It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Silver Containers a Solution for Raw Milk Problems?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
In light of the recent sicknesses from raw milk do you think there are any solutions to the problem stemming from the demand for raw milk? Many will say that raw milk should be regulated tighter than it already is.

Personally i believe i should be free to buy raw milk in grocery stores all across the u.s. but that it should be collected on farms using silver containers and that even milk gathering for personal use could benefit from the process.

Do you have any solutions that could benefit the consumer demand for raw milk?
Do you think silver containers to collect raw milk will help?
Do you think raw milk should be regulated even more than now?

Here are just a couple links i found to recent sickness and some info on raw milk.

state-identifies-farms- tied-to-two-raw-milk-illness-outbreaks

www.realrawmilkfacts.com...

ETA
I think the demand for raw milk stems from the fact that beneficial bacteria are killed when you heat milk and that adding and subtracting from milk changes the way our bodies process it. I think that the need for precious metal containers stem from things such as ecoli and such that can easily happen when collecting and that certain metals have always been used through the ages to gather milk and that is the biggest difference we see today in how raw milk is handled vs history past.
edit on 13-12-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

If raw milk is causing people problems, then they should stop drinking it and drink treated milk. They pasteurise it for this very reason, I really don't understand why people insist on going backwards when these things are done for our benefit.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Firefly_

I had no idea all those chemicals and toxins added to the milk (not to mention already in the animal) was done for our benefit.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I grew up drinking raw milk. I prefer goat's milk. I loved the stuff. I've never once gotten sick from it. I no longer drink milk from the grocery store. It gives me diaharrea and awful gas.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

I never had raw goat's milk but I prefer goat's milk over milk from a cow. It's naturally sweet, I can imagine raw GM has an incredible flavor/consistency.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I work in a milk plant. Nothing is added to milk except vitamins A and D. We test raw milk loads for antibiotics, hormones and aflatoxin. If any of these are found, the load is rejected, the state is called and the load is destroyed.
edit on 13pmSat, 13 Dec 2014 13:50:43 -0600k65012113u by darkwingduck because: Sp.

edit on 13pmSat, 13 Dec 2014 13:51:54 -0600k65112113u by darkwingduck because: Sp



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

That depends upon the farmers I guess, I don't think they add crap everywhere. Find a source of milk that pasteurises it cleanly without adding stuff to it.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: darkwingduck

What's in the vitamins A and D you add? Can you verify it's pure?



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: darkwingduck

But... But... Chemicals! Toxins! Panic! Scatter!



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Cambot

I don't trust it. You guys can laugh all you want. Raw milk is better than the cow's mucus they sell as milk.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I am not sure but i think copper has better microbial/bacteria killing properties. I think the old milk cans were copper.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkwingduck
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I work in a milk plant. Nothing is added to milk except vitamins A and D. We test raw milk loads for antibiotics, hormones and aflitoxin. If any of these are found, the load is rejected, the state is called and the load is destroyed.


Thanks. Don't confuse people with facts.

I once worked in a meat processing plant that made the hamburgers for Los Angekes schools. FACT: they were 100% beef.

People believe what they want to.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Ugh I wouldn't eat that stuff. Nothing like tumors ground up in the beef. Hormones and other stuff present in the meat straight from the animal...



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Without sending it out for lab tests, no,I guess not. But, the food industry is heavily regulated, and very heavily audited. This applies to ingredient manufacturers as well. I am positive there is government oversight, and internal and external auditing going on. I believe there are truth in labeling laws that would apply as well.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: darkwingduck

A country that allows the FDA to add known carcinogens, toxins and a variety of other known dangers to food isn't to be trusted. If you don't believe it, see the outrage going on now in Europe, where people don't want American foods (gmos) to be added to their shelves.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Well, the problem with raw milk is that eventually, someone will mishandle it, and it will become loaded with pathogens. You see, prior to Louis Pasteur, People did die with some regularity from raw tainted milk.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: darkwingduck

I knew that. And I can imagine there's deaths that can be attributed to the neverending toxic soup present in American foods. The milkers aren't immune to it, they're beefed up with all sorts of stuff. Again, I don't trust the stuff they sell, a long history of tainting products doesn't create confidence.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I agree with you, there are unscrupulous producers who care only about profit and will do whatever it takes to maximise it, be it cut corners with food production, being paid to add chemicals to the food for whatever agenda, etc.

The only way to be sure what is in your food is to grow/farm it yourself. Of course, this is not possible for many people for many reasons, so the next best way is to find farmers/growers with integrity, who eat the same food they produce, and buy from them.

This does not mean you should shun people who treat their food in whatever way to make it safer to eat. After all, you will wash your vegetables before eating them, so why not pasteurise your milk?
edit on 13-12-2014 by Firefly_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Firefly_

Problem is one washes their veggies in water. One doesn't add chemicals to it.

Organic is from us, not from the store.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Annee

Ugh I wouldn't eat that stuff. Nothing like tumors ground up in the beef. Hormones and other stuff present in the meat straight from the animal...


Sliding off topic. And, I am a meat eater (meat was from Australia, if that matters).

Just making a point people will ignore fact if they believe something else.

People will ignore science/technology in favor of Mother Nature. Who isn't all that smart.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join