Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
Hugh Lovel wrote: And as for making the task of the farmer less rewarding, pasteurization wasone of the big control mechanisms to lock him in to depending on and getting screwed by the middle men. Is there any doubt of this? Non what so ever. Gil
RE: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
Dear Hugh, I agree that vaccination is misused as well as pasteurization. But vaccination was originally used as a life belt method not as a way to make money. Re: raw milk - that is very true that milk is mysterious fluid. How much benefit it has for us I think is still matter of academic discussions! I would say that ones that has the most immunological benefits from raw milk are offsprings of particular animal as it is in case of humans. There are quite a few pediatricians who advice against feeding babies with nonhuman milk (that is consumed, of course, raw!) Regards Zoran
Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
>Dear Hugh and Zoran, >I think the issue of pasteurisation is more a matter of control and >taxation than public health. Raw milk is produced by the individual >farmer and used to be sold to friends and neighbours, but compulsion o >pasteurise obliges the sale to either a co-op or a commercial processor, >who then must have a stable market, which usually discount sales to >super markets and the like, or processing. My dairy farming forebears >sold around the local village, doing home deliveries in the pre dawn, >having already milked the fifty to eighty cows. Excess was made into >butter, cheese or fed to vealers or pigs. When pasteurisation came in, >the milk price fell to a "wholesale" level, the locals lost the free >home delivery and the farmer lost the income from the cheese, butter, >veal and bacon. > >Personally, I have never heard of anyone getting ill from using raw milk. > >Gil Dear Gil, I know what you mean, and I too am not familiar with people getting sick from raw milk, though I'm around people who drink raw milk all the time. I've heard of the undulunt fever thing a bit, and with older folks it comes up on radionic scans once in a while. So does small pox vaccination, which seems to settle in various areas of the body and cause problems ranging from arthritis to liver disease and brain problems. It's a good question whether or not society isn't far too fearful of germs and whether or not we aren't paying for this fear with problems we cause from vaccinations and disinfectants (like chlorine poisoning) and so forth. I'm not saying we should go back to the days of cholera from contaminated water and polio epidemics. (My father had polio.) But there is all this fear of germs and very little understanding about how to build and maintain a healthy immune system. It would be better the other way around, wouldn't it? And as for making the task of the farmer less rewarding, pasteurization was one of the big control mechanisms to lock him in to depending on and getting screwed by the middle men. Is there any doubt of this? Best, Hugh Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
In a message dated 4/4/03 12:01:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Strenght or weaknes of our immune system depends on so many factors. >> And the quality of the raw milk depends solely on the practices of the animal husband or herdsman. Properly sheltered, grassfed cows raised on biodynamically treated paddocks would not harbor any of these organisms and would most likely abhoor them...sstorch
Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
Dear Hugh and Zoran, I think the issue of pasteurisation is more a matter of control and taxation than public health. Raw milk is produced by the individual farmer and used to be sold to friends and neighbours, but compulsion o pasteurise obliges the sale to either a co-op or a commercial processor, who then must have a stable market, which usually discount sales to super markets and the like, or processing. My dairy farming forebears sold around the local village, doing home deliveries in the pre dawn, having already milked the fifty to eighty cows. Excess was made into butter, cheese or fed to vealers or pigs. When pasteurisation came in, the milk price fell to a "wholesale" level, the locals lost the free home delivery and the farmer lost the income from the cheese, butter, veal and bacon. Personally, I have never heard of anyone getting ill from using raw milk. Gil
RE: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
>Hugh, > >"And we get some types we wouldn't have seen in raw milk, such as >Listeria and Pasteurella." - is wrong. Listeria is found, if found, >exclusively in raw milk. For that reason pregnant women are adviced to >avoid dairy products made from fresh milk (here in Norway few years ago >few dozens of women had miscarriages after eating French cammember >cheese). > >Also I would never test my immunity drinking milk that might have >tuberculosis. Strenght or weaknes of our immune system depends on so >many factors. > >Regards > >Zoran Dear Zoran, Sorry. I stand corrected on the Listeria. Thanks. I don't think that anyone "tests their immunity" by deliberately drinking milk that might have tuberculosis in it. But, of course, there is some slight possibility of one's family milk cow having a touch of Johnne's Disease, otherwise known as bovine tuberculosis. There is a much better chance of it being in raw milk that is pooled from four or five dairies of a hundred cows each, which is what usually happens when milk is picked up in a tank truck. This means, of course, that pasteurization of commercial milk is very much the rule because there IS a fairly good likelihood of something like tuberculosis being present when you have hundreds and hundreds of cows involved. The point is that our immunity DOES depend on many, many factors,not all of which are known but some of which we know are in raw milk and are destroyed by pasteurization. Food researchers such as Sally Fallon often point out that laboratory animals raised on raw milk as compared to those raised on pasteurized milk consistantly prove to be healthier and more robust. I don't know of quite so much evidence comparing people raised on raw milk as compared to pasteurized milk. If one had the raw milk of good quality available and knew the difference I'd think a parent would be criminal to feed their children the pasteurized stuff. There used to be a disease known as undulunt fever that was transmitted by raw milk. I never hear of it any more, though a hundred years ago it was quite common. A person who got it might keep it for life, and it would flare up every once in a while. I think pasteurization can be credited for its virtual disappearance. On the other hand this is not the case with tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is all too common today and it hasn't been seen to diminish much because of milk pasteurization. The study I ran into that compared raw milk drinkers--who got no tuberculosis--with pasteurized milk drinkers--several of whom got tuberculosis--warrants further investigation. Are the immune factors in raw milk responsible for immunity to tuberculosis? Considering there are antibiotic resistant strains of tuberculosis that you definitely do NOT want to get, someone ought to look at this more. Best, Hugh Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
RE: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
Hugh, "And we get some types we wouldn't have seen in raw milk, such as Listeria and Pasteurella." - is wrong. Listeria is found, if found, exclusively in raw milk. For that reason pregnant women are adviced to avoid dairy products made from fresh milk (here in Norway few years ago few dozens of women had miscarriages after eating French cammember cheese). Also I would never test my immunity drinking milk that might have tuberculosis. Strenght or weaknes of our immune system depends on so many factors. Regards Zoran
Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
- Original Message - From: Virginia Salares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:16 PM Subject: RE: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada > Lloyd, > > This is the first time I heard of A2 milk. It didn't come up when I was > reviewing the literature. > The casein variants merit more research. From what I read, the > correlation between A1 milk and coronary heart disease and Type 1 > diabetes comes from studies in areas where different casein variants > predominate. As with all epidemiological studies, I wonder if > alternative explanations have been eliminated. I also wonder if there > are business interests involved, especially since patents are held on > the A2. Hi Virginia It seems this is a kind of David and Goliath struggle coming out of the new zealand dairy industry , David in this case a pretty powerful businessman with the largest dairy operation in the southern hemisphere - still no match for the vertically integrated dairy conglomerate/co-operatives around the world. There will always be business interests involved in food distribution and production, its a monster business and the markups are astronomical, the food industry turns its stock over more often than any other retail sector, yet manages to screw markup margins that are rivalled only by the high fashion jewellery people. > If the A2 hypothesis is valid, it adds to the argument that individuals > who wish to consume raw milk should have the right to access it from a > producer of their choice. Informed individuals will select milk produced > for human consumption (as opposed to pooled milk from many cows/farms > intended for pasteurization) from pastured cows. They could then select > a source with breeds that produce A2 milk. > > Do you know of anybody who has been testing A1 and A2 milk radionically? Dont know about this - I have (cynically) taken the view that its all crap, but I need something to moisten the cereals for breakfast and water just dont taste right, so we buy cheap, occasionally splurging on unhomogenised BD milk, but I am unconvinced on that too, it comes from hundreds of miles away, and is still pasturised. Cant be bothered with a milking cow for us three adults but if a neighbour milked would try to buy from them. > Interestingly, the raw milk that I get comes from a Guernsey cow raised > biodynamically. From the references, the Guernsey yields A2 milk. > Tested on myself and my son radionically, this milk increases our > vitality, while pasteurized organic milk from the store does the > opposite. I have to find a pastured milking Jersey cow (A1 milk) and do > the same test. >From the info we saw on the TV show about this a quite reasonable percentage of jerseys milk A2, also it appeared that crossbred cattle with beef bloodlines were a good bet. I agree with your sentiments on this - raw milk from grazing cows has got to be the best. There is a farmer on the north coast of nsw selling A2 milk - it will be interesting to see how this progresses - dont agree with the patent thing - how is it possible to get a patent on something natural - these people did not do anything to make the A2 protein they just identified something that was there all along - any patent application for things like this is garbage . Cheers Lloyd Charles
RE: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
Lloyd, This is the first time I heard of A2 milk. It didn't come up when I was reviewing the literature. The casein variants merit more research. From what I read, the correlation between A1 milk and coronary heart disease and Type 1 diabetes comes from studies in areas where different casein variants predominate. As with all epidemiological studies, I wonder if alternative explanations have been eliminated. I also wonder if there are business interests involved, especially since patents are held on the A2. If the A2 hypothesis is valid, it adds to the argument that individuals who wish to consume raw milk should have the right to access it from a producer of their choice. Informed individuals will select milk produced for human consumption (as opposed to pooled milk from many cows/farms intended for pasteurization) from pastured cows. They could then select a source with breeds that produce A2 milk. Do you know of anybody who has been testing A1 and A2 milk radionically? Interestingly, the raw milk that I get comes from a Guernsey cow raised biodynamically. From the references, the Guernsey yields A2 milk. Tested on myself and my son radionically, this milk increases our vitality, while pasteurized organic milk from the store does the opposite. I have to find a pastured milking Jersey cow (A1 milk) and do the same test. Virginia -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lloyd Charles Sent: March 31, 2003 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada - Original Message - From: Virginia Salares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada > http://www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/submission.htm > > Virginia Salares > Hi Virginia Are you aware of the health implications involved in the A2 milk issue?? - Google search 'A2 milk' for more info. Cheers Lloyd Charles >
Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
>- Original Message - >From: Virginia Salares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:17 PM >Subject: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada > > >> http://www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/submission.htm >> >> Virginia Salares >> >Hi Virginia > Are you aware of the health implications involved in the A2 milk issue?? - >Google search 'A2 milk' for more info. >Cheers >Lloyd Charles Dear Virginia, Lloyd, et. al., Back when Pasteur came up with his process of pasteurization to cure the wine industry's problems of wine turning to vinegar, he was on to something. The trouble is the same principle does not apply to milk, although in our day good old bad science has prevailed again in the face of good sense. In the case of milk, there are immune cells, sometimes called somatic cells, leukocytes or white blood cells. These fight pathogens such as the common E. coli, Staph. aureus, Strep. etc. that are rather commonly found in the envrionments of milk cattle. While grape juice has no leukocytes, and thus has no means of fighting contamination, raw milk does. And what all the immune factors are in raw milk, we cannot know, for the scope of biochemistry can only penetrate the chemistry of milk maybe 10 or 20 percent--as when we analyse it, we must kill it. Thus the subtlety of its chemistry could be far greater than the scope of our ability to analyse it. But nevertheless we know that within the immune cells we have a terrific ability to fight pathogens. Pasteurization kills not only the majority of micro-organisms that exist in raw milk, it kills all the immune cells. Thus the resulting pasteurized milk, when it gets a bad micro-organism in it, the pathogen takes over big time. And we get some types we wouldn't have seen in raw milk, such as Listeria and Pasteurella. Studies from back in the thirties--I don't have the exact reference--show that amonst people drinking raw milk none got tuberculosis, while amongst those drinking pasteurized milk 7 to 9 percent did. Tuberculosis is one of the diseases that pasteurization is supposed to protect people against, yet the research indicates otherwise. An explanation of this was given to me by no less than Charles Murphy, the chief scientist of the Georgia Milk Commission. In his words, "Any more, milk in the store has so few micro-organisms in it that when people DO get some pathogen in their milk they have no acquired immunity." This makes some sense. When people drank fresh raw milk it contained a variety of immune factors, all of which we cannot know, but some of which are documented. When pasteurized, these are lost. So we may kill the tuberculosis organisms in the pasteurized milk that we drink, but we get no immunity to tuberculosis by drinking that milk. So if we encounter tuberculosis from other sources, we are lost. Is pasteurization of milk bad science, or what? Trust that in government money talks and science walks. Money can utilize bad science and get away with it, because lawmakers are usually not scientists though they usually have a keen appreciation of money. There are, of course, some exceptions, and I do not wish to malign all politicians. But generally what is the accepted scientific wisdom on any subject is ten to twenty years in advance of the laws. In some cases, like the fertilizer laws, it is a hundred years ahead. In others it may be only a couple years ahead. But on the average, 10 to 20 seems a safe figure. Best, Hugh Lovel >> Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
Re: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
- Original Message - From: Virginia Salares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:17 PM Subject: Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada > http://www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/submission.htm > > Virginia Salares > Hi Virginia Are you aware of the health implications involved in the A2 milk issue?? - Google search 'A2 milk' for more info. Cheers Lloyd Charles >
Raw Milk - Submission to Health Canada
Over a year ago, the Natural Milk Coalition of Canada approached Health Canada to legalize the sale of raw milk. Health Canada asked us to address two issues: why we believe raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk and how raw milk can be made safe for drinking. Our report has been submitted to Health Canada. It is posted at http://www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/submission.htm Virginia Salares
Re: Raw Milk
Old Plaw Hatch farm in Sussex sells raw milk thru a milk round available to anyone who wants it in the local area, the reusable glass bottles must carry a disclaimer saying the milk could contain harmful organisms, and right at the bottom it says that this also true of pasturised milk !! ho ho. unfortunately here in Scotland there is no such thing as raw milk. gideon. - Original Message - From: "Tony Nelson-Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:45 PM Subject: Re: Raw Milk > > British milk producers might like to confirm what I remember about the sale > of non-pasteurised milk in the UK: it is prohibited on a casual basis, but > can be sold to individual named customers. Tony N-S. > > > > > > > > _ > Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=32&DI=1059 >
Re: Raw Milk
British milk producers might like to confirm what I remember about the sale of non-pasteurised milk in the UK: it is prohibited on a casual basis, but can be sold to individual named customers. Tony N-S. _ Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=32&DI=1059
Re: Raw Milk
The State by State rules for raw milk sales can be found at www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/survey.htm The rule for New Hampshire is "The direct sale of raw milk or cream from the producer directly from the farm to the consumer or from a milk plant to the final consumer is not prohibited. Producers who sell less than an average of 20 quarts of milk per day are not licensed or inspected unless they also sell to a milk plant." - Original Message - From: "COYOTEHILLFARM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: Raw Milk > Richard > I think that you are incorrect, my believe is that you can sell 5 gal of raw > milk per day in NH. > And if you are correct I be very happy. ?! Also I have never heard abut the > customer providing the milk bottle. > (Please note that my statements are based on information from last year!) > What abut cheese, any exception ?? (needs to be pasteurized ?) > > we have milking goats > > Per Garp/NH Loudon > > - Original Message - > From: "Richard Kalin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 07:48 AM > Subject: Raw Milk > > > > The law in New Hampshire is that a farmer can sell raw milk as long as the > > customer provides the bottle. A sensible law if I ever saw one. > > > > We are lucky to have a dairy herd at our CSA and the availability of raw > > milk is one of the reasons we have a 12-month a year operation and a 98% > > retention rate. I, for one, find that pasturized gives me gas and mucus, > but > > raw milk does not. I need the enzymes to digest it that are destroyed in > > pasturization. > > > > For more on the benefits of raw milk, check out www.realmilk.com > > > > A CSA without animals is not a real farm. > > > > Richard > >
Re: Raw Milk
Richard I think that you are incorrect, my believe is that you can sell 5 gal of raw milk per day in NH. And if you are correct I be very happy. ?! Also I have never heard abut the customer providing the milk bottle. (Please note that my statements are based on information from last year!) What abut cheese, any exception ?? (needs to be pasteurized ?) we have milking goats Per Garp/NH Loudon - Original Message - From: "Richard Kalin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 07:48 AM Subject: Raw Milk > The law in New Hampshire is that a farmer can sell raw milk as long as the > customer provides the bottle. A sensible law if I ever saw one. > > We are lucky to have a dairy herd at our CSA and the availability of raw > milk is one of the reasons we have a 12-month a year operation and a 98% > retention rate. I, for one, find that pasturized gives me gas and mucus, but > raw milk does not. I need the enzymes to digest it that are destroyed in > pasturization. > > For more on the benefits of raw milk, check out www.realmilk.com > > A CSA without animals is not a real farm. > > Richard >
Raw Milk
The law in New Hampshire is that a farmer can sell raw milk as long as the customer provides the bottle. A sensible law if I ever saw one. We are lucky to have a dairy herd at our CSA and the availability of raw milk is one of the reasons we have a 12-month a year operation and a 98% retention rate. I, for one, find that pasturized gives me gas and mucus, but raw milk does not. I need the enzymes to digest it that are destroyed in pasturization. For more on the benefits of raw milk, check out www.realmilk.com A CSA without animals is not a real farm. Richard
