low temperatures). Anyone else get their raw milk there?


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

white_feather

First quackwatch is not an okay source, it is run out of a garage by an unlicenced MD with a major axe to grind. He is a joke. If you want people to take you seriously then please use other sources.

All you are doing in your posts is repeating mainstream propaganda against raw milk and mainstream fear (false evidence appearing real) of pathogens.

I repeat what I wrote in my other post, there have been no known epidemics caused by raw milk consumption. I can list many, many outbreaks attributed to bacterial food-poisoning from pasteurized milk products if you wish.

Quote:

It doesn't even begin to make the least bit of sense to me that there would be MORE disease in milk that's been cooked. The only possible thing that would make sense is that the pasteurized milk was bad to begin with and pasteurization didn't kill off all the bacteria or wasn't done properly. But then the solution is to drink pasteurized milk from sources you trust OR pasteurize it yourself.
The assumption and false premise is microbes labeled "pathogens" are always harmful is incorrect. Health department officials live in the cerebral dark ages and are totally prejudiced against mircoorganisms which they like to classify as pathogens based on erroneous statistics and pseudoescience. I attended a CO state Health Department hearing on raw milk last year, and one of the state's leading public health experts told the panel that he would advise anyone who drinks raw milk to wash their hands afterwards, the audience of over 200 could not contain their laughter at this ignorant comment. The ruling of the department was in favor of raw milk and cow and goat shares are now legal in CO.

Bacterial phobia is annihilating our natural-food supply. Many natural communities ate primarily raw unsalted meat and raw unsalted animal fats or dairy. They did not wash their hands or sterilize their food before eating. Every form of natural bacteria, including samonella, E.coli and compylobacter were consumed, abundantly and constantly. So why were they healthy and disease free if microbes are the culprit? Toxic bodies are the cause of disease. Our bodies are toxic through eating dead cooked foods, and through enviromental and pharmaceutical poisioning.

John R. Roth, Professor of Biology at the University of Utah has studied salmonella for 40 years and stated that salmonella a so-called pathogen lives beneficially as part of the gut flora. Rarely does it cross the gut wall and when it does it is simply an irritation at the gut wall. The idea of eradicating microbes like salmonella is ludicrous because they are everywhere. So are these microbes activated in a nontoxic enviroment? Are these microbes active because they are doing a benefital job, ie the carrian that feed off dead and toxic cells? I believe they are supposed to be in our bodies and that if we improve our internal enviroment these mircobes will no longer need to be active.

So, I believe it is pasteurized milk products that are dangerous and you are taking far more risk drinking that than raw milk. Pathogens enter unhealthy cells. Pasteurization kills milk cells. If someone eats a product that is full of pathogens, the bacteria will proliferate in a body full of unhealthy cells. So the thing is an unhealthy body is more likely to get sick from drinking pasteurized milk than raw milk.

FWIW, I have absolutely no problem eating raw meat (even chicken and turkey although I am not over fond of it!) and have never had food poisioning as result. The last time I remember getting food poisioning was after eating pizza. Serves me right for eating junk.

Quote:

Does anyone have any current research showing that raw milk carries diseases?
I know that back in the 20's when the push was on for pasteurization, tuberculosis was thought to be transmitted in milk, but this was never proven.
I don't believe there is any current research. The scientific community just doesn't do research into the benefits of raw milk because it goes against their religion of the fear of germs. But raw milk was actually used in the treatment of TB with in the 1920s at the Mayo Foundation by Dr J E Crew with "uniformly excellent" results. Hippocrates also used raw milk to cure TB.


----------



## momofelise (Apr 13, 2005)

There is a lot of government resistance to raw milk because it is a lot cheaper for dairies to use pasteurization (the dairy industry are powerful lobbyists). With pasteurization, the large dairy companies don't have to keep the cows humanely, etc. That was the whole reason pasteurization became necessary to start with. Some cows were kept in horrible conditions and were often sick. The milk from these sick cows made people sick (big surprise!). Pasteurization made it possible to produce milk that wouldn't kill people and still maintain cows as cheaply as possible. Basically, there is money at stake. Keeping healthy, pasture-fed cows and milking in sanitary conditions would allow everyone to have healthy, raw milk (raw being healthier than pasteurized milk). This, however, would cut into the profits of large dairy companies.

I'm not trying to turn this into a political discussion. And I know that pasteurization has protected some people and that there is a use for it. I'm just saying that it would be more expensive for major companies to offer safe raw, milk. So there is a financial motivation to preserve the status quo both in how milk is produced and how pasteurization is generally perceived. Ultimately, of course, buying raw or pasteurized milk is a personal decision. We all want to do, and should, what we feel is healthiest for us.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Wow, uccomama - I read your whole post twice, and couldn't decide if it was worth responding to or not. Against my better judgement, here I go.

Quote:

First quackwatch is not an okay source, it is run out of a garage by an unlicenced MD with a major axe to grind. He is a joke. If you want people to take you seriously then please use other sources.
1) You haven't refuted anything written about raw milk on quackwatch, you've only refuted the source. Therefore, I have no idea what you're talking about.

2) I already provided other sources.

Quote:

All you are doing in your posts is repeating mainstream propaganda against raw milk and mainstream fear (false evidence appearing real) of pathogens.
Forgive me. I'm an RN. Pathogens are quite real to me.

Quote:

I repeat what I wrote in my other post, there have been no known epidemics caused by raw milk consumption. I can list many, many outbreaks attributed to bacterial food-poisoning from pasteurized milk products if you wish.
I've already disproven this, and provided sources. You can't just keep repeating the same thing over and over again to make it true.

Quote:

The assumption and false premise is microbes labeled "pathogens" are always harmful is incorrect.
True . . .

Quote:

Health department officials live in the cerebral dark ages and are totally prejudiced against mircoorganisms which they like to classify as pathogens based on erroneous statistics and pseudoescience. I attended a CO state Health Department hearing on raw milk last year, and one of the state's leading public health experts told the panel that he would advise anyone who drinks raw milk to wash their hands afterwards, the audience of over 200 could not contain their laughter at this ignorant comment. The ruling of the department was in favor of raw milk and cow and goat shares are now legal in CO.
So, a bunch of people laugh at what you think is an ignorant comment (and I think is common sense) and this is proof that you can't get sick from raw milk?

Quote:

Bacterial phobia is annihilating our natural-food supply.
I would argue that it is industrialization that is annihilating our natural food supply.

Quote:

Many natural communities ate primarily raw unsalted meat and raw unsalted animal fats or dairy. They did not wash their hands or sterilize their food before eating. Every form of natural bacteria, including samonella, E.coli and compylobacter were consumed, abundantly and constantly. So why were they healthy and disease free if microbes are the culprit? Toxic bodies are the cause of disease. Our bodies are toxic through eating dead cooked foods, and through enviromental and pharmaceutical poisioning.

Because they're playing roulette. You don't get sick everytime. You don't even get sick most of the time. But when you do, it's awful, and it's many times fatal.

There is a balance. Healthy bodies are more able to fight off disease. But it's a wild and crazy idea that we only die from pathogens when eat bad food and take drugs. Food poisioning has been documented for thousands of years, and it's clearly related to harmful bacteria. Further, the life expectancy in tribal jungle tribes that live as close to nature as possible is quite short, and it's been demonstrated many times that the reason for that is infectious disease above all else.

Quote:

John R. Roth, Professor of Biology at the University of Utah has studied salmonella for 40 years and stated that salmonella a so-called pathogen lives beneficially as part of the gut flora. Rarely does it cross the gut wall and when it does it is simply an irritation at the gut wall. The idea of eradicating microbes like salmonella is ludicrous because they are everywhere. So are these microbes activated in a nontoxic enviroment? Are these microbes active because they are doing a benefital job, ie the carrian that feed off dead and toxic cells? I believe they are supposed to be in our bodies and that if we improve our internal enviroment these mircobes will no longer need to be active.
This doesn't make sense to me. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from salmonella poisioning. But it takes millions of salmonella bacteria to make you sick. So, if you have a couple salmonella bacteria on piece of raw chicken, you'll probably be fine anyway. It's when there's a large colony that you get ill. However, it only takes 5 single ecoli 0157: H7 to kill a grown human being. Ecoli is a normal gut flora too, but even a tiny, tiny amount of the mutated ecoli can be quickly fatal.

Quote:

So, I believe it is pasteurized milk products that are dangerous and you are taking far more risk drinking that than raw milk. Pathogens enter unhealthy cells. Pasteurization kills milk cells. If someone eats a product that is full of pathogens, the bacteria will proliferate in a body full of unhealthy cells. So the thing is an unhealthy body is more likely to get sick from drinking pasteurized milk than raw milk.
Ok, so prove it. Show me the peer reviewed research in a profession journal that finds pasteurized milk has made more people sick than raw milk. And please don't give me a conspiracy theory idea about people not wanting to study the topic. Every other alternative decision I've made has research to back it up. If there's any validity to your argument, I'd like to see it.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one, and yours is not simple. People get sick from raw milk because there is more disease carrying pathogens than there are in pasteurized milk.

*FWIW, I have absolutely no problem eating raw meat (even chicken and turkey although I am not over fond of it!) and have never had food poisioning as result. The last time I remember getting food poisioning was after eating pizza. Serves me right for eating junk.*

Well, I've drank pasteurized milk my whole life and never had food poisioning at all. But anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, and there's a reason that people and cultures throughout even the ancient times cooked or preserved their meat.

Quote:

I don't believe there is any current research. The scientific community just doesn't do research into the benefits of raw milk because it goes against their religion of the fear of germs. But raw milk was actually used in the treatment of TB with in the 1920s at the Mayo Foundation by Dr J E Crew with "uniformly excellent" results. Hippocrates also used raw milk to cure TB.
I already provided links to the journals where it was demonstrated that raw milk directly lead to food poisioning outbreaks.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momofelise*
There is a lot of government resistance to raw milk because it is a lot cheaper for dairies to use pasteurization (the dairy industry are powerful lobbyists). With pasteurization, the large dairy companies don't have to keep the cows humanely, etc. That was the whole reason pasteurization became necessary to start with. Some cows were kept in horrible conditions and were often sick. The milk from these sick cows made people sick (big surprise!). Pasteurization made it possible to produce milk that wouldn't kill people and still maintain cows as cheaply as possible. Basically, there is money at stake. Keeping healthy, pasture-fed cows and milking in sanitary conditions would allow everyone to have healthy, raw milk (raw being healthier than pasteurized milk). This, however, would cut into the profits of large dairy companies.

I have to agree with this. Industrialization has made pasteurization more necessary, and milk from organically farmed cows is simply going to have less bacteria to worry about.

However, I still think there is abundant evidence that raw milk carries a risk of disease, even if that risk is smaller than non-pasteurized industrial milk.

Quote:

Ultimately, of course, buying raw or pasteurized milk is a personal decision. We all want to do, and should, what we feel is healthiest for us.








Well of course it's a personal decision! But intellegent people can talk about these things. How else are we going to learn from each other? So, convince me!!! Sway me to the dark side! :LOL


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

Just thought that i would mention that my dd#1 had parasites (cryptosporidium) when she was 1.5 years old. This was very serious and she had lost a lot of weight and had a UTI. We treated it with yogurt and probiotics (specifically L.Rueteri) wich is found in breastmilk and unpastuerized animal milks. L. Rueteri protects the gut lining from e-coli, salmonella, and cryptosporidium. We now drink organic raw milk.

http://www.victusinc.com/Enterales/R...Probiotics.htm

Quote:

Reuteri has three unique characteristics:

-Reuteri is reported to be a universal enterolactobacillus, being the only member of its genus found in the gastrointestinal tracts of humans and most of the animals so far examined, including cattle, pigs, mice, rats, hamsters, gerbils, chickens, turkeys and ostriches.

-Probiotic administration of host-specific strains of Reuteri has been shown to enhance host resistance to a broad spectrum of bacterial, viral, protozoal and physiological challenges, including rotavirus and bacterial diarrhoea in humans, Cryptosporidium infections in mice and pigs, and challenges from Salmonella and E. coli in chickens and turkeys.

-Reuteri stimulates gastrointestinal epithelial cell development, resulting in longer and healthier intestinal villi, deeper crypts and hence more efficient nutrient uptake.

Quote:

About 100 studies of Reuteri, including clinical trials of 1,000 people and various animal studies, have shown that doses of Reuteri can

improve absorption of nutrients
discourage tumor growth
reduce cholesterol
reduce the incidence of E. coli and salmonella food poisoning
reduce digestive problems that stem from taking antibiotics, anti-inflammatory and steroidal medications, chemotherapy, or
improper diets
combat rotavirus, the most common cause of diarrhea in children and adults in the Western World
apparently boost the immune system
protect against wide range of other bacterial, viral, protozoal and chemically induced diseases

Reuteri does its work by "colonising" the digestive tract, leaving less food and space for "bad" germs, and by preserving the mucosal lining of the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. (Tiny leaks in the intestine are thought to play a role in diseases as diverse as asthma and arthritis.) Reuteri bacteria also secrete a substance called reuterin, a potent germ-killer, and may play a role in neutralizing toxins, including carcinogenic ones.
Here is the National Library of Medicine article backing this up.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Awesome info on reuteri ... I actually have been using that to make our yogurt! Then, we mix that yogurt with raw milk and make smoothies ... yum!!!


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegmom*
Just thought that i would mention that my dd#1 had parasites (cryptosporidium) when she was 1.5 years old. This was very serious and she had lost a lot of weight and had a UTI. We treated it with yogurt and probiotics (specifically L.Rueteri) wich is found in breastmilk and unpastuerized animal milks. L. Rueteri protects the gut lining from e-coli, salmonella, and cryptosporidium. We now drink organic raw milk.

This is interesting, but I'm not sure how this is an argument for drinking raw milk. Your article says that this bacteria is found in cheese and yogurts, but doesn't mention raw milks except for human breast milk.

Even so, apparently there are many ways to ingest this bacteria without exposing oneself to the many harmful bacterias found in raw milk. And while I'm all for cultivating a healthy gut flora, I'm extrodinarily skeptical that it allows for much protection from something as toxic as ecoli 0157: H7, which again, is not the same as the normal ecoli bacteria living in our guts. If there is enough bacteria in any contaminated food, it can overwhelm the healthy flora. Which is exactly why people have been getting food poisioing since the dawn of time (well before processed foods and antibiotics).

Love,
Julie


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

white_feather

I couldn't care less if you don't want to consume raw milk and if you don't think what I say is worth replying to, very condescending, but each to their own.

With all due respect you are merely repeating what you have been taught about pathogens at nursing school. I don't happen to believe in the germ theory. My comment on the ignorant health official just highlighted the stupidity of the mainstream fear of raw milk.

We are on a completely different page when it comes to health and I have long ago left behind the fear of germs and disease. I also do not think for one minute I am playing Russian roulette by consuming raw milk, or worse playing it with my children by allowing them to consume raw milk, far from it.

Quote:

There is a balance. Healthy bodies are more able to fight off disease. But it's a wild and crazy idea that we only die from pathogens when eat bad food and take drugs. Food poisoning has been documented for thousands of years, and it's clearly related to harmful bacteria. Further, the life expectancy in tribal jungle tribes that live as close to nature as possible is quite short, and it's been demonstrated many times that the reason for that is infectious disease above all else.
I did not say we only die from pathogens when we eat bad food and take drugs. As for death from microbial food poisoning, in most cases, the reports describe symptoms of anaphylaxis, or drug-damage/poisoning, rather than bacterial food poisoning. It is possible that some have died from dehydration and/or excessive bleeding caused by a ruptured stomach or bowel from violent vomit or diarrhea. "Pathogens" are sometimes found in the presence of diarrhea and vomit but have not proven to be the cause. I contend that those reported to have died from bacterial food-poisoning probably died of the medical treatment from antibiotics and/or other medication. E.coli 157:H7 has been blamed for Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome and kidney failure, but the claim has not been proven. The treatment of bacterial infections involves the use of drugs containing thimerosol and research has proven that mercury causes HUS-like symptoms, kidney and neurological damage. The antibiotic Cipro has been linked to kidney degeneration. Drugs damage kidney cells so that virus and bacteria can enter and dissolve them. The medical treatments for bloody diarrhea are probably the cause of HUS and kidney failure. Of course science doesn't follow this line of research because it would open a flood lawsuits against doctors and hospitals.

As for life-expectancy of indigenous peoples who eat raw foods, in the book Honey, Mud, Maggots and Other Medical Marvels, Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein state that for hundreds of centuries, various worldwide cultures ingested bacteria and molds for medicinal purposes. The Hunza, who are incidentally one of the world's longest living people, certain Eskimo, and the Fulani, Masi and Samburu tribes of Africa regularly ingest "pathogens". The Hunza and Fulani drink Salmonella and E.coli daily (as do my family) in their raw milk. Eskimo tribes bury their meat in hides for up to six weeks. The bacteria-infested meat, called high meat, which my DH has ingested also without any ill-effects (do a search in the forum on high meat and you will read about his experience). None of those primitive peoples have degenerative diseases when on there native raw food diets. The Chinese successfully used "century" eggs for remedies and disease prevention. Century eggs are decomposed eggs aged up to 25 years with high concentrations of bacteria and molds.

Quote:

Ok, so prove it. Show me the peer reviewed research in a profession journal that finds pasteurized milk has made more people sick than raw milk. And please don't give me a conspiracy theory idea about people not wanting to study the topic. Every other alternative decision I've made has research to back it up. If there's any validity to your argument, I'd like to see it.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one, and yours is not simple. People get sick from raw milk because there is more disease carrying pathogens than there are in pasteurized milk.
This information has already been given to you in one of the links posted by a PP, but obviously you didn't read it, so I have it quoted for you here:

Quote:

Some Outbreaks Attributed to Bacterial Food-poisoning from Pasteurized Milk

1945 - 1,492 cases for the year in the U.S.A.

1945 - 1 outbreak, 300 cases in Phoenix, Arizona.

1945 - Several outbreaks, 468 cases of gastroenteritis, 9 deaths, in Great Bend, Kansas.

1978 - 1 outbreak, 68 cases in Arizona.

1982 - over 17,000 cases of yersinia enterocolitica in Memphis, Tenn.

1982 - 172 cases, with over 100 hospitalized from a three-Southern-state area.

1983 - 1 outbreak, 49 cases of listeriosis in Massachusetts.

1984 - August, 1 outbreak S. typhimurium, approximately 200 cases, at one plant in Melrose Park, IL.

1984 - November, 1 outbreak S. typhimurium, at same plant in Melrose Park, IL.

1985 - March, 1 outbreak, 16,284 confirmed cases, at same plant in Melrose Park, IL.

1985 - 197,000 cases of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella infections from one dairy in California.

1985 - 1,500+ cases, Salmonella culture confirmed, in Northern Illinois.

1993 - 2 outbreaks statewide, 28 cases Salmonella infection.

1994 - 3 outbreaks, 105 cases, E. Coli & Listeria in California.

1995 - 1 outbreak, 3 cases in California.

1996 - 2 outbreaks Campylobactor and Salmonella, 48 cases in California.

1997 - 2 outbreaks, 28 cases Salmonella in California.

Professor Fosgate, Dairy Science Department of the University of Georgia, said, Pasteurization has been preached as a one-hundred percent safeguard for milk. This simply is not true. If milk gets contaminated today, the chances are that it will be after pasteurization.

Quote:

Ok, so prove it. Show me the peer reviewed research in a profession journal that finds pasteurized milk has made more people sick than raw milk. And please don't give me a conspiracy theory idea about people not wanting to study the topic. Every other alternative decision I've made has research to back it up. If there's any validity to your argument, I'd like to see it.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one, and yours is not simple. People get sick from raw milk because there is more disease carrying pathogens than there are in pasteurized milk.
I admit this is not a peer reviewed journal, but if you search the Townsend Papers website, you might find something, frankly I don't have the time nor the inclination. Most of the scientific research on raw milk was done in the last century, so I am sure you would dismiss it anyway.

However, I can prove to you that raw milk actually contains less bacteria in it than pasteurized milk.

The current (PMO) Federal standards for pasteurized milk permit 100,000 bacteria per ml for milk going to be pasteurized with up to 20,000 injured or living bacteria be be alive after the pasteurization process. This may include pathogens which is supposed to by why the milk was pasteurized in the first place. California raw milk standards require that raw milk sold for consumption have fewer than 15,000 live bacteria and *NO PATHOGENS*.

Pasteurization is a way to clean up and sell a dirty product and to extend shelf life.

Here is a link to the Organic Pastures, a raw milk dairy in California's http://www.organicpastures.com/labtests/]lab tests[/URL . The dairy actually provides them on their website, here's a sample from the last two months:

Quote:

Product Bottle Cap Date Bacteria Count

CDFA Standard Benchmark 15,000
OPDC Raw Milk Cumulative Avg. 1,437
OPDC Raw Milk YTD 2005 Avg. 1,438
OPDC Raw Milk 2004 Avg. 1,926
OPDC Raw Milk 2003 Avg. 1,089
OPDC Raw Milk 2002 Avg. 1,344

Organic Raw MilkAugust 1 051200
Organic Raw MilkJuly 21 053,400
Organic Raw MilkJuly 17 057,700
Organic Raw MilkJuly 10 05N/A
Organic Raw MilkJuly 3 05N/A
Organic Raw MilkJune 26 054,000
Organic Raw MilkJune 19 052,200
Organic Raw MilkJune 12 053,900
Organic Raw MilkJune 9 05100
Considerable lower than the 20,000 Federal standards for pasteurized milk.

If you can get over the germ phobia and really are interested in coming over to the _dark side_ and learning about the health benefits of raw milk, I would suggest you visit http://www.mercola.com , http://www.realmilk.com and http://www.westonaprice.org. You will see why even boiling clean raw milk from pasture-fed cows is less than optimal when compared to raw milk.

I would also highly recommend reading Weston A Price's book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy*
My ds is 28 months. He's NEVER wanted regular (organic) milk. A couple of days ago my father brought over some raw milk from his cows for Bay to try. WELL--- he LOVED it! He chugs it right down. I'm trying to figure out if it's the rawness of it that reminds him of his breastmilk that he loves so much or if he just loves it because his Grandpa brought it to him. Anyone? Also, I'd like to continue getting it for him... is there a problem with a youngster drinking raw milk?


In answer to the original post, yes! My dd weaned at 20 months and didn't drink any milk for the longest time (which wasn't a biggie to me either way). Later she would occasionally drink some Organic Valley milk, which is unforunately homogenized.

One of my mom's goat freshened in April and we are now using raw goat's milk. My mom always sprays the first few squirts of milk out of each teet onto the ground before milking in a clean stainless steel milk bucket. She takes it directly in the house where she strains it with one of those reusable coffee filters with the gold mesh into a freshly washed glass bottle. She puts that bottle into a bucket of ice to flash chill it (which helps avoid any funny tastes).

If it was from someone else's farm it would depend on how I felt about the condition of their barn, the pasture etc.







And of course, I would prefer goat's milk over cow's milk.

I don't get bloated from the goat's milk either (because of it being goat's milk and not cow's milk and/or not being pasteurized which does kill some of the digestive enzymes). I still don't drink milk (yuck) but we use it for cooking or poured over cold cereal.

When my mom's goat is no longer milking, I plan to buy TradersPoint Creamery milk, which is organic cow's milk, pasteurized but not homogenized. I would prefer the pasteurized organic milk over raw milk from a conventionally kept cow or goat (no free time in pasture, gross barn, vaccinated up the wazoo and chemically wormed).

JMO.









PS- some good info about the advent of milk pasteurization and how it related to artifical breastmilk and infant death etc etc in Milk, Money and Madness


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

It sounds like most of you who use raw milk know your source pretty well... but I just had to add something. My mom and I are on a goat email list and I'm shocked at some of the chemical wormers some of the breeders use... especially since studies have shown that herbal wormer actually works better. I wouldn't care for that sort of thing and would prefer pasteurized milk instead of raw milk from cows or goats being fed or injected with that stuff.

We just went to the 4-H fair and some of the cows in the cattle barn were laying in their own diarrhea, it was really disgusting... and these are small farmers. My dad and I wonder if 4-H isn't just a good way to teach these young kids how to farm commercially KWIM? (how's that for a conspiracy theory LOL)

Free range all the way baby!


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

uccomama said:


> white_feather
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *white_feather*
This is interesting, but I'm not sure how this is an argument for drinking raw milk. Your article says that this bacteria is found in cheese and yogurts, but doesn't mention raw milks except for human breast milk.


Quote:

-Reuteri is reported to be a universal enterolactobacillus, being the only member of its genus found in the gastrointestinal tracts of humans and most of the animals so far examined, including cattle, pigs, mice, rats, hamsters, gerbils, chickens, turkeys and ostriches.
If L. Reuteri can be found in the human intestinal tract and can be transferred through breast milk, why can't it be possible if it is is found in animal GI tracts that it could not pass through their milk?

Personally i don't believe that there is enough L. Reuteri in raw milk to protect us from parasites and pathogens. But i think cultured raw milk does. That is why i believe raw milk yogurt is one of the healthiest foods for the GI tract.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegmom*
If L. Reuteri can be found in the human intestinal tract and can be transferred through breast milk, why can't it be possible if it is is found in animal GI tracts that it could not pass through their milk?

The question isn't if it's possible. The question is if it does, and if it's in any kind of significant quantity.

Quote:

Personally i don't believe that there is enough L. Reuteri in raw milk to protect us from parasites and pathogens. But i think cultured raw milk does. That is why i believe raw milk yogurt is one of the healthiest foods for the GI tract.
Why not culture pasteurized organic free range milk? Can you prove that cultured raw milk provides L. Reuteri in greater quantities than cultured pasteurized milk?


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Here's an article by Organic Pastures about raw milk. I quoted the paragraph below because it discusses why raw milk kills pathogens and pasteurization allows pathogens to breed.

Quote:

What is it that causes raw milk to kill pathogens? Just in the last 24 months, the FDA has approved lactoferrin as an approved method of treatment for pathogen reduction in beef slaughter plants. Raw milk naturally has levels of this enzyme-based pathogen killer. Pasteurization inactivates this and other enzymes that kill pathogens. These enzymes include lactoferrin, xanthine oxidase, lactoperoxidase, lysozyme and nisin. There are other interrelated enzymes and beneficial bacteria that also act on the pathogens to inhibit their growth. All of these systems are destroyed by pasteurization. It is no wonder that dairy plants that pasteurize must be kept absolutely spotless. There are no remaining safety systems in the processed milk.

Quote:

Pasteurized milk kills the safety systems that control pathogens in raw milk and therefore permit unlimited growth of dangerous bacteria if present.
Gotta go juice for my kids ...


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

This argument is one that's making some sense to me, since we know that breastmilk contains lysozymes that kill pathogens, it's not a stretch to assume that cows milk would as well. However, how does this relate to what we already know - that raw milk has been responsible for many cases of food borne illnesses? Disease can be passed through breastmilk too, even though there are systems in place to help prevent most transmissions.

Also, I guess I'm still not getting the argument as to why cultured yogurt would be healthier if it's raw milk as opposed to organic free-range and pasteurized?

I think that since we know both raw milk and pasteurized milk carry the potential for disease, I will only be convinced with a study demonstrating that the chance of food borne illness is DECREASED with raw milk. And, as I mentioned before, it seems like raw milk is less safe, since so few people drink it, but there's about the same number of incidents of disease as there is with pasteurized milk (as evidenced simply by cases we've found off the web).


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *white_feather*
The question isn't if it's possible. The question is if it does, and if it's in any kind of significant quantity.

Why not culture pasteurized organic free range milk? Can you prove that cultured raw milk provides L. Reuteri in greater quantities than cultured pasteurized milk?


Sorry sweetie, can't answer the first question. All i know is that from reading books on breastfeeding that a babies GI tract is sterile. And that breastfeeding vs formula feeding - breastfeeding has shown a higher count of good bacteria. How this relates to drinking raw milk... Raw milk is live. Full of enzymes, bacteria, yeasts etc. When it is heated all of that is destroyed. Not sure of the quantities, but that is why culturing raw milk will increase the #'s.

"Can you prove that cultured raw milk provides L. Reuteri in greater quantities than cultured pasteurized milk?" Well first of all, when you pasteurize milk it will destroy L. Reuteri. You can add it after and culture. But then you have also destroyed the other beneficial bacteria like lactbacillus and bifidus. You would have to add them all individually.

I would not only be concerned about the pathogens in pastuerized milk, but also how it denatures cells. As stated earlier... calves die when they are fed pastuerized milk.

Quote:

The pasteurization process, which entails heating the milk to a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F and keeping it there for at least half an hour and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F, completely changes the structure of the milk proteins (denaturization) into something far less than healthy. While the process certainly destroys germs and bad bacteria, it also destroys the milk's beneficial bacteria along with many of its nutritious components.

Pasteurizing milk destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria and promotes pathogens. You may notice that raw milk left out will sour naturally but pasteurized milk will rot. This is because the beneficial bacteria in the raw milk helps to keep putrefactive bacteria under control. Pasteurized milk, however, does not have any of the beneficial bacteria left to keep it from rotting.
http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/24/raw_milk.htm


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

I would also like to add that i have experienced the power of probiotics. My daughter was really ill. And these beneficial bacteria are what made her better. She was sick with a parasite that caused severe diahrea, malnutrition, dehydration.

By destroying these wonderful bacteria through pastuerazation we are not exposed to them naturally. And then our bodies are not able to defend against those nasty e-coli bacteria.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._1/ai_92200857

Quote:

In the study, which was conducted during the summer (when cattle are known to shed more E. coli), 180 steers were fed one of three diets. The control group received a standard diet of grain and roughage. The other two groups received a standard diet that also included one of two strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus, which is similar to the bacteria commonly added to yogurt.

Fecal samples from the cattle were analyzed upon arrival and every 28 days thereafter until they received probiotic supplementation. After a 60-day supplementation period began, samples were analyzed every 14 days. Researchers used the most sensitive test methods available to detect the presence of E. coli 0157:H7.

During the mid-feeding period, the number of cattle testing positive for E. coli 0157:H7 was 18% to 19%. Near slaughter, that number was less than 10%. Cattle fed the probiotics showed major reductions in the incidence of E. coli.
Probiotics are able to kill and reduce those nasty parasites. I have seen it with my own daughter.


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...99/ai_21283813

Quote:

In 1985, Professor Sven Lindgren, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Professor Walter Dobrogosz, North Carolina State University, discovered L. reuteri's antimicrobial properties. They found that under anaerobic conditions and in the presence of glycerol, L. reuteri produces and secretes an antimicrobial agent. Named reuterin, this substance inhibits the growth of harmful bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, thus having a positive effect on the immune system.

L. reuteri is the only component of the Lactobacillus population currently found in the G.I. tract of both humans and animals. However, because of environmental factors and daily life stresses, we don't always have enough L. reuteri in our gut to reap its benefits. This can be overcome by consuming it on a daily basis (1 x [10.sup.8] CFU per day is recommended). Research shows that L. reuteri survives passage through the stomach and exposure to bile, and readily colonizes in the G.I. tract.
I am really interested now to see if my source of raw milk contains L. Rueteri.

one day when i am working i will have the lab check it out.

The farmer that i get my milk from has been drinking her milk for 25yrs+. Has raised four children on it with no incidence of illness.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegmom*
Sorry sweetie, can't answer the first question. All i know is that from reading books on breastfeeding that a babies GI tract is sterile. And that breastfeeding vs formula feeding - breastfeeding has shown a higher count of good bacteria. How this relates to drinking raw milk... Raw milk is live. Full of enzymes, bacteria, yeasts etc. When it is heated all of that is destroyed. Not sure of the quantities, but that is why culturing raw milk will increase the #'s.

You've been working hard with me on this, Vegmom! Sorry I couldn't get back to the discussion sooner yesterday.

I hear what you're saying here, but as I understand it, when you culture the milk to make yogurt, you have to add that bacteria back in anyway, right? So, that's where I'm not understanding the difference, if the end product is going to have high amounts of probiotics regardless of where it came from.

Quote:

I would not only be concerned about the pathogens in pastuerized milk, but also how it denatures cells. As stated earlier... calves die when they are fed pastuerized milk.
This sounds silly to me. Of course calves would die when fed pasteurized milk. Babies would die if fed pasteurized human milk. However human beings do not live on cow milk alone. We get our nutritional needs from many sources, not one. Nor has cow's milk been individually tailored to our needs in the first place as nature did for the calves. Changing some of it's constitituion is not going to kill us. People probably shouldn't even be drinking milk in the first place based on the fact that most of the population in the world don't have the biological enzymes necessary to break cow's milk down (lactose intolerance).

But to bring the conversation back around, we do know that people have died from drinking raw milk . . .

Quote:

I would also like to add that i have experienced the power of probiotics. My daughter was really ill. And these beneficial bacteria are what made her better. She was sick with a parasite that caused severe diahrea, malnutrition, dehydration.

By destroying these wonderful bacteria through pastuerazation we are not exposed to them naturally. And then our bodies are not able to defend against those nasty e-coli bacteria.
I am not debating probiotics here. I think that probiotics can be ingested through other sources less likely to pass on food borne illnesses.

I also don't believe that in nature, human being are meant to get their "probiotics" from cows milk based on the simple fact that most humans can't digest the lactose found in any type of animal milk.

*Between 30 and 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant. Certain ethnic and racial populations are more widely affected than others. As many as 75 percent of all African Americans and American Indians and 90 percent of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant. The condition is least common among persons of northern European descent.* http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddise...seintolerance/

Still an interesting study though, and I'm glad you shared it. I'm surprised the disgusting slaughterhouses haven't picked up on it.

Quote:

The farmer that i get my milk from has been drinking her milk for 25yrs+. Has raised four children on it with no incidence of illness.
Yes, but this doesn't mean anything for you, epidemiologically. A farmer's immune system is going to be built around the bacteria in his or her environment, and what has been passed down through breastmilk by the previous generations. Your and your children's immune system responds to the bacteria in your own environment, and has protective benefits as well. Remember how the Native Americans were wiped out with diseases brought by the Europeans? The Europeans weren't always getting sick, but their germs decimated tribes like wildfire. Not that raw milk will decimate families like wildfire, but I'm just using that example as a reminder of how our immune systems are built to protect us from the pathogens we are normally exposed to in our own environment.


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

ok, i have lots to ad here!

http://www.organicpastures.com/faq/

I am sorry that the debate of the safety of raw milk has highjacked this thread but i think it is extremely important. Edamommy, if your source of milk comes from well cared, healthy, loved, pasture fed cows, than i think it is ok for you not to fear that your baby will get sick from it. It will actually make him stronger and healthier.

Edited to ad.. I just reread the original post, and i guess this is what you asked for. If raw milk is safe. Just a question edamommy? did you drink raw milk as a kid? You said your dad had brought the milk.

White_feather, i have to say that i am really enjoying this debate. I feel very strongly for this cause.

You said...
_I am not debating probiotics here. I think that probiotics can be ingested through other sources less likely to pass on food borne illnesses.

I also don't believe that in nature, human being are meant to get their "probiotics" from cows milk based on the simple fact that most humans can't digest the lactose found in any type of animal milk._

You have to understand that probiotics are the fundamentals of this discussion. This is what protects us, boosts our immunities, prevents allergies (by coating our GI tract and preventing allergens from passing into our blood), aids in digestion and absorption of vitamins and minerals, and prevents pathogens, parasites and viruses from getting us sick!

*All that from bacteria!*

You also have to understand that raw cows milk is much more than just milk! When you leave it sitting ontop of your refrigerator covered with a towel for a few days it will seperate into whey and milk solids. The whey is full of great protiens, bacteria and enzymes and can be used to pickle many vegetables, carbonate juices and is a great digestive aid. We are what we eat, right? Wrong, we are what we can digest!

Making "real" (not store bought) pickled vegetables is the one of the other ways that traditional cultures would get their probiotics.

With the rest of the milk solids you can make quark, cottage cheese or hand cheese. All with maximum beneficial bacteria.

To make soured or "clabbered milk" all you have to do is let the raw milk sit in a warm spot for a day or two. When the milk solids seperate from whey, just mix it together and you have an amazing drink. It tastes wonderful! Kind of like sour cream and yogurt together. My grandparents who live in poland drink this everyday.

Quote:



90 percent of the people on planet earth drink their milk as a clabbered milk, not fresh.


You also mentioned that it is AMERICANS that are lactose intolerant and that it is least common in people from northern europe. That is because they drink raw milk. Europeans can get fresh raw milk delivered to their home within a few hours of milking.

When you make yogurt from raw milk, you don't have to ad additional probiotics. Just heat the milk to 95-100 degrees and leave for 8-24hrs. But some people like to add additional probiotics if they have yeast or allergy problems.

*Lactose intorlerance is caused by pastuerazation!

Quote:



a. Lactose intolerant consumers can eat raw milk because lactase producing bacteria are present.



Quote:



The common practice of pasteurization inactivates or dramatically reduces the effects of these important active (living) elements. As a result, you may be lactose intolerant when drinking pasteurized milk, but not lactose intolerant when you drink raw organic milk. This is because lactase enzymes are being formed when you digest raw milk. That is why we say, "only living milk brings life&#8230;"



Quote:



After pasteurization, bacteria found naturally in milk are killed. During the high temperature heating process, cell bodies of these bacteria are ruptured and their contents are spilled, releasing histamines. This causes many milk drinkers to suffer allergic reactions. Almost all of these same consumers can drink raw milk and not have allergies. The high levels of bacteria permitted in milk intended for pasteurization are still found in pasteurized milk&#8230;they are just dead and not removed by the process.



Quote:



Enzymes are specialized proteins that assist in the breaking down (hydrolyzing) and digestion of foods into useful elements that can be utilized, absorbed, or stored by the body. Enzymes are identified by the use of the ending "ase" associated with their name. For instance Lipase helps digest lipids (fats). Lactase helps digest lactose sugar (milk sugar). If your body does not produce and have available specific enzymes, then you may not be able to utilize certain food sources, or absorb certain minerals, etc. Phosphatase, which is key to the absorption of calcium, is inactivated by pasteurization. In fact, the test for effective pasteurization is called the "negative phosphatase test." Is it no wonder that Americans are suffering from osteoporosis at a rate higher than ever. It is now considered a US health crisis.



Quote:



Homogenization is the process of destroying the natural butter fat cells found in raw natural milk. This process uses extreme pressure to break apart the soft buoyant fat cells, which cause the remaining small fat pieces to blend into milk and no longer float to the top making the cream line. Some European countries have studies that show that this process is dangerous and may strongly contribute to heart disease and arterial plaguing. Our FDA disputes these findings under pressure from the strong dairy lobby. Homogenization is not a required step, but rather a step of convenience to deny the consumer the ability to see how much cream is actually in the milk they buy.


This ads significantly to denaturing the milk protien cells. Babies do not die from being fed pasturized breast milk. This is done at breast milk banks. These are milk banks that take donated expressed milk from donors and distribute it to mums with babies that need breast milk. The cost is extremely expensive for this.

Quote:



9. What are pathogens?

Pathogens are disease causing bacteria and organisms. The three human pathogens that are tested (state mandated) at OPDC include Listeria Monocytogenes, Salmonella, and Ecoli 0157. To date, not one of these pathogens have ever been detected by any test at OPDC or conducted by any state or federal agency. Tests privately performed at OPDC (BSK labs) showed that even when these pathogens were added to OPDC raw milk at extremely high levels (7 logs) they would not grow and die off (test results available upon request).


The power of nature! Healthy cows, healthy milk. The natural probiotic bacteria destroys pathogenic bacteria.

Quote:



Tests performed by UC Davis, Dr. C. Berge DVM revealed something quite startling: Fresh manure from OPDC cows did not contain Salmonella. At other dairies tested, many of the findings were positive (31% of conventional milk tanks tested showed a human pathogen present).

In summary, it has been theorized that the combination of grass feeding, no antibiotics used, no hormones, and low levels of grain used in diet cause a change in the cows immune system and rumen. This change in physiology directly inhibits pathogen development in the milk (actually a transfer from environmental contamination that does not seem to occur&#8230;there are no bad bugs in the manure that transfer into the milk and the clean raw milk is highly pathogen resistant).



Quote:



It has been estimated that about 70% of the strength of a healthy immune system is made up of the diversity of living bacteria found in the intestines. Organic raw milk provides a perfect source for the "seeding and feeding" of these diverse populations of living bacteria. The average American diet is practically devoid of living bacteria (all killed foods and few bacterial sources). Our immune systems have suffered as a direct result. Consuming organic raw milk and dairy products is a high step towards regaining immune strength and overall health. On occasion a new raw milk consumer may have some diarrhea from over drinking raw milk for the first time. This is rare and should be considered very normal. After all, the intestine has never seen such an incredible introduction of new and diverse beneficial bacteria and does not have any idea what to do. It is possible. but highly unlikely, that pathogens may be transmitted in raw milk just as they may be transmitted in all other foods. OPDC has demonstrated that even when high levels of pathogens were introduced into raw milk, they die off and do not grow (BSK tests). In fact, pathogen killing safety systems are hard at work, keeping organic raw milk safe even if it has been contaminated. To date, there has never been a human pathogen ever detected in any OPDC product, in the plant, or from any test. OPDC products are highly pathogen resistant. Because OPDC can not predict the future and know what is yet to come, it is possible that someday a pathogen may be detected in an OPDC product. If you are a healthy OPDC consumer this should have no noticeable effect. Your immune system will deal with it and you will probably not even know that a pathogen was in your raw dairy product. This is evident when reading CDC reports of raw milk illness. The farm and dairy consumers never get ill; it is the first time raw consumers (with weak immune systems) that become ill. This is exactly why all people should drink lots of raw milk. A strong immune system is a gift of freedom and of health. It is your choice, and with raw milk (exercise, good hydration, a whole-food diet, and plenty of love) you need not become ill&#8230;ever. Be strong&#8230;it is a life choice.


Wow, Sorry for all the quotes. But i just thought that some people do not read links. I thought i would point out some specifics.

So, if you still doubt raw milk, i think that you might be able to get a copy of the lab results that show that pathogens do not survive in healthy milk from OPDC.

Hope this helps!

Hugs,
Catherine*


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Vegmom fwiw, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures was one of the expert witnesses at the CO Board of Health hearing on raw milk cow/goat shares. His testamony was so impressive they held him back to make a further presentation. I am convinced that he was one of the main reasons that cow and goat shares are now legal in CO.


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

Wow, i did not know this...

http://www.organicpastures.com/products/

Quote:

Colostrum is actually a pre-milk produced by a cow after giving birth to her calf, which contains the living immune system blueprint that is given from the mother to her baby. It contains elements not found in milk, including rare antibodies, immunoglobulins, transfer factor, anti-aging elements, antibacterial, and anti-pathogenic factors including lactoferrin.

Testimonials of recovery after taking colostrum are broad and dramatic, and include more than sixty immune related ailments, including asthma, arthritis, Crohns disease, gingivitis, colds, chronic fatigue, MS, scleroderma, diabetes, fibromyalgia, candida, bronchitis, dermatitis allergies, and many other conditions.

Known for its cell rebuilding properties, colostrum is favored by many weight-lifters - and it is such an effective immune support food that the International Olympic Committee has banned its use prior to competition. OPDC raw colostrum was even used to help combat the 2003 SARS outbreak in Asia.
Amazing!

I have access to colostrum, but the farmer that i get my milk from gives it to her chickens! It does not look appealing so after the calves drink it, any left over colostrum is given to the rest of the farm animals.

Now i will have to fight the animals to try some.

I have read in a book somewhere that colostrum is also used as an alternative to immunizations. I was just skimming this book at a health food store and could not afford to buy it.







And i don't remember the author or title.

Quote:

Vegmom fwiw, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures was one of the expert witnesses at the CO Board of Health hearing on raw milk cow/goat shares. His testamony was so impressive they held him back to make a further presentation. I am convinced that he was one of the main reasons that cow and goat shares are now legal in CO.
There is a local farmer here in Canada that could realy use his help. He has been struggling with selling raw milk for what seems to be decades.

http://www.realmilk.com/summer2001.html

These guys live very close to me and are friends of my in-laws. They are still struggling with loosing their farm.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Vegmon, a word of warning about colostrum, my DH went on a colostrum fast, the farm we get our raw milk from offers raw colostrum from time to time, and he put on a ton of weight, that stuff is fatning! Also he got really, really angry on the diet. At first he couldn't work out why he was so mad all the time. He figured it out eventually, he was angry at not being breastfed as a baby and angry over his circumcision!

As for bovine colostrum immunization you might find this article interesting:

Universal Oral Vaccine: The Immune Milk Saga by Anthony di Fabio


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

White feather, just to let me know if reading the studies you posted about raw milk killing people will be worth reading, did any of them clarify where the milk came from--whether it was from pastured cows or not? And what was the health of the animal when they consumed it, and what the milking conditions were?

Us raw milk advocates strongly recommend looking into all of these things if you want to drink raw milk. Even though I think it is the pasteurization process that _causes_ most of the health problems people can get from drinking milk!


----------



## netpea (Jul 28, 2005)

FWIW, there is milk available that is Low Heat pastuerized, NOT homogenized, and from pasture fed cows. This is what we now buy.

I live in Michigan where it is not legal to sell raw milk but I figure this is the closest thing to it. The cream separates and has to be mixed back in each time you use it.

I was buying it at the local health food stores but now my regular grocery store carries it.

Lee Ann


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Organic Valley makes a low-heat pasteurized, non-homogenized milk, but unfortunately, I can't find it in my area. I'm going to talk with the few health food stores that I shop at and ask them if they'll start carrying it.







For now, though, we are sticking with Organic Pastures raw milk and then Organic Valley milk ...


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegmom*

White_feather, i have to say that i am really enjoying this debate. I feel very strongly for this cause.

I'm glad you're enjoying it, because I am too. A good, non-emotional debate with intellegent people is a blast, because I learn so much. Forces me to research . . .

Quote:

You have to understand that probiotics are the fundamentals of this discussion. This is what protects us, boosts our immunities, prevents allergies (by coating our GI tract and preventing allergens from passing into our blood), aids in digestion and absorption of vitamins and minerals, and prevents pathogens, parasites and viruses from getting us sick!
I hear you. But for me, the fundamental of this discussion is public health. So, it's probably going to get frustrating for you when I keep swaying it back to bacteria and disease. But I want you to know that I am really hearing your argument about what you find healthy in the raw milk, and it is interesting.

Quote:

You also mentioned that it is AMERICANS that are lactose intolerant and that it is least common in people from northern europe. That is because they drink raw milk. Europeans can get fresh raw milk delivered to their home within a few hours of milking.
Actually, that article was saying that lactose intolerance is least common in people with a genetic decent from northern Europe. So, people who are drinking the same milk, presumably pasteurized, can tolerate it differently based on their genetics. Most people can't drink it. There's been issues in South East Asia trying to introduce milk (not sure if raw or not) because most people couldn't tolerate it -- and yet, it's is such a good source of nutrition when other sources were scarce.

Quote:

When you make yogurt from raw milk, you don't have to ad additional probiotics. Just heat the milk to 95-100 degrees and leave for 8-24hrs. But some people like to add additional probiotics if they have yeast or allergy problems.
Cool. I'm actually very interested in learning how to make my own yogurt, but that's for a different thread.

However, as I see it, I'm not sure what the downside to adding probiotics would be if the chance of catching a food borne illness would be diminished with pasteurized milk.

*Lactose intorlerance is caused by pastuerazation!

Then what accounts for the genetic variables?

Quote:

This ads significantly to denaturing the milk protien cells. Babies do not die from being fed pasturized breast milk. This is done at breast milk banks. These are milk banks that take donated expressed milk from donors and distribute it to mums with babies that need breast milk. The cost is extremely expensive for this.
Then why do you believe cows die from drinking pasteurized cows milk?

Quote:

The power of nature! Healthy cows, healthy milk. The natural probiotic bacteria destroys pathogenic bacteria.
Ah! I would argue that healthy cows = healthier milk! Absolutely! But based on the studies, we still see that raw milk has delivered dangerous pathogens into the food supply system.

So, what I'm seeing in our discussion is that you're arguing that raw milk is healthier because of the probiotics and the protective aspects of them. You believe that the probiotics are not only protective to people's guts, but also protect people from any pathogens in the milk. I think you've done a great job arguing that.

Likewise, I'm still stuck on the fact that in spite of the probiotics, raw milk has been known to be a carrier for disease, and even the cause of fatalities.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like a trade off to me - pluses and minuses to both kinds of milk.

And, to me, it seems like adding back probiotics to pasteurized milk is the safest thing to do, even though it does seem strangely counter-intuitive.

Quote:

Wow, Sorry for all the quotes. But i just thought that some people do not read links. I thought i would point out some specifics.
Actually, it's great. I usually do read links, but I've been 'Net Nannied' so I have limited internet access and can't read as much as I normally would.*


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tweetybirds2*
White feather, just to let me know if reading the studies you posted about raw milk killing people will be worth reading, did any of them clarify where the milk came from--whether it was from pastured cows or not? And what was the health of the animal when they consumed it, and what the milking conditions were?

Us raw milk advocates strongly recommend looking into all of these things if you want to drink raw milk. Even though I think it is the pasteurization process that _causes_ most of the health problems people can get from drinking milk!


I posted a link to a source that listed known food-borne illnesses passed on from consuming raw milk, not the fatalities. This site lists some information about when, where, and what type of dairy it happened at. Some were from organic farms, others were from pasteurization processes that failed. So, some were more relevant than others. On that site, for each incident, a research paper is listed, so if you want to know more about the specific incident, you can probably track that down. Here is that link: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/food...eaksummary.pdf

I think it's great advice to know the source of your raw milk. But, I also think it's somewhat naive to think that knowing the source protects you 100%. It's like chosing a sex partner . . . sure, you're better off choosing someone who's been monogamous before, but they can still be carriers of disease.

Incidently, isn't it just easier to click on a link and check it out for yourself?

I've always found that I'm a much more powerful debator when I know and have read the sources of the opponent.


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

Thanks.
I really am not into debating though, it's just a waste of time for me since I already know from my own research and instincts that raw PASTURED grass fed milk is healthy and safe (for my family-the little disclaimer there). There are just precautions you take just like with any other food.
I don't think an "organic" farm will automatically fit the bill either.
I'm just sharing my thoughts. I don't feel like, nor do I have the time to get into proving my point by finding all these "studies".















I used to be very anti dairy, so even this much dairy compliance is good for me.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tweetybirds2*
Thanks.
...I already know from my own research and instincts that raw PASTURED grass fed milk is healthy and safe (for my family-the little disclaimer there). There are just precautions you take just like with any other food.

This is how I feel too about the raw milk/bacteria phobia issue. I really don't trust any research done by anyone who starts with the premiss raw milk is a disease-laden substance that needs to be adulterated in order to make it fit for consumption, because this assumption is a false and is borne out by thousands of years of empirical knowledge by indigenous peoples on the healthful benefits of raw milk. The adulteration of milk through pasteurization and homogenization is what makes it unfit to drink. Clean raw milk from pasture-fed animals is one of the most health-giving foods available to us (IMO).

white_feather

As you like to read sources from your opponents, here is another link for you: http://www.drrons.com/raw_milk.html

Quote:

*Clinical Evidences of the Value of Raw Milk*

Pottenger's experiments met the most rigorous scientific standards. His outstanding credentials earned him the support of prominent physicians. Alvin Foord, M.D., Professor of Pathology at the University of Southern California and pathologist at the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, co-supervised with Pottenger all pathological and chemical findings of the study. One particular question that modern science has largely ignored was addressed: What is the nutritive value of heat-labile elements-nutrients destroyed by heat and available only in raw foods?

I'll quote some of Pottenger's work directly. First, from his article 'Clinical Evidences of the Value of Raw Milk:'

'Some of the factors transmitted by milk are thermo-labile (sensitive to heat). Though their destruction may not produce death, their deficiency may prevent proper development of the child. This may show in the development of an inadequate skeleton or a decrease in resistance&#8230;.delay in development of osseous centers is noted more frequently in those children&#8230;receiving heat treated milk. It is particularly absent from the raw milk fed children&#8230;.I am basing this discussion on analysis of 150 children whose parents have consulted me because of respiratory allergies&#8230;.many other workers&#8230;have also shown that treating milk by heating interferes with its proper assimilation and nutritional qualities&#8230;.The best milk from a nutritional standpoint is raw milk&#8230;.Heat-treating milk interferes with calcium metabolism causing&#8230;delay in bone age, and small bones&#8230;.The interference with calcium metabolism as shown in the bones in only a physiological index of disturbed metabolism throughout the body.'
and

Quote:

Speaking for myself-I personally have prescribed raw milk from grass-fed animals to my patients for nearly fifteen years. Time and again I have seen allergies clear up and dramatically improved health. Particularly in children, middle ear infections usually disappear and do not recur on raw milk. Both children and adults unable to drink pasteurized milk without problems have thrived on raw milk. In hundreds-perhaps thousands- of my patients using raw milk, not one has ever developed a Salmonella, Campylobacter, or other raw milk related infection.


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

Ok, so i have to tell you that i am extremely biased to this debate. I get my raw milk from from a family member who has been a farmer since her teenage years. They raised 4 babies on raw milk and have seen many people benefit from drinking raw milk. Now my dds are being raised on it. I started giving it to dd#2 when she was only 7months. I drank it throughout my pregnancies just like my family member did and even though i was aware of the risk i felt confident that my immune system and GI tract would be able to handle it.

When dd#1 got sick with cryptosporidium, we were staying with this family member. I believe that dd#1 got it from the cats. Some of the barn cats are not so healthy and when the house cats mingle in the barn with barn cats they can transfer all kinds of bugs.

There is no way that my dd got sick from the milk because out of 7 household members she was the only one that got infected.

The cats are in the barn with the cows but the cows are cleaned before milking. The milk gets tested for bacteria content frequently - i think it is weekly but can't be sure.

I guess our personal experiences cloud our views on this. You are an RN and see sick people all the time. I live out in the country and am surrounded by farmers that feed their families raw milk.

White feather - you have been great to debate. Just when i think that i have proven my point you ask some more questions and make me search for the answers.

With those sick cases from milk that you pointed out in that website the ( i tried to access several links but could only get into one ) it did not state what the animals were eating. That is very vital. Soy meal and cotton seed meal can cause animals to become very sick. Even organic cows can be fed this if the meal is organic. If the animals are primarily pasture fed, disease is rare. The cows that my family member has can be around 15 years old and still can produce as much or even more milk than some of the younger cows. All the cows are very healthy and the vet bills run about $500 a year. And the vet is called occassionally, mostly due to problems during labour or delivery or post partum. Cows can occassionaly get their stomaches flipped post partum and that can cause death.

http://www.realmilk.com/soy.html

Quote:

I have followed for many years the sickening effect of soy on ruminants. Cows that formerly could easily reach the age of 15 years and have 12 calves have on average now less than three calves and reach hardly the age of six. One main reason is the high percentage of soy in the rations. It works into the buildup of ammonia in the rumen. This affects negatively the liver and then showsup in mastitis and sterility. Off they go to the butcher. Only there can a vet identify the defective livers. The soybean, bringing about high milk yields in the first two lactations, is the curse of our cattle herds. And the milk achieved through it is not health promoting either. . . If awake consumers, environmentalists, nutritionists and farmers do not work concretely together in the future there will not be any healthy farms nor healthy foods.
The negatives of pastuerazation is not only in the fact that heating milk destroys the bacteria, but the fact that it also denatures the fragile milk cells.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...ditional/17/1/

Quote:

Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, alters vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. *Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity*.
Scroll down to the article by Sally Fallon...

Quote:

We have been taught that pasteurization is a good thing, a method of protecting ourselves against infectious diseases, but closer examination reveals that its merits have been highly exaggerated. The modern milking machine and stainless steel tank, along with efficient packaging and distribution, make pasteurization totally unnecessary for the purposes of sanitation. And pasteurization is no guarantee of cleanliness. All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades -- and there have been many -- have occurred in pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in Illinois that struck 14,316 people causing at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.

But that's not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk's amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk's mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.

Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk -- in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer, nevertheless, from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added -- the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization which has also been linked to heart disease.

Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk -- one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens.

Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body's digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can clog the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.
Also, do you think that because the Europeans have had easier access to raw milk and raw cultured products, do you think that they would genetically adapt to have a higher tolerance to lactose and pastuerized milk?

_I hear you. But for me, the fundamental of this discussion is public health. So, it's probably going to get frustrating for you when I keep swaying it back to bacteria and disease. But I want you to know that I am really hearing your argument about what you find healthy in the raw milk, and it is interesting._

Public health.. I realy understand. We had an outbreak of e-coli in a water distribution system in a town close by. Thousands of people got sick. Many died. People to this day suffer from health complications from this. The saddest part was that many children got realy ill and some died.

But what about the many people that suffer from drinking pasturized milk. Sometimes people don't realize they are lactose intolerant and can't pinpoint why they are feeling miserable. My sister was like that for a long time. What about osteoporosis? When you pasturize milk it alters milk's mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. The allergies, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue and other degenerative diseases? I would consider that puplic health. All of these have been quoted up above.

It would be impossible to pinpoint how many people have actually died from these illnesses due to pastuerization.


----------



## mz_libbie22 (Nov 8, 2004)

I think there's evidence on both sides of this argument, what I don't understand is what right the govt has to forbid people to buy/sell unpasturized milk. Why is it okay for the tobacco company to continue to sell it's cancer causing product yet it's not okay for me to go to a farm down the road and buy a gallon of raw milk? Are we not capable of making our own decisions so we need big brother watching over our food purchases? And what about the fact that it's not just milk that can cause food borne illness? What about meat, eggs, and vegetables, those have all been the cause of bacterial illnesses. Must we start irradiating all of our food to be "safe". If we have allowed it to be standard/legal practice to enforce pasturization, what will happen when irradiation becomes more popular? Will the lawmakers decide that is "for the common good" too regardless of consumer protests against it?


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

I agree, the government needs to stay out of it! Heaven forbid we have a nation full of healthy people drinking raw milk!









Quote:

k, so i have to tell you that i am extremely biased to this debate. I get my raw milk from from a family member who has been a farmer since her teenage years. They raised 4 babies on raw milk and have seen many people benefit from drinking raw milk. Now
This is what gives me the most evidence that it is good. Most of our grandparents and generations back were drinking raw milk. Now days it's not about the public health, that's just what they want you to believe, it's about money and convenience.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:



uccomama Quote:

This is how I feel too about the raw milk/bacteria phobia issue. I really don't trust any research done by anyone who starts with the premiss raw milk is a disease-laden substance that needs to be adulterated in order to make it fit for consumption, because this assumption is a false and is borne out by thousands of years of empirical knowledge by indigenous peoples on the healthful benefits of raw milk.


Well, research doesn't really work like that. They either find contamination in the milk or they don't. And, as I already wrote, most indigenous peoples of the world never drank milk.

Quote:



As you like to read sources from your opponents, here is another link for you: http://www.drrons.com/raw_milk.html


Ok, here's what I think:

1) He studied CATS!!! 
2) IRT: *Heat-treating milk interferes with calcium metabolism causing&#8230;delay in bone age, and small bones&#8230;.* Doesn't it strike you as counter-intuitive that in a country that drinks the most pasteurized milk, people have never been so tall? That's all about bone development right there.
3) This man is selling a product - his naturopathic service.

Quote:



mz_libbie22 -- I think there's evidence on both sides of this argument, what I don't understand is what right the govt has to forbid people to buy/sell unpasturized milk.


I couldn't agree more. The goverment has completely infringed on our rights in many, many ways like this . . . usually to the benefit of corporations. This is for the people to decide for themselves, without big brother.

Quote:



tweetybirds2 = This is what gives me the most evidence that it is good. Most of our grandparents and generations back were drinking raw milk. Now days it's not about the public health, that's just what they want you to believe, it's about money and convenience.


And our grandparents, generations back, still got sick food borne illnesses. These diseases aren't new, or unique to the industrial dairy industry.

You know, you just made me think -- my maiden name refers to dairy farmers in Holland, and my grandfather was a dairy farmer here in the US, along with his father. I'm can't wait to ask him his opinion about all this!

Quote:



vegmom Ok, so i have to tell you that i am extremely biased to this debate. I get my raw milk from from a family member who has been a farmer since her teenage years. They raised 4 babies on raw milk and have seen many people benefit from drinking raw milk. Now my dds are being raised on it. I started giving it to dd#2 when she was only 7months. I drank it throughout my pregnancies just like my family member did and even though i was aware of the risk i felt confident that my immune system and GI tract would be able to handle it.


Well, again, I think there's something to be said for consuming the bacteria our bodies are used to. Farmers have always been healthier than city folk when it comes to disease, because being exposed to it helps develop naturally immunity. I'd bet my bottom dollar that city kids are more at risk from raw milk than country kids.

Quote:



When dd#1 got sick with cryptosporidium, we were staying with this family member. I believe that dd#1 got it from the cats. Some of the barn cats are not so healthy and when the house cats mingle in the barn with barn cats they can transfer all kinds of bugs.


I'm sorry she was so sick. That must have been scary! I wouldn't necessarily blame it on the milk right away either.

Quote:



Quote:
Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, alters vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity.


See . . . this paragraph states things that are counterintuitive to me. Growth problems in children. Really? Americans have never been so tall. Osteoporosis? If that was caused by milk, we'd be seeing osteoporosis in children. Cancer? From pasteurized milk? That's a hard sell, and I just can't believe it. With the hundreds of toxins running around a newborns blood, and the disgusting, dirty air we breathe everyday, and the poluted fish we eat . . . pasteurization and cancer? It's doubtful to me. I'd really want to see that study for myself.

Quote:



Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.


If she would only acknowledge that pathogens do enter raw milk, and make people sick, I could believe the rest of this. It's this blind insistence that I'm reading through these websites that raw milk 100% safe that's making me crazy, and it stronly diminishes the argument when you can clearly, and without much research, find that raw milk has passed on lethal pathogens. I can buy into the argument that probiotics help prevent transmission of these pathogens, and are beneficial. But I'm annoyed that they're ignoring that sometimes pathogens can and do overwhelm the good bacteria. Acknowledging that doesn't necessarily mean that all the other benefits of raw milk are null and void.

Quote:



But that's not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk's amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk's mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.


I'd like to know her sources for this, since the only thing I've found is that it affects vitamin C and thiamine, and neither are particularly in significant quantities in milk anyway (meaning, you'd get plenty of those elsewhere).

And now it's linked to diabetes!?!? Not obesity. Not the fact that we eat way too many refined carbohydrates. But the cause of diabetes is now Pasteurization.

Seems to me that they're reaching here. And it makes me question the other facts that I don't know about. I truly wish these things wouldn't be so alarmist, because I want to trust them . . . but the arguments don't add up in relation to what we know about all these disease processes.

Honestly, vegmom, I think you do a better job debating this than your sources do! Maybe you should consider making your own webpage.

Quote:



Also, do you think that because the Europeans have had easier access to raw milk and raw cultured products, do you think that they would genetically adapt to have a higher tolerance to lactose and pastuerized milk?


I don't believe that pasturization has been done long enough to lead to genetic changes in people who drink it. Small variabilities in evolution take thousands of generations. However, there might be an argument for the fact that Northern Europeans can handle milk better because they have been drinking it for eons, whereas most other cultures don't.

Quote:



But what about the many people that suffer from drinking pasturized milk. Sometimes people don't realize they are lactose intolerant and can't pinpoint why they are feeling miserable. My sister was like that for a long time. What about osteoporosis? When you pasturize milk it alters milk's mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. The allergies, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue and other degenerative diseases? I would consider that puplic health. All of these have been quoted up above. It would be impossible to pinpoint how many people have actually died from these illnesses due to pastuerization.


All these diseases have complicated sources. We know arthritis is nearly universal in old age, and has been for hundreds of years. So, no relation to pasteurization. While I think you can make a good argument for raw milk to be healthy, I don't think you can truly link these disorders to pasteurization, especially without rigourous research . . . and at that, I'm still skeptical.

Do you all hate me now?


----------



## nichole (Feb 9, 2004)

i want to add something intelligent to this debate but you guys are doing a great job withoug me.

i just wanted to say that we don't drink raw milk. i really don't think milk is that healthy b/c of the way it makes me feel so i don't drink the standard 3 glasses a day anymore. to me it is just something to make yogurt, cheese, and pancakes out of occasionally. anyway, i have been drinking pasteurized milk my whole life. i'm pretty sure i was on milk based formula. maybe it is having some kind of lasting permanent effect on my health, but i've never gotten food poisoning from drinking it.

i've had food poisoning several times from meat that was not handled properly. maybe this is b/c my GI tract is not as stellar as yours, vegmom. i'm sure the average mdc member would say of course not- all that pasteurized milk i drank as a child plus vaccinations of course! i truly thought i was going to die from the food poisoning. so i'm not going to drink raw milk unless the cow is in my backyard or whatever and it didn't have to ride on a truck to my healthfood store. i am scared of e coli b/c that stuff is scary! i know from experience. i do see it as a risk (unless maybe if you really really know your source), but is there really anything in raw milk i can't get elsewhere like yogurt?

i do drink live juices but it is made right in front of me. is that any different? maybe i just am biased b/c i was raised on pasteurized milk.


----------



## momofelise (Apr 13, 2005)

Whitefeather, you said, "Ah! I would argue that healthy cows = healthier milk! Absolutely! But based on the studies, we still see that raw milk has delivered dangerous pathogens into the food supply system."

Your reply to the statement that healthy cows equals healthier milk doesn't make sense. Your reply assumes that all raw milk comes from healthy cows; thus, if raw milk has delivered dangerous pathogens in the past, then raw milk can't really be safe. Your assumption, however, is wrong. No one has argued that raw milk is _always_ safe or that raw milk _always_ comes from healthy cows. What we have been arguing is that *if* raw milk comes from a healthy, pasture-fed cow, then it is a relatively safe and healthy milk. That does not exclude the *rare* possibility that even milk under those conditions might induce illness in someone susceptible.

The point of this is that how can we have a debate if we aren't operating under the same assumptions? You talk about how you're debating from the perspective of public health. No one is arguing that we should return to a society of unregulated raw milk where the cows may or may not be pasture-fed and milked in sanitary conditions. Of course that would lead to disease. We are arguing that raw milk under the right conditions is healthier and relatively safe (safe enough that safety is a non-issue).

The Organic Pastures illustrates the safety of raw milk under the right conditions as you have already conceded. Your reply was that it only helps people in California. Your reply, however, does nothing to discredit the actual argument about raw milk. Indeed, it suggests that there should be more companies like Organic Pastures around the country offering safe, raw milk.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't disagree with you that raw milk *can* be dangerous if the cows aren't fed properly or are housed in their own manure. I am just saying that if the appropriate precautions are taken, raw milk is a healthy and safe option. As far as applying this to the entire population, I already said in a previous post that there are financial reasons for this not taking place. Doing what is necessary to provide safe, raw milk on a mass scale would cut into the dairy industry's profits.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momofelise*
Whitefeather, you said, "Ah! I would argue that healthy cows = healthier milk! Absolutely! But based on the studies, we still see that raw milk has delivered dangerous pathogens into the food supply system."

Your reply to the statement that healthy cows equals healthier milk doesn't make sense. Your reply assumes that all raw milk comes from healthy cows; thus, if raw milk has delivered dangerous pathogens in the past, then raw milk can't really be safe. Your assumption, however, is wrong. No one has argued that raw milk is _always_ safe or that raw milk _always_ comes from healthy cows. What we have been arguing is that *if* raw milk comes from a healthy, pasture-fed cow, then it is a relatively safe and healthy milk. That does not exclude the *rare* possibility that even milk under those conditions might induce illness in someone susceptible.

Actually, I haven't seen anyone concede that raw milk from pasture fed cows has the potential to spread dangerous pathogens - and you've barely acknowledged it here. If I've missed that somewhere, I'm sorry. I still don't see where my argument doesn't make sense. Obviously, of anything we ingest, the healthier it is, the healthier it is for us. I don't see why that wouldn't be true for cows milk. I wouldn't suck on a piece of raw organic chicken, even if I think that type of chicken is healthier to ingest (although, apparently there are people who do that . . . I always learn something at Mothering!).

Quote:

The point of this is that how can we have a debate if we aren't operating under the same assumptions?
I don't know. Vegmom and I seem to be doing OK with it.

Quote:

We are arguing that raw milk under the right conditions is healthier and relatively safe (safe enough that safety is a non-issue).
I hear this. I thought I'd been good about acknowleding this viewpoint, and disagreeing with it.

Quote:

The Organic Pastures illustrates the safety of raw milk under the right conditions as you have already conceded. Your reply was that it only helps people in California. Your reply, however, does nothing to discredit the actual argument about raw milk. Indeed, it suggests that there should be more companies like Organic Pastures around the country offering safe, raw milk.
Ah, I didn't conceede the safety of raw milk! I said that milk coming from healthy, pasture fed cows was bound to be safer, and healthier, than milk coming from feedlots, regardless of pasteurization. I'd rather have pasteurized milk from a pasture fed, organic cow . . . from where I stand right now, that's what I'm still seeing as the safest option.

There probably should be more places offering safe raw milk for people who choose to buy it. However, one of the places I listed with an outbreak of food borne illness was a certified raw milk farm in California.

Quote:

As far as applying this to the entire population, I already said in a previous post that there are financial reasons for this not taking place. Doing what is necessary to provide safe, raw milk on a mass scale would cut into the dairy industry's profits.
And, less cynically, it would make milk unafforable and inaccessible to huge numbers of American children - and we'd still run the risk of food borne illnesses.


----------



## momofelise (Apr 13, 2005)

This kind of debate could go back and forth forever.







Whitefeather, we are both thoughtful and enjoy research, but I believe that we aren't likely to convince each other on this issue. So at this point, it's probably best to agree to disagree. Although we don't agree, I'm at least glad that this topic has been discussed and potentially more people are aware of raw milk.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

white_feather,

Frankly I find this debate futile, but here I go again.

Quote:

1) He studied CATS!!!
2) IRT: Heat-treating milk interferes with calcium metabolism causing&#8230;delay in bone age, and small bones&#8230;. Doesn't it strike you as counter-intuitive that in a country that drinks the most pasteurized milk, people have never been so tall? That's all about bone development right there.
3) This man is selling a product - his naturopathic service.
1)The Pottenger study sited was conducted on HUMANS!!!
2) Actually I ready of a study somewhere, but I am sorry I don't have a link because I didn't bookmark it, that shows Americans are actually getting shorter not taller in comparison with people in other developed coutries. So no, it doesn't strike me as counter-intuitive. FWIW the Masai who eat largely raw milk, and raw meat are one of the tallest people on the planet.
4) ...and the FDA, CDC, NIH aren't selling anything? They are all in the pay of the pharmaceutical and big agra business. GM foods are good for you, thirmerosol dosn't cause austism (aka mercury poisioning) etc, etc, etc....

I do want to add more on Pottinger's work on milk and the *human* (not cat) skeleton:

Quote:

One of our specific measurements for comparing and evaluating the quality of children's nutrition is the density of their bones as revealed by x-ray. We use the density of bones as an index of the amount of minerals available for physiological processes. The child who has a compact cortex and compact trabeculation, has a much higher electrolyic reserve than the child who has the same size bones with a relatively coarse mesh.

Quote:

Lack of bone mineralization is playing an ever-increasing role among the aged causing spontaneous crushing of vertebras, particularly of the lower thoracic and lumbar regions. The softness of these spinal bones and their inability to bear body weight are causing many old people to spend the last years in misery. Fractures of the neck of the femur among elderly are precipitation more deaths than in the past, and we are seeing an increasing number of these fractures in the middle aged. Even the young are suffering more bone fractures as a result of trival accidents in their gymnasiums or on they playgrounds.

Quote:

Evidence is developing that calcium deficiency is not uncommon. Even though the ordinary diet is supposed to be adequate in its calcium content, it is only necessary to look at the teeth, facial development and osseous problems of all ages to recognize that something is wrong with the calcium metabolism of a large percentage of our population. In order to influence calcification in patients, we have given them diets rich in calcium, have adminstered quantities of calcium salts over long periods of time, and have administered vitamins to aid assimilation, and yet we have been unable to establish normal calcium utilization.

Quote:

The failure suggests that some factor or factors are lacking in the ordinary diet which are necessary for the proper assimilation and deposition of this mineral in the bone..... By adding fresh and raw foods to our patient's diets, a marked improvement became noticible in their calcium assimilation as recorded in their x-rays. Again it suggests that heat labile substances in foods exert control over calcium utilization in cats and humans alike and these substances are destroyed by heat and oxidation.
As for your height argument, Here is another quote from Pottenger again concerning humans not cats:

Quote:

Figure 11.3 [sorry you can't see this] represents the skull of an individual who belongs to the third generation of individuals on deficient diets. The family history of deficiency includes the mother and grandmother... Her age is ...38 years old. She is _six feet tall_ (my emphasis) and her bony structures show poor calcification. She has a poorly developed skull and has small bones, a small thorax and has lost most of her teeth. The lower half of her body is much longer than the upper half. She lacks the vitality to work more than one day a week.
He goes on to write:

Quote:

The pattern of calcification of a child depends upon the diet and the health of the mother; and in the case of Figure 11.3, on the grandmother and perhaps remoter ancestors as well. The pattern of calcification also depends on whether or not the infant has been nursed, and if not nursed, on what type of formula it is raised. (I realize this is not the subject we are debating, so no need to go into a bf/ff tangent). Our experimental work proves that an adequate amount of heat labile substances are necessary in a mother's milk as well as in any substitute food in order for proper calification of the skeleton to take place. In these very substances which are destroyed in pasteurized and boiled milk formulas and in the cook foods later added to a child's diet.

Quote:

...we find that there is little that can be done to change the calcification that is established at the end of a child's growing period. If a child's calcification is poor at this time, it will remain poor throughout life. On the positive side, it is possible to improve the calification of children who are still growing and have been on deficient diets by giving them the *highest grade of raw milk*, raw meat (heaven forbid - the germs the germs), raw vegetables and fresh fruits.
Again, I urge you to read Weston A Price's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

I am also going to reiterate what others have stated numerous times. We are not arguing in favor of ingesting raw milk from commercial dairies, but milk from small, preferably Jersey, herds that are loved and pasture-fed. I don't know the actual requirements, but I do know the farms that offer raw milk in the form of cow shares here in CO are subject to much more stringent regulations than the large dairy corporations.


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

Frankly I find this debate futile, but here I go again.
If it's not fun for you, don't engage in it. I'm just a random collection of pixels on the internet.

Quote:

1)The Pottenger study sited was conducted on HUMANS!!!
From your website:

Quote:

*Pottenger's studies on raw milk*
Now what Pottenger actually did in some of his experiments is this. He used four groups of cats. All received for one-third of the diet raw meat. The other two-thirds was either raw milk or various heat-treated milks. The raw milk/raw meat diet produced many generations of healthy cats. Those fed pasteurized milk showed skeletal changes, decreased reproductive capacity, and infectious and degenerative diseases.

Quote:

2) Actually I ready of a study somewhere, but I am sorry I don't have a link because I didn't bookmark it, that shows Americans are actually getting shorter not taller in comparison with people in other developed coutries. So no, it doesn't strike me as counter-intuitive. FWIW the Masai who eat largely raw milk, and raw meat are one of the tallest people on the planet.
I don't believe this at all. We can easily trace average heights over the last 150 years, and clearly Americans are getting taller. If we're less tall then people from Scandenavia (for example), it probably has something to do with the fact that their genetics are mostly Scandenavian, and ours are a mis-mash from all over the world including people's who are usually quite short (various Asian and sometimes Latina cultures). But the bottom line is that Americans are clearly getting significantly taller than they were, so it simply doesn't make sense that kids who drink pasteurized milk are short with fragile bones.

Quote:

4) ...and the FDA, CDC, NIH aren't selling anything? They are all in the pay of the pharmaceutical and big agra business. GM foods are good for you, thirmerosol dosn't cause austism (aka mercury poisioning) etc, etc, etc....
We weren't talking about the FDA, were we? I know very well how the agribusiness works. I'm pretty clear about that stuff. But I'm also clear when alternative sites are selling something, too.

In regards to the example of the 38 year old woman . . . If his theory is correct this would be the norm. I'm in my 30's been drinking pasteurized milk all my darn life. I was formula fed (sad, but true). I'm 5'5 and never had neither a cavity nor a broken bone. Ever. How many 38 year olds do you know who've never heard about raw milk are missing their teeth and lack the vitality to work?

I

Quote:

am also going to reiterate what others have stated numerous times. We are not arguing in favor of ingesting raw milk from commercial dairies, but milk from small, preferably Jersey, herds that are loved and pasture-fed. I don't know the actual requirements, but I do know the farms that offer raw milk in the form of cow shares here in CO are subject to much more stringent regulations than the large dairy corporations.
I totally get this.

It sounds like you gals are ready to pack this in, and to be honest, I am about ready too. I just wanted to give Vegmom a chance for the last word before I signed off from the thread . . .


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

My parents bought only raw milk.

I drank only raw milk.

There were nine of us.


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

I still never have figured out why people go to such long lengths to drink the milk of another species, especially when the OP is usually a hard core vegan advocate. Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmb123*
I still never have figured out why people go to such long lengths to drink the milk of another species, especially when the OP is usually a hard core vegan advocate. Makes no sense to me.









Because raw milk is one of the most nutritious foods available to man. Those [indigenous] peoples that had access to raw milk be it goat, cow or yak drank it, those that didn't ate seafood, meat (both raw and cooked) and plant-life. Their diet was based upon what was readily available to them. Veganism isn't a traditional diet of the human animal. Weston A Price searched the planet for an indigenous people that thrived on a purely vegetarian diet and could not find one.

A vegan diet/lifestyle is a personal choice as is choosing to consume raw milk, nothing wrong with either.


----------



## Yin Yang (Jul 9, 2003)

I did not read the whole thread, but wanted to say something.

When I was 15 I drung raw milk and got mononucleosis (sp?) - liver disease. But if you'd ask me if I'd do it again, I'd say *YES*. The place I drunk the raw milk 15 years ago was this nasty, mainstream, intobiotics and hormon fed cows farm, full of shit everywhere - I did not know back then!, so I am NOt surprised I got so sick after drinking that milk.
I have not drunk it since, simply becaus eI did not have an opportunity, but I would if I know it's from good, organic farm. It makes total sense to me to drink raw milk rather then processed one.

And also, I feed my dog raw meat, sometimes even from "mainstreem" supermarket and he never got sick. The chances he'd get sick are very very small, and the benefit of feeding him raw meat definetly outweights the tiny risk of getting sick.


----------



## mz_libbie22 (Nov 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama*
Because raw milk is one of the most nutritious foods available to man. Those [indigenous] peoples that had access to raw milk be it goat, cow or yak drank it, those that didn't ate seafood, meat (both raw and cooked) and plant-life. Their diet was based upon what was readily available to them. Veganism isn't a traditional diet of the human animal. Weston A Price searched the planet for an indigenous people that thrived on a purely vegetarian diet and could not find one.

A vegan diet/lifestyle is a personal choice as is choosing to consume raw milk, nothing wrong with either.









My ancestors would have died out had they not had a good supply of milk available. And if it was good enough for them it's good enough for me.









Still searching for a raw milk supplier here, it's very hard to find one in WI/MN. Right now I get non-homogenized, VAT pastureurized milk from my co-op, but I don't like it all that much. It's whole milk but seems really watery. I'm gonna order some raw cream from Organic Pastures when I have the extra money because there is NO cream in this area that isn't ultra pastuerized







:


----------



## vegmom (Jul 23, 2003)

ok, so here goes.

The Sally Fallon article is actually an excerpt out of her book - Nourishing Traditions. I have it here in front of me.

The sources that she listed are..

Quote:

But that's not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk's amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk's mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.
Maclaren, N, et al, New England Journal of Medicine. Jul 1992, 327:5:348-9

Quote:

After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added -- the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease(1) while the latter is difficult to absorb(2). The final indignity is homogenization which has also been linked to heart disease.
1. Fraser, DR, _The Lancet_, Jan 14, 1995, 345:8942:104-105; Buist, RA, _International Clinical Nutrition Reviews_, 1984,4:4:159-171.

2. Thomas, MK et al, New England Journal of Medicine, March 19, 1998, 338(12):777-83

Quote:

Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk -- one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens, as well as free glutamic acid, which is toxic to the nervous system.
Samuels, JL, "MSG Dangers and Deceptions", _Health and Healing Wisdom_, Price-Pottenger Nutritions Foundation, 1998,22:2:28. See also www.truthinlabeling.com

Quote:

Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body's digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can clog the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.
Personal communication, Francis Woidich, MD

I realy do understand why you would doubt someone who would make claims and not back them up. So i provided them.

I hope that helps.

One more thing to add. Another reason that i was introduced to Sally Fallon and Weston Price, is because my dd#1 had signs of tooth decay. Weston Price's studies were on traditional cultures, diet and dental health. And dental health relates directly to bone health. Traditional cultures that ate raw, sprouted, fermented foods had the lowest cases of dental caries.

All you have to do is look into the mouths of our neighbours to see how much metal is in them.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *white_feather*
Actually, I haven't seen anyone concede that raw milk from pasture fed cows has the potential to spread dangerous pathogens - and you've barely acknowledged it here.


Well... as the pathogenic varieties of E. coli are indigenous to a cow's digestive tract, and don't generally cause illness in cows (sometimes slight diarrhea, but not often) yes, people can _*easily*_ contract it from a healthy, free-range, pastured cow.








Don't judge a book by its cover.


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama*
First quackwatch is not an okay source, it is run out of a garage by an unlicenced MD with a major axe to grind.

Hey! That's not true!







:

I read he runs it out of his BASEMENT. :LOL


----------



## mystic~mama (Apr 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *girlndocs*
Hey! That's not true!







:

I read he runs it out of his BASEMENT. :LOL


:LOL


----------



## white_feather (Sep 17, 2004)

Vegmom, I did say that I was going to give you the last word because I think we're all ready to pack it in. I definately thank you for the fantastic run for my money. I learned a bunch! Not sure I'm a convert, but I definately have a better understanding about the issue.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *girlndocs*
Hey! That's not true!







:

I read he runs it out of his BASEMENT. :LOL











I am so very sorry for my inaccurate statement.


----------

