|Why You Shouldn't Drink Pasteurized Milk|
First of all, please understand that I do not recommend drinking pasteurized milk of any kind -- ever. Because once milk has been pasteurized it's more or less "dead," and offers little in terms of real nutritional value to anyone, whether you show signs of intolerance to the milk or not.
Valuable enzymes are destroyed, vitamins (such as A, C, B6 and B12) are diminished, fragile milk proteins are radically transformed from health nurturing to unnatural amino acid configurations that can actually worsen your health. Finally the eradication of beneficial bacteria through the pasteurization process actually ends up promoting pathogens.
The healthy alternative to pasteurized milk is raw milk, which is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes, and it is, in my estimation, one of the finest sources of calcium available.
Raw milk is generally not associated with the health problems linked to pasteurized milk, and even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.
However, some people may still experience problems, such as upper respiratory congestion, when drinking raw milk, and the difference between the breeds of cows the milk comes from appears to hold the answer.
Different Cows Equals Different Milk
This is an issue you may never have heard of unless you're familiar with the bovine industry, or have done a fair amount of research on milk. But there are actually distinct differences in the milk produced by various breeds of dairy cows.
So-called A1 cows are "newer" breeds that experienced a mutation of a particular amino acid some 5,000 years ago, whereas A2 cows are the older breeds that do not have this mutation.
As Thomas Cowan, MD, a founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation explains in his article Devil in the Milk, milk consists of three parts:
• Whey and
• Milk solids
The milk solids consist of a variety of proteins, lactose and other sugars. One of these proteins is called beta-casein, and this is the protein of interest when comparing A1 and A2 milk.
All proteins are long chains of amino acids. Beta casein is a chain of 229 amino acids. A2 cows produce this protein with a proline at number 67, whereas A1 cows have a mutated proline amino acid, which converts it to histidine.
The proline in A2 milk has a strong bond to another small protein called BCM 7, which helps keep it from being released.
Histidine (the mutated protein), on the other hand, only weakly holds on to BCM 7, so it is liberated in the GI tract of animals and humans who drink A1 cow milk. Now, BCM7 is a powerful opiate that can have a very detrimental impact on your body.
As discussed in these two articles from the NY Times and the Medical Hypothesis, it is likely the cause of increased phlegm production in your digestive- and respiratory tract, which can worsen upper respiratory problems.
This confirms previous findings, discussed in Keith Woodford's book Devil in the Milk: Illness, Health and the Politics of A1 and A2 Milk.
In it he writes that BCM 7 selectively binds to the epithelial cells in mucus membranes and stimulates mucus secretion.
But that's not all. BCM7 has also been implicated in other far more serious health problems, such as:
• Type 1 diabetes
• Neurological impairment, including autism and schizophrenia
• Impaired immune function
• Autoimmune disease
• Heart disease
For those of you who want to investigate this at greater depth, betacasein.net offers a comprehensive list of published scientific studies of the differences between A1 and A2 milk and their health ramifications.
You can also pick up a copy of Keith Woodford's informative book, Devil in the Milk: Illness, Health and the Politics of A1 and A2 Milk.
The US Raises Mainly the "Wrong" Cows...
A1 cows include the black and white breeds like Holsteins and Friesians. Unfortunately, Holsteins are one of the most popular breeds in North America.
The older breeds, such as Jersey's, Guernsey, Asian and African are primarily A2's. Goats and sheep also produce the healthier A2 type milk.
"Our issue in America is that we have the wrong cows," Dr. Cowan writes.
"When you take A1 cow milk away, and stimulate our own endorphins instead of the toxic opiate of BCM 7, some amazing health benefits ensue.
One saving grace, as expressed in The Devil in the Milk, is that the absorption of BCM 7 is much less in people with a healthy GI tract... BCM 7 is also not found in goat's or sheep's milk, so these types of milk might be better tolerated.
... We now have one more thing to put on our activism to-do list. Dr. Woodford explains that it is fairly straightforward to switch a herd to become an all A2 herd. No genetic engineering is needed, no fancy tests, just one simple test of the beta-casein and it can be done.
Hopefully, when this becomes widespread we will end up with a truly safe and healthy milk supply."
Naturally, getting America's dairy farmers to start switching breeds would require a massive campaign, but in the meantime, just being aware of this inherent difference between A1 and A2 milk can prove to be invaluable for many, especially if you have tried switching to raw milk and still experience problems with it.
You may simply be drinking milk from an A1 breed... Switching to milk from an A2 breed could make a significant difference.
This is also an important point for dairy farmers everywhere to at least consider, as A1 cattle may still not be producing the healthiest milk for human consumption, even when grass-fed.
How to Find Truly Healthy Milk
Depending on where you live, A2 milk may not be that hard to find. In fact, herds in much of Asia, Africa, and parts of Southern Europe still produce primarily A2 milk.
If you live in the United States, New Zealand, Australia or other areas of Europe, however, you'll need to look a bit harder since the majority of cattle in these areas are A1 breeds.
As you know, I advocate getting your raw milk from a local dairy farmer that raises cattle organically, letting his livestock graze on fresh grasses. So to ensure the milk you're getting is A2 milk -- the type that has not been associated with illness and instead appears to have numerous health benefits -- you'd just have to ask what kind of breed he raises. (Remember, A2 breeds include Jersey, Guernsey, Asian and African cows.)
Buying retail (in those states where raw milk sale is legal) would require just a little more work, since you'd have to get the contact information of the milk supplier and then call or write them to find out what breeds are used.
Fortunately, grass-fed, raw milk almost always comes from small dairy farms that do not co-mingle their milk with milk from other farms, so this makes ensuring you're buying A2 milk quite a bit easier.
You can start you search for raw milk retailers in the US by going to the RealMilk web site.
www.OrganicPastures.com also has a store locator for California.
(You can use the following hyperlinks to find out the legal status of raw milk in the U.S. state or country where you live.)
Yet another option is raw goat- and sheep's milk, as neither of them contains the harmful BCM-7.
|Posted by Clare|
I'd consider switching to it if I had the foggiest idea how to get any. :unsure:
|QUOTE (Pilgrimage of Grace @ Aug 9 2010, 06:19 PM)|
|Three acres and a cow.|
|Posted by laudamus te|
What is the situation in the UK regarding raw milk - is it readily available?
|QUOTE (Pilgrimage of Grace @ Aug 9 2010, 11:09 AM)|
The control over here is so bad that our SSPX school actually have some dairy cattle but the Nanny-State won't allow them to drink the milk.
|...but I've heard that in America some people go in for cow-sharing schemes, where they can get raw milk legally.|
|Big Brother Watch|
POSTED: Thursday October 28, 2010
Cheese It, The Feds!
Morningland Dairy is in big trouble! The small, family farm reportedly got caught up in the Rawesome Food Club raid in California a few months ago. Morningland cheese was confiscated by FBI, FDA, California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and Health Department agents who entered the raw food club with guns drawn.
Now Morningland Dairy has been ordered by the FDA to destroy 50,000 pounds of raw cheese.
“In the thirty years of Morningland Dairy operations NO ONE has become ill from consuming their products. Yet they have been ordered by the Missouri Milk Board to destroy ALL of their cheese without actual tests being performed on the cheese stock. This is nearly 50,000 pounds of cheese, or approximately $250,000,” states an 11 October article by Kimberly Hartke posted at http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010...troy-50000.html.
So, here we go again: Another guns-drawn raid on people who work with their own hands to produce real food instead of corporate swill processed by wage slaves. Pray to St. Isidore that the people of the West put an end to this sort of persecution, and pray to him that your own efforts to feed yourselves in a time in which “finance” far outweighs real production is viewed as the norm rather than as the aberration and outrage that it is.
This is the latest outrage perpetrated by the Food and Drug Administration (another taxpayer-funded bureaucracy), based on their farcically-named “Healthy People 2020” initiative, one more social engineering boondoggle created by cubicle-farm bureaucrats rather than actual farmers. While the federal government maintains that the murder of unborn infants is a “right” of the misguided, it also maintains through the FDA that citizens “do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish,” per a brief cited at http://newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen103.htm.
Got that? The cubicle-dwellers know what’s best for you and you’d better get used to the idea, because they’re not going to stop until they have you completely under their masters’ thumbs and finally wake up to the fact that they are under them as well.
Traditional Catholics may soon find themselves among the most-threatened by this sort of runaway governance, and we had best take action to prevent it before it becomes nearly impossible to do so. The nations of the West are not structured in conformity with Catholic Social Teachings, but we will have no opportunity to present said Teachings if we do not act cooperatively with those who share at least some of our beliefs; an all-or-nothing approach is likely to prove counter-productive until such time as God intervenes directly to right the ever-growing list of wrongs being perpetrated by those who presume to “govern.”
Here, in brief (the above-cited article should be read in its entirety) is what happened to Morningland Dairy:
Seem fair? A rhetorical question, to be sure.
The Feds are coming, and will keep on coming, until we decide to get going and stop them before we find ourselves force-fed with a mixture of laws and regulations that will make us far more than sick to our stomachs.
|The Milk Police|
by Ron Paul
On April 20th, after a year-long undercover sting operation, armed federal agents acting on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raided the business of Pennsylvanian Amish farmer Dan Allgyer to prevent him from selling his unpasteurized milk to willing, fully-informed customers in Maryland. Federal agents wasted a whole year and who knows how many of our tax dollars posing as customers in order to catch Allgyer committing the "crime" of selling his milk. He was not tricking people into buying it, he was not forcing people to purchase it, and there had been no complaints about his product. These were completely voluntary transactions, but ones that our nanny-state federal government did not approve of, and so they shut down his business. The arrogance of the FDA and so many other federal agencies is simply appalling. These types of police state raids on peaceful businessmen, so reminiscent of our tyrannical federal drug war, have no place in a free society.
The FDA claims its regulatory powers over food safety give it the authority to ban the interstate sales of raw milk, but this is an unconstitutional misapplication of the commerce clause for legislative ends. As we have seen, if the executive branch feels hamstrung by the fact that our framers placed lawmaking authority in the Legislative Branch, they simply make their own laws and call them "regulations." We all know how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses such bogus regulation authority to harass, hinder, and shut down countless other legitimate businesses. Sadly, Congress has been far too lax for far too long as the executive branch continues to encroach on its areas of responsibility and thereby undermines our system of government.
Most Americans understand that if you don't want to drink unpasteurized milk you simply do not buy it. But the federal government solution is pre-dawn raids which destroy the livelihoods of honest, hardworking families in this time of continued economic hardship.
I am outraged by this raid and the many others like it, and that is why last week I introduced HR 1830, a bill to allow the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes the unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products.
Many Americans have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment or thwart their wishes. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.
I am hoping my colleagues in the House will join me in promoting individual rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring this legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.
If we are not even free anymore to decide something as basic as what we wish to eat or drink, how much freedom do we really have left?
May 19, 2011
|Is Skim Milk Making You Fat?|
Paul John Scott, DETAILS
You probably spend all of one second deciding what kind of milk to put in your coffee. What's to debate? If you want to keep the pounds off and avoid heart disease, choose skim. This is gospel, after all: It's recommended by the USDA and has so permeated our thinking that you can't even find reduced-fat (2%) milk at places like Subway—and forget about whole.
But is it true? Let's start with the question of what's fattening. Whole milk contains more calories and, obviously, more fat. A cup has 146 calories and almost 8 grams of fat, reduced-fat (2%) has 122 calories and almost 5 grams of fat, low-fat (1%) has 103 calories and 2.5 grams of fat, and nonfat (skim) has 83 calories and virtually no fat.
But when it comes to losing weight, restricting calories has a poor track record. Evidence gleaned from numerous scientific studies says that if you starve yourself for lunch, you typically compensate at dinner. And according to a 2007 report in the Archives of Internal Medicine, telling overweight and obese patients to cut calories led to only "transient" weight loss—it didn't stay off. The same goes for cutting saturated fat. In 2003, the Cochrane Collaboration, a respected source for unbiased reviews of research, compared low-fat diets with low-calorie diets and found that "fat-restricted diets are no better than calorie-restricted diets in achieving long-term weight loss." As Walt Willet of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in the American Journal of Medicine, "Diets high in fat do not appear to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body fat in our society, and reductions in fat will not be a solution."
Related: 5 Foods That Will Make You Look Younger
It's becoming widely accepted that fats actually curb your appetite, by triggering the release of the hormone cholecystokinin, which causes fullness. Fats also slow the release of sugar into your bloodstream, reducing the amount that can be stored as fat. In other words, the more fat in your milk, the less fat around your waist. Not only will low-fat milk fail to trim your gut, it might even make you fatter than if you were to drink whole, according to one large study. In 2005, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions studied the weight and milk consumption of 12,829 kids ages 9 to 14 from across the country. "Contrary to our hypothesis," they reported, "skim and 1% milk were associated with weight gain, but dairy fat was not."
But surely low-fat milk is better for your heart? We are often told to watch our consumption of dairy because it raises our bad cholesterol, the kind known as LDL. But LDL comes in at least four varieties, and only the smallest and densest of them are linked with heart disease. Dairy fat, it turns out, affects only the large, fluffy kind of LDL—the benign kind.
And here's a final thought: How would you feel if you opened a carton and poured a chalky, bluish-white liquid into your coffee? That's the color many nonfat milks are before powdered milk is added to whiten them—a process that brings its own problems. [This was the :gag: evoking sentence that caught my eye.] Any way you look at it, there's been a lot of whitewashing of skim milk's image.
THE SKINNY ON NONFAT MILK
To turn skim milk white, "some companies fortify their product with powdered skim," says Bob Roberts, a dairy scientist at Penn State. Powdered skim (which is also added to organic low-fat milks) is produced by spraying the liquid under heat and high pressure, a process that oxidizes the cholesterol. In animal studies, oxidized cholesterol triggers a host of biological changes, leading to plaque formation in the arteries and heart disease, Spanish researchers reported in 1996. "OCs are mutagenic and carcinogenic," they wrote. In 1998, Australian researchers studied rabbits fed OC and found that the animals "had a 64% increase in total aortic cholesterol" despite having less cholesterol in their blood than rabbits fed natural sources of the substance. (A 2008 Chinese study with hamsters confirmed these findings.) Roberts says the amount of OC created by adding powdered skim is "not very much," but until the effects on humans are known, it's impossible to say what's a safe level.
|What Happened to Our Health Freedom?|
Agrarian, Culture — Posted by Ryan Grant on August 8, 2011 5:55 PM
It was early in the morning in Venice, California. A multi-agency raid by police in full SWAT gear, automatic weapons drawn and tear gas at the ready, made some serious arrests. Contraband was destroyed and cash confiscated. A drug raid? A terrorist sleeper cell? More “illegal” gold and silver currency a-la Von Nothaus? No, the culprit: raw milk and cheese. The crime? Selling unpasteurized milk and cheese to willing customers fully aware of what they’re buying. Charged with “conspiracy,” Rawesome Foods, a private club selling raw milk and cheese to customers, was raided by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department, the California Department of Agriculture, the Center for Disease Control, and the Food and Drug Administration. In what amounts to little more than economic terrorism on innocent Americans, the warrant included business and employee records, club member files, and computers. The FDA dumped out all the milk, removed every raw vegetable out of the store, and confiscated $4,500 from the owner, James Stewart. According to Natural News, the swat team entered Rawesome Foods, demanded the location of the store’s cash and sequestered and destroyed Stewart’s dairy products (a similar style raid was conducted on Healthy Family Farms, located in Santa Paula, California, a supplier for Rawesome Foods).
Not only is this the second time a SWAT team has raided them (read: terrorized with mafia style tactics), but this has been happening more and more frequently across the country. We may remember a few months ago that a similar style raid was conducted on Amish who sold raw milk to their neighbors, and another on a Mennonite farm back in May. Lest we forget, Julie Bass was arrested for growing tomatoes in her house garden and was only released by mounting public pressure. Julie was facing 93 days(!) in jail.
Fifty years ago I could have bought raw milk anywhere. I could have had it delivered to my door. I could have bought raw cheese and grown anything in my garden. Today I might face a SWAT team.
Even if raw milk is bad for you as the FDA continues to claim, is it dangerous? Is it simply unhealthy? Milk from the store made me so ill I had to stop drinking it. My stomach and overall health (not to mention energy) improved when I began to drink it raw.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument there is something unhealthy about raw milk. It is also known by every health official, health “czar,” Michelle Obama, and anyone with a modicum of common sense, that McDonald’s food is bad for you. The producer of the documentary “Supersize Me” was told he has irrevocably damaged his health by eating exclusively McDonald’s food. Yet we do not see SWAT teams raiding McDonald’s, dumping out milkshakes and happy meals and blowing up happy meal toys. So why send in the “troops” against the Amish? Why Rawesome Foods? Why family farms? Why tomato gardens?
Because they represent freedom from the corporate structure.
John D. Rockefeller was the one who said “Competition is a sin.” While this would seem to be at odds with the supposed “free market” system, it has in fact been the practice of any capitalist economy that has ever existed. The reason for this is that when the wealthy businessman sees the first sign of competition, rather than compete on fair grounds, he runs to the government for protection. Concerned with the specter of some danger to his cornering of the market, the wealthy businessman runs to dear old Uncle Sam for help. This is made possible by the mass power that the concentration of wealth and capital allows Big Business to wield. Since the rise of agribusiness, they have successfully lobbied government for subsidies (welfare for the rich), regulations, and taxes they can absorb, but the small private producer cannot.
The FDA is staffed almost entirely by former executives for Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland. The conflict of interest involved cannot be clearer. Thus the FDA argues that food has no health benefits for the body whatsoever (actually, that is what the corporate food cartel is aiming at, nevertheless this is the policy which the FDA supports).
Don’t believe me? Consider this warning to the Diamond company concerning their advertising for the health benefits of walnuts:
What sense could this possibly make? Drugs? We’re talking about walnuts! This, however, is good for big pharmaceutical companies. If the goal of your economic activity is to make money, and people being healthy means fewer opportunities to sell pharmaceutical drugs, health is bad. If people do not have access to healthy food and artificial ailments are created in degrees and kinds never seen before in civilization, and we are prescribed more and more drugs, profits go up even if deaths occur from unnecessary disease.
The policies and actions regularly undertaken by the FDA undermine the health of the American population.
Whether or not raw foods have the health power some of us suggest, a truly free market should allow willing customers to buy traditionally made, time-tested products. The unlimited accumulation of wealth and formation of large powerful companies—without government regulation to limit their power—ultimately enslave government to that power. This is the history of capitalism since its overall emergence several centuries ago. Only a return to an economy that puts virtue as its primary goal and money as its means, and a government which behaves according to that concept, can possibly create freedom in our economy and society. Without it, we lose our ability to make proper health choices.
|QUOTE (Ashmolean @ Aug 9 2011, 02:24 PM)|
|So what was Louis Pasteur, much-vaunted Catholic scientist, actually up to?|
|QUOTE (Ashmolean @ Aug 10 2011, 05:24 AM)|
| So what was Louis Pasteur, much-vaunted Catholic scientist, actually up to?|
Whatever it was, I gave up all dairy products about 3 months ago, dificult at first as I was a cheese addict.
No more headaches and blocked sinuses, and thwearthritis that was beginning to make holding a pencil or even a plate painful is on the retreat.
|QUOTE (Ashmolean @ Aug 15 2011, 07:29 AM)|
| There's no need, surely, Odd, to imply with your ...|
Quote go to your doctor, eat heaps of pills, and don't eat cheese.
... that I'm a valetudinarian, or worse, a hypochondriac.
Please be reasonable, as was Laudamus in his interesting post, for which thanks!
|QUOTE (laudamus te @ Aug 10 2011, 06:56 PM)|
He invented the pasteurization process originally to prevent spoilage of beer and wine. The process was later used for milk, because the conditions in which milk cows were being kept was so filthy, people began getting sick from the milk. The pasteurization of milk enables large dairies to continue to maintain filthy conditions. :gag:
|QUOTE (laudamus te Posted on Aug 11 )|
|He invented the pasteurization process originally to prevent spoilage of beer and wine. The process was later used for milk, because the conditions in which milk cows were being kept was so filthy, people began getting sick from the milk. The pasteurization of milk enables large dairies to continue to maintain filthy conditions.|
DANGERS FROM PASTEURIZED MILK
PASTEURIZED milk has been the source of many widespread outbreaks. A total for some of the documented outbreaks due to PASTEURIZED milk over the past few decades is 239,884 cases and 620 deaths.
The nation's largest recorded outbreak of Salmonella was due to PASTEURIZED milk contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium. The outbreak, which occurred between June 1984 and April 1985 sickened over 200,000 and caused 18 deaths. Disturbingly, the CDC did not issue a specific Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for this outbreak; information must be gleaned from other reports published in the FDA Consumer and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
A 2004 outbreak in Pennsylvania and New Jersey involved multidrug-resistant Salmonella typhimurium infection from milk contaminated after pasteurization.
Despite numerous outbreaks due to pasteurized milk, neither the FDA nor the CDC has ever issued a warning against consuming pasteurized milk. Pasteurization is not a guarantee; pasteurized milk is not sterile. The FDA permits the presence of up to 20,000 bacteria /ml and 10 E.coli/ml in milk after the pasteurization process has been completed.
Because pasteurization destroys probiotics (good bacteria), any harmful bacteria present in the milk after pasteurization can and will flourish. On the other hand, published research shows that good bacteria and many other components in raw milk actually destroy pathogens added to the milk.
|The joint FDA /CDC reminder claims that between 1998 and 2005, raw milk was implicated in 45 outbreaks, 1007 cases, 104 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Yet the reference cited, the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for the week of March 2, 2007 (MMWR for 03-02-07), provides no such information; nor is any such information found in any other FDA or CDC document. Numerous requests to the FDA for clarification have not been answered.|
|DANGERS FROM OTHER FOODS|
"While all dairy (pasteurized and raw) constitutes less than 1 percent of all reported food borne illnesses, the FDA along with the CDC, continue to misuse, manipulate, and suppress data to frighten the public. Their recent 'reminder' against drinking raw milk is no exception," reports Ruth Ann Foster, a North Carolina volunteer chapter leader for the Foundation. "In the majority of cases it is only a coincidence that the individual(s) happened to consume raw milk. For many foodborne outbreaks associated with raw milk, there are frequently a large number of sick individuals who did not consume any raw milk. Still, health officials disregard this important fact and blame the milk. When the FDA, CDC, and state health officials target raw milk, they distract themselves from isolating the true source of illness. The risk of foodborne illness is far greater for many other foods."
Between 1990 and 2004, a CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) report shows a much greater risk from consuming the following foods:
SOURCE ILLNESSES %TOTAL OUTBREAKS %TOTAL
Produce 31,496 38% 639 22%
Poultry 16,280 20% 541 18%
Beef 13,220 16% 467 16%
Eggs 11,027 13% 341 9%
Seafood 9,969 12% 984 33%
Source: Outbreak Alert! Database, Center for Science in the Public Interest (please note, the database now includes data from 1990 through 2007).