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.
Originally posted by mothershipzeta
All that being said, I don't care if people drink raw milk, but if they give it to their son or daughter and the kid dies, that's negligent homicide. Just like foregoing vaccinations or medical procedures that would have saved their kid's life.
I hope they can live with that.
The FDA’s anti-raw milk PowerPoint presentation consists of two main sections. The first section looks at 15 outbreaks of various foodborne illness that the FDA claims were caused by raw milk. The second section debunks a number of “myths” about the safety of raw milk and the effect of pasteurization on raw milk. The Weston A. Price Foundation’s (WAPF’s) response examines each of the claims made by the FDA to uncover the bias in studies purporting to show inherent dangers in consuming raw milk, and substantiates in the scientific literature most of the FDA’s so-called “myths.”
Section 1: “Outbreaks”
Biased Studies Fail to Indict Raw Milk
As shown in the table below, all of the 15 reports associating outbreaks of foodborne illness with raw milk that the FDA cites are seriously flawed. Not one of the studies showed that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak.
Either No Valid Positive Milk Sample or No Valid Statistical Association
14/15 (93%)
No Valid Positive Milk Sample
12/15 (80%)
No Valid Statistical Association with Raw Milk
10/15 (67%)
Neither Association nor Milk Sample
8/15 (53%)
Findings Misrepresented by FDA
7/15 (47%)
Alternative Explanations Discovered but Not Pursued
5/15 (33%)
No Evidence Anyone Consumed Raw Milk Products
2/15 (13%)
Outbreak Did Not Even Exist
1/15 (7%)
Did Not Show that Pasteurization Would Have Prevented Outbreak
15/15 (100%)
The Failure of Pasteurization
The most important flaw in the reports that the FDA cites is that none of them generates any evidence that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak. In reality, pasteurization is not in any way a foolproof means of eliminating pathogens. In addition, many organisms can contaminate milk after pasteurization. The production of cheese or other processed dairy products allows additional opportunities for contamination. Pasteurized milk may actually be much more dangerous than raw milk.
Comparing Raw Milk to Pasteurized Milk
Between 1980 and 2005, 41 outbreaks were reported to the CDC attributing 19,531 illnesses to the consumption of pasteurized milk and milk products. This is 10.7 times the number of illnesses attributed to raw milk during the same period.
From these statistics, it is clear that pasteurization offers no guarantee of safety. We cannot, however, determine from them whether commercial pasteurized milk is safer or more dangerous than locally produced and distributed, grass-fed, raw milk. There are three reasons for this: first, we have no accurate estimation of how many people drink raw milk; second, few of the reports attributing illness to raw milk offer sufficient evidence for the attribution; and third, most foodborne illnesses are never reported.
The FDA, CDC and USDA estimate that 0.5% of milk consumed is raw. This estimation relies on state government estimates for which no evidence has ever been presented and assumes that no raw milk is sold in states where its sale is prohibited. A more reliable phone survey determined that 3.2% of Californians drank raw milk in 1997, but this study was limited to one state. Because 93% of the reports associating raw milk
iii
with illness that the FDA cites in this presentation either fail to generate a valid statistical association or fail to generate a positive test sample and 53% fail to generate both, the number of illnesses attributed to raw milk may be greatly exaggerated. Most importantly, however, the CDC estimates that over 76 million cases of foodborne illness occur in the United States every year, over 99.9% of which go unreported. Since the tiny portion that are reported is not a random sample of the total, there is no basis on which we could legitimately assume that the proportion of outbreaks reported for any given food in any way reflects the proportion of outbreaks truly caused by that food.
Clearly, however, if the CDC has recorded on average nearly 800 illnesses per year attributed to pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk products, raw milk cannot be singled out as “inherently dangerous.” Moreover, since 100 % of the reports that the FDA cites fail to generate evidence that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak, let alone was necessary to prevent the outbreak, the risk of illness genuinely attributable to lack of pasteurization may approach zero.
Comparing Raw Milk to Other Foods
Between 1998 and 2005, there were over 10,000 documented outbreaks that contributed to 199,263 documented cases of foodborne illness. Raw milk was associated with 0.4 % of these cases. Again, there is no way to quantify whether any one of these foods is safer than another from this data, but it is clear from the data that there is no basis for singling out raw milk as “inherently dangerous.”
Putting It All in Perspective
There is clearly no basis on which to claim raw milk is more dangerous than other foods commonly consumed. Yet there are no FDA warnings about the inherent dangers of deli meats; there are no executive orders prohibiting the interstate transport of chicken; no state legislation banning the sales of spinach; no consumer education campaigns to eliminate the attendance of flea markets; and no farmers being fine and jailed for the sale of root vegetables. Producers and consumers of raw milk have a fundamental right to be treated fairly under the law that they are clearly being denied.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
A new law has been proposed to make it illegal to sell whole milk to children in the great safe state of CA.
AB 2084
SUMMARY : Creates minimum standards for beverages that are
served in licensed child day care facilities. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires licensed child day care facilities to:
a) Serve only one percent milk to children ages two or
older;
b) Limit juice to not more than one serving per day of 100%
juice;
c) Serve no beverages with added sweeteners, either natural
or artificial; and
d) Make clean and safe dinking water readily available and
accessible for consumption throughout the day, particularly
with meals and snacks.
Thank god the State is there to keep our children safe from the horrors of whole milk and sweetened beverages.
Praise Mao, for you are too dumb to monitor what your child consumes.
We need a law like this for adults.
Originally posted by Throwback
I think the point hes making is to stop overreacting to stories like these. Stop being so damned paranoid. Be rational. The government is not going to be deciding what you eat anytime in the near future. Also, our economy is based on consumer demand; therefore, if you want to see bad things disappear from store shelves, stop buying them! Simple as that.
Originally posted by snowspirit
And yet they would rather load people up with aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, soda pops, flouride..........:shk:
Packaged salads keep getting recalled for problems, Hopefully organic vegies aren't next.
They sure take the concept of "food police" seriously.
Originally posted by Connector
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Connector
Well then, thank god we have armed police that can protect me from the dangers of raw milk.
I might make the mistake of choosing to drink raw milk on my own.
This might endanger my future productive tax generation capacity for the State.
Heaven forbid I get sick from raw milk.
Think of the tax dollars the State would miss out on due to my illness.
[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]
Take your anti-everything blinders off for once.............tainted raw milk can KILL you. I guess you also like high levels of lead in the paint on your children toys too? Asbestos in the insulation perhaps? Some laws are there to prevent morons( and there are alot of them) from making a huge mistake.
The large corporate dairy producers don't like cheap competition. Small farms could directly sell to the public or sell to local retailers for dirt cheap if they didn't have to process the milk.
This puts the large dairy producers in a bad position.
Hence, the large dairy producers lobbied heavily to shut down raw milk sales (not just in CA, but everywhere)
Real Milk Articles Google Custom Search Read this article in French! Raw Milk by Tom Cowan, MD As I'm sure most of you know by now, there are very few subjects as emotionally charged as the choice of one's diet. Sexual relations, marriage and finances come to mind as similarly charged subjects and, like diet, we are all sure we know all we need to know about each of these subjects. The subject of milk, as I have discovered during the past four years, when properly viewed will challenge every notion you currently have about what is good food and what isn't. The story of milk is complex and goes something like this.
Back in the preprocessed food era (that is before about 1930 in this country) milk was considered an important food, especially for children. Not only was there an entire segment of our economy built up around milk but, as I remember, each house had its own milk chute for the delivery of fresh milk directly to the house. It was unquestioned that milk was good for us and that a safe, plentiful milk supply was actually vital to our national health and well-being. It was also a time (now I'm referring to the early part of the century) when many of the illnesses which we currently suffer from were rare. As an example, family doctors would often go their whole careers without ever seeing a patient with significant coronary artery disease, breast or prostate cancer, whereas current doctors can hardly go one month without encountering a patient with such an illness.
Furthermore, as scientists such as Weston Price, DDS discovered, there were pockets of extremely healthy, long-lived people scattered about the earth who used dairy products in various forms as the staple of their diets — further evidence that milk and its by-products were amongst the most healthful foods man has ever encountered.
If we fast forward to the 1980's, we now find an entirely different picture. For one thing, there have been numerous books written in the past decade about the dangers of dairy products — the most influential being a book by Frank Oski, MD, the current chairman of pediatrics of Johns Hopkins University and perhaps the most influential pediatrician in this country. It's called Don't Drink Your Milk. In it Oski pins just about every health problem in children to the consumption of milk, everything from acute and chronic ear infections, constipation, asthma, eczema, and so on. Secondly, just about all patients I have now in their initial visit proudly announce that they have a good diet and that, specifically, they don't eat dairy (which they pronounce with such disdain).
One might well ask where the truth in this picture. Perhaps the experiments of Dr. Francis Pottenger in the 1940's can help to solve this mystery. In these experiments Dr. Pottenger fed one group of cats a diet consisting of raw milk, raw meat and cod liver oil. Other groups were given pasteurized milk, evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk instead of raw milk. The results were conclusive and astounding. Those that ate raw milk and raw meat did well and lived long, happy, active lives free of any signs of degenerative disease. Those cats on pasteurized milk suffered from acute illnesses (vomiting, diarrhea) and succumbed to every degenerative disease now flourishing in our population, even though they were also getting raw meat and cod liver oil. By the 3rd generation a vast majority of the cats were infertile and exhibited "anti-social" behavior — in short, they were like modern Americans.
Since the 40's the "qualities" of milk have been extensively studied to try to find an explanation for these dramatic changes. Studies have shown that before heating, milk is a living food rich in colloidal minerals and enzymes necessary for the absorption and utilization of the sugars, fats and minerals in the milk. For example, milk has an enzyme called phosphatase that allows the body to absorb the calcium from the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that allows for the digestion of lactose. Butterfat has a cortisone-like factor which is heat sensitive (destroyed by heat) that prevents stiffness in the joints. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria as well as lactic acids that allow these beneficial bacteria to implant in the intestines.
All of these qualities are destroyed during pasteurization. Once heated, milk becomes rotten, with precipitated minerals that can't be absorbed (hence osteoporosis), with sugars that can't be digested (hence allergies), and with fats that are toxic.
http://Raw milk has been used as a therapy in folk medicine — and even in the Mayo Clinic — for centuries. It has been used in the pre-insulin days to treat diabetes (I've tried it — it works), as well as eczema, intestinal worms, allergies, and arthritis, all for reasons which can be understood when we realize just what is in milk — such as the cortisone-like factor for allergies and eczema.
Originally posted by Throwback
I think the point hes making is to stop overreacting to stories like these. Stop being so damned paranoid. Be rational. The government is not going to be deciding what you eat anytime in the near future. Also, our economy is based on consumer demand; therefore, if you want to see bad things disappear from store shelves, stop buying them! Simple as that.