# Regular milk or organic ultra pasturized milk



## AllisonK (Feb 18, 2005)

These are my choices at the local stores. Which should I choose? My mom said we should not do ultra pasturized but she did not know why. Anyone know?

Thanks,
Allison


----------



## FLDoula (Mar 16, 2002)

Regular as in just plain store brand milk? If so, I would go with organic. The "regular" milk would most likely be pasturized too.


----------



## sedalbj (Mar 17, 2004)

i would pick the non-organic pasturized. i hear ultra pasturized tends to taste burned, and it has been heated to such a high temp, you might as well not drink it at all.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Ultra-pasteurized just means that the milk has been treated at high temperatures for a very short period of time; I think it's close to 300°F for 1-3 seconds. This allows more bacteria in the milk to be killed off and give it a longer shelf life. It may have a slightly more burnt or caramelized taste to due the denaturation of the milk proteins (heating meat or eggs is also a form of protein denaturation). "Regular" pasteurization is typically a little above 161°F for a little more than 15 seconds. There is some loss of nutritional value with any type of heat treatment and there is also a time/temperature relationship so I don't think there is a big difference in nutritional quality between regular and ultra- pasterurized milk. The decrease in nutritional quality is pretty minimal. I know there is a lot of argument about what heat treatment does to milk vs drinking raw milk but heating is a pretty basic and natural treatment. Heat treatment does denature enzymes like lipase that can destroy the quality of the milk (by attacking the fat).

Personally, we don't rely on milk as our primary nutrition source. We buy the organic ultra-pasteurized b/c I am more worried about hormones in the milk.


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Neither.







I don't buy my milk from the store anymore. I buy it straight from my farmer. The ultra pasteurized organic milk needs no refridgeration. They only put it in the refridgerated section so you'll buy it. Check out www.realmilk.com to see if there are any real milk sources near you.

Kim


----------



## AllisonK (Feb 18, 2005)

We are on WIC so I have to buy it at a store. Would be great if farms could take WIC though. And by regular I meant non organic store milk. Yes the reg milk is pasturized too but not ultra pasturized. So other than hormones I am wondering what this "ultra" pasturization (is that a word?) has done to the milk.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

AllisonK, here's a link that might help: http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html

If you look at the bottom, you'll see them address the ultrapasteurization and homogenization issues.

I wish I could do raw milk, but it's illegal in my state and I just can't drive hours to the next one. I've decided to give up on milk for now, and just have raw milk cheese and pasteurized, non-homogenized yogurt. For some reason, raw milk cheese is legal.

But when I was drinking milk, I had a very difficult time sorting everything out. I thought heating was no big deal. I just thought the issue was about killing off the good bacteria, which is true. But ultrapasteurization warps the proteins in milk, which the article doesn't even address. Also homongenization is evil. It renders the good fats in milk harmful. They break it up into a form that ends up clogging the arteries. So in my opinion, homogenized milk is not even good for kids (I do believe in saturated fats for kids, so that's not the issue).

Does whole foods accept wic? They have a pasteurized, non-homogenized brand that is $7 a gallon. Not cheap, but I wouldn't pay for regular milk or even ultrapasteurized organic milk even if it was dirt cheap. I would just avoid it altogether if it's ultrapasteurized and homogenized.

I'm a moderate type of person. I buy non-organic if the organic sort is too expensive or not available, so I don't think I'm excessively purist. But I truly think milk as it is being rendered today is bad news.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Wow - some of the things is that article is so blatantly false. I work in the food industry and have worked with pasteurizing and homogenizing equipment. Ultra-pasteurization is shorter times; not longer. If it were longer, no one would do it because it wouldn't be cost effective. If you are worried about what homogenization does to milk fat than you better stay away from all salad dressings and most drinks other than water and alcohol. They are all homogenized.

I hate to say it but those references look made up. EIther that or they are referenced so poorly no one could locate the articles which don't even seem to address the issues of homogenization or pasteurization anyway. For example _Nutrition News and Views_ was put out by Mississippi State U and was published weekly, not bimonthly as referenced in the article.

Homogenization linked to heart disease? Come on!!! First of all, it's not referenced. Animal fat in general is linked to heart disease (saturated fat!!). Homogenization has nothing to do with it.

Milk producers don't care if you know their milk is ultra-pasteurized. All references to pasteurization are written in small letters. There is nothing secretive about ultra-pasteurization as that article will have you believe.

Quite frankly, proteins in the milk are going to be denatured before you digest them. It can happen via heating (pasteurization) or it can happen if your stomach (via stomach acids).

Honestly - I am often very skeptical about our food supply since I work in the industry. My dd's teachers at school laugh at me b/c I am so picky about what she eats.







: That article is a bit over the top though with unsubstantiated claims. For the record. I cut all the milk my dd drinks with rice milk.







I totally support people's dairy choices or avoidances b/c I think you can do with or without milk but just know that articles like that are a bit embellished.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I choose organic. The stuff in non-organic milk is WAY scarier to me than what heat can do.

-Angela


----------



## 425lisamarie (Mar 4, 2005)

I buy organic from localy owned cows


----------



## shaywyn (Jul 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 

Personally, we don't rely on milk as our primary nutrition source. We buy the organic ultra-pasteurized b/c I am more worried about hormones in the milk.

Exactly that.







We've cut way down on milk consumption but dd likes some in her cereal and I like a small glass every now and then. I do go ahead and buy the organic ultra pasteurized because I am hoping it really doesn't have all those hormones, kwim?


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

dlm194, I am not an expert on food, so I must rely on experts such as yourself. I'm sure you have a lot of knowledge given your profession, but in my research, I have seen many links between homogenized milk with heart disease. I'm not sure what you mean by avoiding salad dressing. I think the homogenization process in milk is peculiar to milk alone. But maybe you know something I don't. We all know what the establishment says about saturated fats. They do acknowledge that and still persisit in their belief that saturated fats are not the culprit. They provide a wealth of research. However, below I only include articles linking homogenization with heart disease. Here are a few such links. Perhaps you could address them.

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

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/view...19936&id=18866

http://www.wellbeingjournal.com/homogenized.htm

http://www.healthy-living.org/html/heart_disease.html

As for ultrapasteurization, I found a link on the WAP site that I include below, and one from Mercola relating ultrapasteurization as unhealthful. But they are the usual suspects. WAP foundation usually has good science and take particular pride in their independence of research. I don't necessarily believe that because the mainstream food scientists draw different conclusions that the WAP is wrong. But that's a whole other story. I have also gotten a lot of my info. from hearsay from other holistic moms for what that's worth.

http://www.westonaprice.org/motherli...rizedmilk.html


----------



## chiro_kristin (Dec 31, 2004)

If you are unable to get raw milk, buying whole organic pasteurized milk would still be better than regular nonorganic milk.

For a lot of us, buying raw milk is "illegal." We get by it by buying a share of a cow or buying from somebody as "pet food."

I never thought about the homogenization issue with salad dressing, but then again we make our own salad dressings.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Could you try a different store? Or talk to the store you do go to getting a different brand of organic milk?


----------



## Electra375 (Oct 2, 2002)

When we were on WIC I had a df child and I was nursing df! I had so much stupid milk I didn't use. I gave it to my ILS who lived with us. No milk is better than any pasturized milk product. Pasturized milk will kill a baby cow -- now, why would I want to consume that or let my child consume it?

If those are the only 2 choices, neither. Milk isn't all it's cracked up to be and the only reason why it is so pushed is b/c if not nursing oz per oz it packs the most fat and calories for toddlers. Docs think toddlers can't learn to eat enough, balance nutrition or something -- look at all the toddler nutritional drinks and snacks now a days???







:

If you must have milk for some reason and can't afford raw dairy, choose rice or almond. When we were not consuming dairy 1 little carton of rice would last a month on just cereal or in the occassional baked item.

Mary Lou Henner was my no dairy support. Then I started reading about real milk, raw dairy. Since my dh likes milk and so does my ds1, I decided I would prefer to give them raw dairy than store processed pasturized poison. After over a year with raw dairy coming into the house, I have just now started to put some on my cereal, when I eat cereal (which is rare).


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

WIC here won't let me get organic milk at all. I've been getting the conventional regular pasturized milk, but selected a brand that didn't add hormones to the milk.

Now that DS is "graduating" from WIC, I'm going to have to figure out what kind of milk I should be buying.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Mommay ~ The fundamental problem with the information presented in those articles is that's pretty much all speculation. That doesn't mean it's false!!! However, if you look at things logically, just shaking milk is homogenization. I'm not sure how those who raw milk actually consume it but if you shake the milk to blend the fat and skim portions, then you have homogenized. You just haven't broken the fat globules to particles that are as small as when you use an industrial homogenizer.

The fact is that ALL food is chemicals. Anytime you process food you will change its chemical properties. By "process" I mean even something as simple as mixing. Mixing will reduce particle size, mixing will denature proteins, etc (mixing cause protein denaturation which allows us to "whip" cream. Steaming vegetables destroys enzymes. Even time changes the chemical properties of foods.

One of the big reasons I don't go along with those articles is that they keep pointing out that homogenization began in the 30s and heart disease started becoming a much bigger issue after that. Well, right around that time other big changes happened in our society - most notably, the booming business of process foods! Why blame homogenized milk when so many other changes in our diet were taking place? If you use the "timing" logic then you better vaccinate your kids because after vaccines, many diseases sharply decreased. Of course many diseases were decreasing at the same time the vaccines were being introduced....

Personally, I think a lot of heart disease today (and this is total opinion here!







) came due to the introduction of formula. One key ingredient that formula is missing is cholesterol. Breastmilk has cholesterol. I kind of think that our bodies better learn how to process cholesterol when properly exposed to it when young. Again, that's total speculation and opinion on my part but it makes sense to me!

If homogenization is really a concern, you could simply use skim milk as much as possible. Technically skim milk can contain up to almost 0.5g fat so it is still homogenized but if there is little fat in there, then there is a lesser chance of ingesting the XO that those articles are concerned about.

I just want to reiterate that I am not criticizing anyone's choice of milk at all (or trying to say that people should drink homogenized milk)!!! I just don't personally think it matters whether it's homogenized or not.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Don't drink milk then.
Seriously, we only use milk (organic, because I think hormones and pesticides are way worse than pasteurization) for cereal and DH uses it for coffees. I can totally do without it, I buy it for DH and SS. I doubt I will introduce it to my DS. I don't see a point.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Electra375* 
Pasturized milk will kill a baby cow -- now, why would I want to consume that or let my child consume it?

This makes my point. Why would you want to consume a living milk that is NOT designed for you, but for baby cows?

Anyway, just my two cents.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I would drink the UHT organic first because with organic cows are required access to grass. How much grass is the question, but knowing nothing else, that's what I'd go with.

I've looked for studies on vitamin loss in ultra pasteurized milk and haven't found evidence that it is as dire as some of the WAPF literature claims. But there is not a whole lot of research on the topic to begin with. I have no idea about the effect of homogenization but would still choose a milk that isn't homogenized _just in case_. How's that for research?









And as a sidenote, my son's godfather's father developed the homogenization process for a big Michigan dairy back in the 1920s. Oh, the name of the company escapes me. Anyway, it was a process that was more simplified than the previous and allowed homogenization to happen on a mass scale. Their reason was concern about rickets and vitamin D -- parents skimmed the fat off the top for their coffee and the children got rickets from a vitamin D deficiency. Homogenization helped with the deficiency problem and, of course, at some point they started adding vitamin D to the milk, probably as grain feeding of cows became universal.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
I have no idea about the effect of homogenization but would still choose a milk that isn't homogenized _just in case_. How's that for research?









That works for me a lot of the times.









That's really interesting about your son's godfather's father. He probably didn't know the huge impact he would make!

dlm194, I think that the fact that the fat is broken down to such small portions is the issue. I think the whole fat globule is healthful, but the broken down ones just end up clogging your arteries. But I am not a food expert as I said, so I won't attempt to argue a technical point. But there has to be a huge difference between just shaking the milk and the homogenization porcess precisely because the latter causes fat to never separate.

I won't get into the whole WAP if you're not aware of it, but if you acknowledge cholesterol as essential to health (as WAP does), then perhaps you'd be sympathetic to the idea that so is saturated fats. They show in numerous studies how these fats are villainized, as cholesterol is, for bad reasons.

That's also a reason why skim milk would not be a good idea. The healthful part of milk is the fat. If you notice, that's why skim milk always have added A and D (these are in the fat). Usually these added vitamins are synthetic forms that don't even get utilized very well. Gale Force points out that drinking milk without the fat has caused rickets in children in the past.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Speaking of shaking the milk, the proponents of the exclusive milk diets from a century ago (see the milk diet) said not to try to mix the cream back into the milk if it had already separated. So they would probably oppose homogenization.

They were also bigger on the non-fat part of the milk since they used skim milk for some of their patients but never used just cream. In fact, they preferred milk from Holsteins because the fat globule is smaller than the Jersey and the Guernsey. Jersey milk is "too fat" basically, in sharp contrast to the current consumers for raw, whole milk.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
dlm194, I think that the fact that the fat is broken down to such small portions is the issue. I think the whole fat globule is healthful, but the broken down ones just end up clogging your arteries.

But your body breaks down food into useable components so, again, that argument really holds no weight in my opinion. Again, I just don't see nutritional advantage or disadvantage to homogenization. That's why I don't really think it matters whether or not milk is homogenized. If you prefer the un-homogenized, then go for it!!









Quote:

But I am not a food expert as I said, so I won't attempt to argue a technical point. But there has to be a huge difference between just shaking the milk and the homogenization porcess precisely because the latter causes fat to never separate.
That's just due to laws of physics.







BTW - salad dressings which contain oil and most flavored drinks are homogenized. You may want to consider that with future food choices. Salad dressings go through a machine called a colloid mill which is essentially a homogenizer designed for thicker foods.

Quote:

I won't get into the whole WAP if you're not aware of it, but if you acknowledge cholesterol as essential to health (as WAP does), then perhaps you'd be sympathetic to the idea that so is saturated fats. They show in numerous studies how these fats are villainized, as cholesterol is, for bad reasons.
I absolutely acknowledge that cholesterol is essential to health. It gives structure to the plasma membrane of our cells. This is why our bodies manufacture it and why it is wise to consume cholesterol (but not too much of course). Some people's bodies produced too much cholesterol no matter what their diet though.

Quote:

That's also a reason why skim milk would not be a good idea. The healthful part of milk is the fat. If you notice, that's why skim milk always have added A and D (these are in the fat). Usually these added vitamins are synthetic forms that don't even get utilized very well. Gale Force points out that drinking milk without the fat has caused rickets in children in the past.
The fat in milk is saturated fat which is not particularly healthful at all. You are much better off consuming unsaturated fats. There is only so much cholesterol you need. Plus, the extra fat gives you extra calories which are probably not needed in the diet (depend on how much else you eat). All milk has vitamin D added. Milk doesn't naturally come with a lot of vitamin D. The reason it is added is to boost the absorption of calcium. It doesn't matter if vitamin D is absorbed well or not though. Your body produces vitamin D with the help of the sun (this is why prisoners must be allowed out each day). As long as you get sunlight each day, you should make all the vitamin D you need. You do need fat though to absorb vitamin D. Vitamins A, D, E and K are the fat soluble vitamins. Fat can come from many sources though.

Rickets is a disease in children where the do not get enough calcium (doesn't matter if the milk is skim or full fat for calcium). As a result, their bones are broken down to release calcium into their blood streams to allow other physiological process to continue (particularly muscle contractions). The major role that vitamin D plays is allowing calcium to be absorbed better. However, the sun will prevent vitamin D deficiencies.

If you drink milk for vitamin A and D, then I totally understand why you want milk with fat in it. Personally, I don't think that much saturated fat is necessary since we get fat in many other foods we eat. We drink milk primarly for calcium which is essential to pretty much all life functions. For that reason, we usually drink skim or 1%.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

dlm194, I don't get that you read the articles. Another one is http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...enization.html.

To quote a part: "He believed that this new membrane protected the XO from digestive enzymes, allowing some XO to pass intact within the fat globules from the gut into the circulatory system when homogenized milk is consumed.3 He referred to these fat globules as liposomes and argued that the liposomes carrying XO were absorbed intact. After entering the circulation, they travel to the capillaries, where the lipoprotein membranes appear to be digested by the enzyme lipoprotein lipase, thus freeing the XO for absorption into the body, including the heart and artery tissues, where it may interact with and destroy plasmalogen.

In essence, Oster's theory replaces cholesterol as the cause of heart disease with another mechanism, summarized as follows:

Homogenization causes a supposedly "noxious" enzyme called xanthine oxidase to be encapsulated in a liposome that can be absorbed intact.
XO is released by enzymatic action and ends up in heart and arterial tissue where it causes the destruction of a specialized protective membrane lipid called plasmalogen, causing lesions in the arteries and resulting in the development of plaque."

Also, for the benefits of saturated fats: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...t_sat_fat.html

It's fine if you don't want to read them. If you want to stick with your views and not address the other side of the argument, that's your choice as well. BTW, I'm convinced all those





















are meant to be condenscending, so I won't assume you're trying to be my best friend.

Feel free to reply, I'm going to exit the discussion now.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
your body breaks down food into useable components so, again, that argument really holds no weight in my opinion.

The cofactors in a given *natural* form of food allow for better bioavailability of different vitamins and minerals. Food is much more than just its chemistry, especially when there's so much that's still unknown.

Quote:

That's just due to laws of physics.







BTW - salad dressings which contain oil and most flavored drinks are homogenized. You may want to consider that with future food choices. Salad dressings go through a machine called a colloid mill which is essentially a homogenizer designed for thicker foods.
Interesting. We avoid commercial dressings anyway, due to rancidity of the oils as well as their high Omega-6 content, but I was not aware of this. All the more reason to avoid them.

Quote:

I absolutely acknowledge that cholesterol is essential to health. It gives structure to the plasma membrane of our cells. This is why our bodies manufacture it and why it is wise to consume cholesterol (but not too much of course). Some people's bodies produced too much cholesterol no matter what their diet though.
Or perhaps cholesterol is produced to repair problems within the body, and it's irrelevant what one's dietary cholesterol is. nak, google Uffe Ravenskov.

Quote:

The fat in milk is saturated fat which is not particularly healthful at all. You are much better off consuming unsaturated fats. There is only so much cholesterol you need. Plus, the extra fat gives you extra calories which are probably not needed in the diet (depend on how much else you eat).
Cell walls are over 50% saturated fat. Saturated fats can also be beneficial in many other ways, for example lauric acid which is antimicrobial and present in hgh quantitied in breastmilk and coconut oil. Also, see http://www.eatwild.com, grassfed cows' milk is high in Omega-3's

Quote:

All milk has vitamin D added. Milk doesn't naturally come with a lot of vitamin D. The reason it is added is to boost the absorption of calcium. It doesn't matter if vitamin D is absorbed well or not though. Your body produces vitamin D with the help of the sun (this is why prisoners must be allowed out each day). As long as you get sunlight each day, you should make all the vitamin D you need.
No. Again, you're thinking of the factory-farmed, grain fed cow. There is much more Vitamin D in a grass-fed pastured cow.
I don't know where you live, but between November (or is it October?, I'll have to look it up again) and April where *I* live, the sun is too low for *any* Vitamin D production. At all. And most people I know wearsunscreen all the time in the summer. SAD and MS, anyone?

Quote:

However, the sun will prevent vitamin D deficiencies.
See above.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

We usually by Natural by Nature (grass fed organic, and not ultra-past.) but when at a mainstream grocery store the choices are usually regular milk vs. ultra-pasteurized organic. I always go for the organic in this case. First, I think regular milk is filled with a lot of things (pesticides, hormones, antibiotics) far more harmful than superheated milk, and second, I want to support the organic farming industry whereever I can.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
dlm194, I don't get that you read the articles. Another one is http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...enization.html.

To quote a part: "He believed that this new membrane protected the XO from digestive enzymes, allowing some XO to pass intact within the fat globules from the gut into the circulatory system when homogenized milk is consumed.3 He referred to these fat globules as liposomes and argued that the liposomes carrying XO were absorbed intact. After entering the circulation, they travel to the capillaries, where the lipoprotein membranes appear to be digested by the enzyme lipoprotein lipase, thus freeing the XO for absorption into the body, including the heart and artery tissues, where it may interact with and destroy plasmalogen.

In essence, Oster's theory replaces cholesterol as the cause of heart disease with another mechanism, summarized as follows:


This is all THEORY!! It even says theory in there! It says he "believed." There is no concrete evidence of this. I'm sorry if I am trained to question these things further vs just going along with random, unproved theories.

Quote:

Homogenization causes a *supposedly* "noxious" enzyme called xanthine oxidase to be encapsulated in a liposome that can be absorbed intact.
XO is released by enzymatic action and ends up in heart and arterial tissue where it causes the destruction of a specialized protective membrane lipid called plasmalogen, causing lesions in the arteries and resulting in the development of plaque."
The word *"supposedly"* indicates speculation. Do you really even understand what this XO is? What is the chemical structure? Where is the research on it? How do they detect it? What equipment do they use? How do they detect it in the body? Why is it that when people can't argue further they resort to insults like "I don't get that you read the article?" I've tried to have meaningful and intelligent discussion here and I simply get passive insults thrown at me.

Quote:

Also, for the benefits of saturated fats: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...t_sat_fat.html
Man.... you are the dairy industry's best friend!!!!!

Quote:

It's fine if you don't want to read them. If you want to stick with your views and not address the other side of the argument, that's your choice as well. BTW, I'm convinced all those





















are meant to be condenscending, so I won't assume you're trying to be my best friend.
Wow.... I've been quite polite this whole time and all of the sudden you are getting snarky. First of all, I DID read the articles. I addressed many of the issues. I was trying to present information to give you all points of view. *I've said MANY times in my posts that I am not trying to tell anyone not to drink homogenized milk.* I just really don't think it matters so homogenized or not, it's the same. The







weren't condescending at all. I was actually trying to keep the conversation friendly. I guess my techical knowledge is intimidating. I don't know!! Suddenly you are trying to say that I haven't answered any questions at all.

Quote:

Feel free to reply, I'm going to exit the discussion now.
That's too bad! I'm sorry that you feel that way but hopefully this will be food for thought for others.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
Man.... you are the dairy industry's best friend!!!!!

Actually, WAP is pretty ant-dairy-industry. Just thought I'd point that out


----------



## granolamomma (Jul 11, 2005)

I just want to say that as someone interested in learning more about raw milk and all isssues of pasteurization/homogenization that this has been a thread I've been reading with not much knowledge base. I've read most of the WAPF site but have also heard here that Sally Fallon can be pretty biased to the point of being inexact with her science (and yes, I know that WP is not SF, but I mean the whole site basically), so I've kept my mind open while learning about it all.

That being said, I don't think dlm194 was sounding patronizing at all. I don't know whether her science is correct or not (i.e., is this a mainstream vs alternative debate) but unless there is some backstory I don't know about as a fairly new lurker, I think she is being spoken to pretty unfairly.

I enjoy the milk threads and truly appreciate the knowledge I'm learning, so hopefully it can continue without eventually getting yanked.







:


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I think we should all pay more attention to dairies and report back here on how typical this picture is:

http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html

We have a lot of dairies in our area and I've never seen this. I have never in my life paid that much attention to udders, but it seems like an udder like that would command your attention. I'm going to start looking.

And I thought breastfeeding made _my_ breasts huge.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Actually, WAP is pretty ant-dairy-industry. Just thought I'd point that out

















: I should have expounded on that further. *If* saturated fat was truly good for you, the dairy industry would be all over it!!! What a great marketing tool that would be. I'm not big on the dairy industry's marketing techniques but they know saturated fats have bad press which is why the market low fat products a lot.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *granolamomma* 
That being said, I don't think dlm194 was sounding patronizing at all. I don't know whether her science is correct or not (i.e., is this a mainstream vs alternative debate) but unless there is some backstory I don't know about as a fairly new lurker, I think she is being spoken to pretty unfairly.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your input.







I'm not terribly active on this board and have not had bad dealings with anyone before. I was trying to figure out where I was going wrong in my posts. I truly just want to offer an alternative point of view before people started getting too worried about their homogenized milk consumption. I honestly don't believe it matters and the science behind westonaprice hasn't convinced me otherwise (though I am fascinated by their reports on high fructose corn syrup and that has convinced me to research it further and avoid it as much as possible; I am not anti-WAP at all!) I have to admit that it's a bit disheartening to genuinely try to address people's concerns and then be told that I must not have read the links since I haven't changed my my but if I have convinced anyone to look into it further (even if they have decided that un-homogenized milk is the better way to go!!), then the conversation was worth it.









And btw.... this is the point of view of someone who is still breastfeeding her 26 month old!!!! Human milk for human children!!


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
I think we should all pay more attention to dairies and report back here on how typical this picture is:

http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html

We have a lot of dairies in our area and I've never seen this. I have never in my life paid that much attention to udders, but it seems like an udder like that would command your attention. I'm going to start looking.

And I thought breastfeeding made _my_ breasts huge.

I can honestly say that I have not seen a picture like that although I haven't been to that many dairies. It's one of the reasons I prefer to consume organic milk (except Horizon since I've read bad things about their practices!) I think the treatment of the cows is an important issue.

There was a dairy that experimented with installing milking machines that were controlled by the cow. The cow as actually able to come over when she wanted to be milked. Right now the dairy industry typically milks cows twice a day. They found that cows who controlled their milking preferred to be milked more often than that! I'm not surprised considering even now, if my dd doesn't breastfeed a certain number of times during the day, I get uncomfortable.

I have to say.... being a nursing mom has given me new appreciation for cows!







:

Oh, and my latest issue of dairy processing magazine had a big editorial about how the organic milk farmers can't keep up with the demand for organic milk. As a result, some farmers are trying to compromise by offering milk without growth hormone. If milk is not labeled as not containing hormones, I wouldn't trust that it doesn't! The good thing about this is that mainstream consumers are getting the message about how cows are treated and they are responding with their choices.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
Wow - some of the things is that article is so blatantly false. I work in the food industry and have worked with pasteurizing and homogenizing equipment. Ultra-pasteurization is shorter times; not longer. If it were longer, no one would do it because it wouldn't be cost effective. If you are worried about what homogenization does to milk fat than you better stay away from all salad dressings and most drinks other than water and alcohol. They are all homogenized.

I hate to say it but those references look made up. EIther that or they are referenced so poorly no one could locate the articles which don't even seem to address the issues of homogenization or pasteurization anyway. For example _Nutrition News and Views_ was put out by Mississippi State U and was published weekly, not bimonthly as referenced in the article.

Homogenization linked to heart disease? Come on!!! First of all, it's not referenced. Animal fat in general is linked to heart disease (saturated fat!!). Homogenization has nothing to do with it.

Milk producers don't care if you know their milk is ultra-pasteurized. All references to pasteurization are written in small letters. There is nothing secretive about ultra-pasteurization as that article will have you believe.

Quite frankly, proteins in the milk are going to be denatured before you digest them. It can happen via heating (pasteurization) or it can happen if your stomach (via stomach acids).

Honestly - I am often very skeptical about our food supply since I work in the industry. My dd's teachers at school laugh at me b/c I am so picky about what she eats.







: That article is a bit over the top though with unsubstantiated claims. For the record. I cut all the milk my dd drinks with rice milk.







I totally support people's dairy choices or avoidances b/c I think you can do with or without milk but just know that articles like that are a bit embellished.

Quite honestly, I am not in the food industry, but my DH is an HHC and I can tell you that homogenization scars your arteries and causes numerous diseases.

To Original Poster - I would avoid homogenization at all costs!!!!!! Pasteurization is bad enough, it's like drinking dead milk with no enzymes in it.
If you have no other option but pasteurized or ultra pasteurized, I would honestly chose neither. There is no reason to drink pasteurized homogenized cow's milk - it will do more harm then good. If no excess to raw, then nothing for me.

Back to DLM, possibly you might want to do more research on different types of saturated fats, as not all of it is bad and quite honestly this whole scare of saturated fat is a huge bs.
I would like to know how you can be sure what kind of water they use in your rice milk.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
Back to DLM, possibly you might want to do more research on different types of saturated fats, as not all of it is bad and quite honestly this whole scare of saturated fat is a huge bs.


This comes right back to the same circular argument. You haven't backed up any of your claims and you are putting words into my mouth. I haven't said all saturated fats are bad. In fact, I believe moderation is the key. If you can show me research that shows that consuming a lot of saturated fat is good, I would love to see it!!! I really mean that!!! Some saturated fat is fine. I wouldn't plan my diet around consuming fats from other animals though. To keep up with this claim that homogenization is the reason for clogged arteries is getting tired. Can you please provide me with solid, scientific evidence? I am willing to change my mind. I really am. Before I get frantic about homogenized milk, I want to see real studies - not theories or claims or other people's belief systems.

I have pointed out that the authors of some of the posted articles cite historical "timing" as the reason that homogenization must cause clogged arteries. There are a myriad of other things that happened around the time homogenization came into standard practice - most notable, the industrialization of our whole food supply.

I'm not making any claims that homogenization has nutritional benefits. It doesn't and no one is trying to claim that. I'm simply questioning the belief that it hurts the nutrition of milk and no one has been able to give me concrete evidence otherwise.

In general, mothering has changed MANY of my viewpoints and I am proud to state that.







This is just one area where I haven't see anything convincing.


----------



## oneKnight (Aug 4, 2006)

We have those choices here. Basically we just don't drink much milk. I use it some in cooking, we use less than 1/2 gal every two weeks. I just buy the "regular" because I can't afford the organic. I don't drink milk because I think it tastes like funny water. I guess it essentially IS. I make DH smell it to see if it's good because I think it always smells bad.
I'd love to get WIC later (I'm all about free food) but I'd NEVER in my life use that much milk! Eggs, cheese and beans would be nice though.

I keep telling myself this is temporary till I can finish school. Some day I hope to have a few of my own cows - just enough for my family, I'm not going into the business. I want chickens, dairy & beef cows, horses, dogs, a huge garden, you know, a regular farm. Then I'll KNOW.


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

_The fat in milk is saturated fat which is not particularly healthful at all. You are much better off consuming unsaturated fats._

This is what I used to believe too. Its all over the news and in the mainstream media. However, ever since learning about traditional cultures that have been nourished for ages by saturated fats from animals, coconut and palm fruit, I've changed my mind. Eating more unsaturated fat than saturated is bad for you. From wikipedia (and WAPF's research as well):

_The greater the degree of unsaturation in a fatty acid (ie, the more double bonds in the fatty acid), the more vulnerable it is to lipid peroxidation (rancidity)._

Ingesting rancid fats robs your body of vitamins and antioxidants. Rancid fats contribute to atherosclerosis according to the same wikipedia article. This subject of saturated vs unsaturated is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

_If you can show me research that shows that consuming a lot of saturated fat is good, I would love to see it!!!_

Here's some very good reading. This is WAP's book Nutrition and
Physical Degeneration. In this book, he studies traditional people all over the world who do not have access to modern day foods such as white flour and refined sugar. I find the isolated Swiss village to be interesting. They lived on raw cow and goat's milk, cheese, butter and rye bread. They ate lamb about once a week. Fruits and vegetables were hard to come by yet they were extremely healthy people. Before you say its genetics, read it. He found similar diets high in saturated fat nourishing people all over the world. The sick people with chronic diseases and cavities were the ones eating the white flour, sugar, pasteurized milk and margarines. Another great link for reading about good fats vs bad fats is here.

I'm pro traditional foods and fats but I don't buy the homogenization causes heart problems theory. I avoid it by buying raw milk off the farm but like you I'm not convinced. As a matter of fact, I believe I read on the WAP site that the link to heart disease and homogenization was disproved! Many of the WAP followers are aware that people like Sally Fallon have their own agendas (its been openly discussed on this board before) but that doesn't mean that the original research conducted by WAP himself is not valid. Its very solid. I hope you enjoy reading NP&D! It has changed the way I think about alot of things.

Kim


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

_I absolutely acknowledge that cholesterol is essential to health. It gives structure to the plasma membrane of our cells. This is why our bodies manufacture it and why it is wise to consume cholesterol (but not too much of course). Some people's bodies produced too much cholesterol no matter what their diet though._

I want to comment on this too.







The people with the highest cholesterol levels are the people who live the longest! High cholesterol protects against infection too. The cholesterol level of 200 or below as optimum is an arbitrary number that's not even based on scientific research. The way this number was derived was by some doctors on an advisory panel sitting around and throwing out numbers. By going with 200 or below, they created millions of patients for themselves because the average cholesterol level is between 200 and 240. The drug companies are profiting from this arbitray number as well. No way will you ever get me to take a cholesterol lowering drug!

_People with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol._

http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndi...s_cholest.html

Kim


----------



## Electra375 (Oct 2, 2002)

I totally agree with PP's saturated fats being better for you than unsaturated. All natural fats such as homemade butter from real cream has got to be better for you than any alternative! Not one person in my family has high cholesterol (generations worth of farm women making butter, eating whole foods, meats etc) and neither do I and I eat beef from a farm, bacon, butter, raw dairy, farm eggs. I'm not skinny, neither are any women in my family.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
This comes right back to the same circular argument. You haven't backed up any of your claims and you are putting words into my mouth. I haven't said all saturated fats are bad. In fact, I believe moderation is the key. If you can show me research that shows that consuming a lot of saturated fat is good, I would love to see it!!! I really mean that!!! Some saturated fat is fine. I wouldn't plan my diet around consuming fats from other animals though. To keep up with this claim that homogenization is the reason for clogged arteries is getting tired. Can you please provide me with solid, scientific evidence? I am willing to change my mind. I really am. Before I get frantic about homogenized milk, I want to see real studies - not theories or claims or other people's belief systems.

I have pointed out that the authors of some of the posted articles cite historical "timing" as the reason that homogenization must cause clogged arteries. There are a myriad of other things that happened around the time homogenization came into standard practice - most notable, the industrialization of our whole food supply.

I'm not making any claims that homogenization has nutritional benefits. It doesn't and no one is trying to claim that. I'm simply questioning the belief that it hurts the nutrition of milk and no one has been able to give me concrete evidence otherwise.

In general, mothering has changed MANY of my viewpoints and I am proud to state that.







This is just one area where I haven't see anything convincing.

Well, to be honest, I have no interest in convincing anyone that homogenization is harmful. There is plenty of research on that and if anyone really wants to know, they read. For me personally the opinion of top nutritional researchers who dedicated their lives to nutrition - example: Paul Pitchford, Andrew Weil, Sally Fallon, Jordan Ruben and list goes on... is enough. They all say that homogenization is an insult to nature and to me that's just common sense. An Ayurvedic insight is that homogenization makes the fat in the milk nearly indigestible. Anyway, I'm not a bit shocked that a person who works for food industry doesn't believe that homogenization stinks.
So feel free to do your own research w/out relying on links from other moms.

And in terms of saturated fat, it's such a different discussion, not sure if it belongs to this thread and moms above me had some very interesting points.


----------



## Yakiniku (Nov 15, 2006)

Quote:

I totally agree with PP's saturated fats being better for you than unsaturated. All natural fats such as homemade butter from real cream has got to be better for you than any alternative! Not one person in my family has high cholesterol (generations worth of farm women making butter, eating whole foods, meats etc) and neither do I and I eat beef from a farm, bacon, butter, raw dairy, farm eggs. I'm not skinny, neither are any women in my family.
This kind of showcases what I believe now. I was shocked too when I first read that saturated fats can be good for you because it went against everything I had been taught. And the truth is, I'm still a little on the fence over the whole issue. There are so many opinions I don't know who exactly to believe anymore. _But, that's why now I just think you should eat things as close to its natural form as possible. That's the way it has been done for thousands of years, so I think it's safe to say it works







. So, that puts me on the side of the raw, un-homogenized milk consumers. I no longer feel I can trust "authorities" on anything (remember when they said that pesticides were "good for you"?), so I'm just going to go with what I know works.







_


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
Anyway, I'm not a bit shocked that a person who works for food industry doesn't believe that homogenization stinks.
So feel free to do your own research w/out relying on links from other moms.

Okay so passive-aggressively insulting me accomplishes what??? I don't know why no one actually acknowledges that the information from WAP is theory. That doesn't mean it's wrong but it's not proven.

Basically ANYTHING you do to food (heat, steam, mix, chop, etc) has the potential to alter it. I'm sure we could come up with reasons why everything is bad for you.

As a matter of fact, my life is devoted to research so I'll stick with what I know to be true. None of my research has convinced me otherwise.

*Kimbernet* ~ Thanks for the reading!!! I will have to go through when it's not quite so late at night.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the WAPF materials online but followed a few links with this thread. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims in them. And I think the saturated fat arguments don't give us a lot of guidance on how much we need. Surely it's not "the more the merrier" in this case. From a traditional foods perspective, Loren Cordain in _The Paleo Diet_ recommends lower fat meat only because paleo diets were lower in saturated fat. That's where his skinless chicken breast argument comes in that Sally blasts him for in her review:

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/paleodiet.html


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

I recommend (for the umpteenth time) that anyone trying to get a grip on the issue of milk, whether to consume it or not, and if so, what kind, read the book The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid. I find it avoids a lot of the sensationalism, emotional manipulation, speculation and pseudo-science that both sides of the argument tend to hang their hats on.

FWIW, I drink raw, grassfed, organic, unhomogenized milk. If that wasn't an option, I'd go for organic over conventional regardless of the method of pasteurization, and would choose Organic Valley over Horizon or store-brand organic (because they're a co-op and I believe the cows and people get treated better under a system of a co-op of smaller farmers). However, I would only use such milk occasionally, like for baking or in condiment quantities.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
Okay so passive-aggressively insulting me accomplishes what??? I don't know why no one actually acknowledges that the information from WAP is theory. That doesn't mean it's wrong but it's not proven.

Basically ANYTHING you do to food (heat, steam, mix, chop, etc) has the potential to alter it. I'm sure we could come up with reasons why everything is bad for you.

As a matter of fact, my life is devoted to research so I'll stick with what I know to be true. None of my research has convinced me otherwise.

*Kimbernet* ~ Thanks for the reading!!! I will have to go through when it's not quite so late at night.










Didn't want to come accross as insulting you in "passive-aggressive" way.
It seemed to me that you really wanted US TO PROVIDE YOU with "scientific evidence" of why homogenization is harmful. Sorry if I misread you and sorry if I hurt your feelings.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
I don't know why no one actually acknowledges that the information from WAP is theory. That doesn't mean it's wrong but it's not proven.

)

And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up WAP. Did I mention Weston Price once? There is plenty of other researchers who think the same.
I agree it's not proven, but even if there is slight chance that it is as bad as they say, why take a chance?

For example Annemarie Colbin in her book "Food and Healing" writes the following:

"The homogenization process has come under fire as well. Kurt Oster, M.D,...has advanced the theory (my note: yes a theory) that homogenization
by breaking up milk molecules into smaller pieces, allows some substances to pass through the intestinal wall unchaged by the digestive process. One of these substances is an enzyme called xanthine oxydase, or XO normally found in milk fat, which helps in the breakdown of protein. After passing through the intestinal wall and being picked up by the lymphatic system, says Dr. Oster, te XO ends up in the bloodstream. As it courses through the arteries, it scratches and corrodes the inside of ther arterial walls, causing small primary lesions. As a defense agains this, the body deposits fibrin and cholesterol over the lesions to avoid further damage....
The American practice of homogenizing milk, and then fortifying it w/synthetic vitamin D, which encourages calcium deposits, may be among the reasons why very young children in this country already have hardening of ther arteries".

Paul Pitchford in his extraordinary book "Healing with Whole Foods" writes the following:

"During the years of the Korean conflict, medical personnel were shocked to discover that autopsies of some young American soldiers revealed arterial deposists and deterioration, a condition previously thought to exist only in the elderly. More recently, children as young as three years of age are exhibiting varying degrees of fatty deposits in their arteries. Some researchers now feel that homogenized milk may play a role in this vascular degenaration.
Homogenization allows the enzyme xanthine oxidase in the milk cream to enter the bloodstream instead of being excreted as would normally occur. When this enzyme enters the heart and arteries, it damages the membranes, creating scar tissue. Cholesterol accumulates on the scars and gradually clogs the arteries..."

My DH went to School of Integrative Nutrition in NY and he had various speakers coming - all top nutritional professionals and the topic of dairy was very often discussed. Absolutely everyone said that the research shows that homogenization is harmful, though just like anything else in nutrition it is not 100%proven so.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

All we need are some lab rats, a milk source, and some homogenization equipment. I have a good milk source, could buy rats at a pet store, but lack any knowledge whatsoever of homogenization. And then I wouldn't really be the best person to examine the rodents after their diet.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up WAP. Did I mention Weston Price once? There is plenty of other researchers who think the same.
*I agree it's not proven, but even if there is slight chance that it is as bad as they say, why take a chance?*

I completely respect that statement!!!! I also agree that there is a slight chance (I'd say that about a lot of foods, not just milk) of a risk. I think it comes down to a risk/value assessment. What do I think the risks are, what I am willing to pay, what I am willing to do, etc. I think everyone needs to make that decision. I think unhomogenized milk is a fine choice and don't dissuade anyone from it. I'm not willing to take risks with artificial sweetners but some people couldn't live without them.

A lot of the information you posted was also on the WAP site so that's why I kept referring back to that.

Quote:

More recently, children as young as three years of age are exhibiting varying degrees of fatty deposits in their arteries. Some researchers now feel that homogenized milk may play a role in this vascular degenaration.
That is an interesting theory and certainly one that should be explored. But homogenization has been around for decades - why didn't it show up sooner? I suppose one could argue that they didn't know to test for it.

I would actually "argue" that the cause behind this is french fries. And the rest of the fast food market and all their disgusting foods and cooking methods. Our society is so focused on convenience and once kids get a taste for french fries and fried chicken nuggets, that's all they want.


----------



## jrayn (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
I don't know why no one actually acknowledges that the information from WAP is theory. That doesn't mean it's wrong but it's not proven.









In science almost nothing gets past the label of "theory" that is why gravity is still under that label -- (the theory of gravitation).
Nothing in science is ever "proven", it is only confirmed by observation, but such confirmation is always tentative.
No matter how well or how long a scientific theory has been confirmed, it is always subject to falsification or correction by new observations. The theory of the earth being the center of the universe lasted for over 1000 years!

I say, the closer to nature it is, the safer you are. Avoid unnatural processing when possible, first do no harm


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

organic. Nothing is worse than hormones and antibiotics in the milk....so the homogenized milk is the lkesser of 2 evils.


----------

