Re: What's in your MILK???

[Guest guest]

On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm, rhonda5412@... wrote:

> This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no rBGH--bad stuff

> and should be avoided like the plague.

I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several gallons a

week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles BUT it is my

understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one group gets rBGH and

the other does not produce milk that cannot be distinguished the one from the

other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are different IN THE

MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH cows, I'd like to hear

about.

I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the dairy

farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their operations and am against

the push by other large interests - walmart for instance - to water down the

organic standards.

--

Steve - dudescholar3@...

" We will either find a way, or make one. "

--Hannibal Barca

[Guest guest]

My objection to rBGH isn't because it shows up in the milk, but because

it further stresses the animal to produce even MORE milk... Dairy cows

have already been bred to produce much more milk than is necessary for

their calves, and rBGH just pushes that up a bit further.

As a result, there *has to be* be increased incidences of mastitis (and

I suspect other illnesses), and subsequent increase in antibiotics to

prevent infections.

Also, I'd really like to see the studies done on that milk... If they

just ran it through a HPLC machine that will tell you the chemical

makeup, but not much else. Did those studies check nutrient levels,

etc? I personally don't trust a blurb that's REQUIRED by the dairy

industry (which is now big business) to be placed on non rBST milk that

says " There is no appreciable difference in rBST treated milk " . (On

who's say so? Oh that's right! Corporations with a profit motive.

Caveat Emptor!).

Personally, I'd rather get my milk from the healthiest animals possible

- And I'll gladly pay more for it. Same goes for eggs. The high omega

vegetarian-fed hens produce better quality (and tasting eggs) IMO.

Treating an organism that is used for food production (directly or

indirectly) as if it were a " machine " is simply backwards and a bad idea.

Dave

steve wrote:

>

> On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm, rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> rBGH--bad stuff

> > and should be avoided like the plague.

>

> I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> gallons a

> week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles BUT it

> is my

> understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one group gets

> rBGH and

> the other does not produce milk that cannot be distinguished the one

> from the

> other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are different IN

> THE

> MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH cows, I'd like to hear

> about.

>

> I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> dairy

> farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their operations and am

> against

> the push by other large interests - walmart for instance - to water

> down the

> organic standards.

>

> --

>

> Steve - dudescholar3@... <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

>

> " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> --Hannibal Barca

>

>

--

This is your brain on politics:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years.

[Guest guest]

I agree Dave totally.

I buy duck eggs that are from basically wild ducks that can't fly.

They are delicious! I plan to start raising free range chickens as

soon as I find a source for bitties... there is no comparison between

them and what we now call chickens. As for cows... that one is tough

to get past. I buy local milk, but the farmer insists on pasteurizing

it. At least it is not homogenized.

Dave Narby wrote:

> My objection to rBGH isn't because it shows up in the milk, but because

> it further stresses the animal to produce even MORE milk... Dairy cows

> have already been bred to produce much more milk than is necessary for

> their calves, and rBGH just pushes that up a bit further.

>

> As a result, there *has to be* be increased incidences of mastitis (and

> I suspect other illnesses), and subsequent increase in antibiotics to

> prevent infections.

>

> Also, I'd really like to see the studies done on that milk... If they

> just ran it through a HPLC machine that will tell you the chemical

> makeup, but not much else. Did those studies check nutrient levels,

> etc? I personally don't trust a blurb that's REQUIRED by the dairy

> industry (which is now big business) to be placed on non rBST milk that

> says " There is no appreciable difference in rBST treated milk " . (On

> who's say so? Oh that's right! Corporations with a profit motive.

> Caveat Emptor!).

>

> Personally, I'd rather get my milk from the healthiest animals possible

> - And I'll gladly pay more for it. Same goes for eggs. The high omega

> vegetarian-fed hens produce better quality (and tasting eggs) IMO.

>

> Treating an organism that is used for food production (directly or

> indirectly) as if it were a " machine " is simply backwards and a bad idea.

>

> Dave

>

> steve wrote:

> >

> > On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm, rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> > rBGH--bad stuff

> > > and should be avoided like the plague.

> >

> > I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> > gallons a

> > week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles BUT it

> > is my

> > understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one group gets

> > rBGH and

> > the other does not produce milk that cannot be distinguished the one

> > from the

> > other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are different IN

> > THE

> > MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH cows, I'd like to hear

> > about.

> >

> > I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > dairy

> > farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their operations and am

> > against

> > the push by other large interests - walmart for instance - to water

> > down the

> > organic standards.

> >

> > --

> >

> > Steve - dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> >

> > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > --Hannibal Barca

> >

> >

>

> --

> This is your brain on politics:

>

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>

>

> Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve:

Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

new information, apparently. The previously published information

came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

that apparently shows these significant differences.

At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

>On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@... wrote:

> > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no rBGH--bad stuff

> > and should be avoided like the plague.

>

>I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several gallons a

>week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles BUT it is my

>understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one group gets rBGH and

>the other does not produce milk that cannot be distinguished the one from the

>other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are different IN THE

>MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH cows, I'd like to hear

>about.

>

>I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

>fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the dairy

>farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their operations and am against

>the push by other large interests - walmart for instance - to water down the

>organic standards.

>

>--

>

>Steve - <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

>

> " We will either find a way, or make one. "

>--Hannibal Barca

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

This is the first time I've heard that they have identified differences in the

two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it should allow

milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

non-use of rBGH.

As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a while back

there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising their

product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

revisited.

Steve

On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> Hi Steve:

>

> Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> new information, apparently. The previously published information

> came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> that apparently shows these significant differences.

>

>

>

> At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> >

> ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@... wrote:

> > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no rBGH--bad

> > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> >

> >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several gallons

> > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles BUT it

> > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one group gets

> > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be distinguished the

> > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are

> > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH cows,

> > I'd like to hear about.

> >

> >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their operations and

> > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for instance - to

> > water down the organic standards.

> >

> >--

> >

> >Steve - <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> >

> > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> >--Hannibal Barca

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

This is the first time I've heard that they have identified differences in the

two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it should allow

milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

non-use of rBGH.

As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a while back

there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising their

product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

revisited.

Steve

On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> Hi Steve:

>

> Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> new information, apparently. The previously published information

> came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> that apparently shows these significant differences.

>

>

>

> At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> >

> ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@... wrote:

> > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no rBGH--bad

> > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> >

> >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several gallons

> > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles BUT it

> > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one group gets

> > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be distinguished the

> > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are

> > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH cows,

> > I'd like to hear about.

> >

> >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their operations and

> > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for instance - to

> > water down the organic standards.

> >

> >--

> >

> >Steve - <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> >

> > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> >--Hannibal Barca

>

>

[Guest guest]

Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of COWS..!

steve wrote:

>

> Hi ,

>

> This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> differences in the

> two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> should allow

> milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> non-use of rBGH.

>

> As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> while back

> there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> their

> product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

> revisited.

>

> Steve

>

> On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > Hi Steve:

> >

> > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> >

> >

> >

> > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > >

> > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> rBGH--bad

> > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > >

> > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> gallons

> > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> BUT it

> > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> group gets

> > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> distinguished the

> > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are

> > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> cows,

> > > I'd like to hear about.

> > >

> > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> operations and

> > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> instance - to

> > > water down the organic standards.

> > >

> > >--

> > >

> > >Steve -

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > >

> > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > >--Hannibal Barca

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of COWS..!

steve wrote:

>

> Hi ,

>

> This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> differences in the

> two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> should allow

> milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> non-use of rBGH.

>

> As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> while back

> there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> their

> product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

> revisited.

>

> Steve

>

> On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > Hi Steve:

> >

> > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> >

> >

> >

> > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > >

> > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> rBGH--bad

> > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > >

> > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> gallons

> > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> BUT it

> > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> group gets

> > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> distinguished the

> > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items that are

> > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> cows,

> > > I'd like to hear about.

> > >

> > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> operations and

> > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> instance - to

> > > water down the organic standards.

> > >

> > >--

> > >

> > >Steve -

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > >

> > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > >--Hannibal Barca

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dave: You forgot to mention that they look identical (someone has to

keep you straight)... .Jim

Dave Narby wrote:

> Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of COWS..!

>

> steve wrote:

> >

> > Hi ,

> >

> > This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> > differences in the

> > two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> > differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> > should allow

> > milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> > non-use of rBGH.

> >

> > As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> > while back

> > there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> > their

> > product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> > grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

> > revisited.

> >

> > Steve

> >

> > On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > > Hi Steve:

> > >

> > > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> > > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > > >

> > > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> > rBGH--bad

> > > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > > >

> > > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> > gallons

> > > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> > BUT it

> > > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> > group gets

> > > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> > distinguished the

> > > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items

> that are

> > > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> > cows,

> > > > I'd like to hear about.

> > > >

> > > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > > > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> > operations and

> > > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> > instance - to

> > > > water down the organic standards.

> > > >

> > > >--

> > > >

> > > >Steve -

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > > >

> > > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > > >--Hannibal Barca

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

FYI - I just read on the Horizon Organic milk carton I have: " Produced

WITHOUT the use of Antibiotics, added Growth Hormones or Dangerous Pesticides " .

It is expensive, about twice the price of other milk. . I believe milk is

deficient in magnesium so I supplement with magnesium and B6 if I drink a small

glass with my meal. I'm sure there are a lot of ideas on whether milk should be

consumed at all. S.J.

Jim <huuman60@...> wrote: Dave: You forgot to mention

that they look identical (someone has to

keep you straight)... .Jim

Dave Narby wrote:

> Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of COWS..!

>

> steve wrote:

> >

> > Hi ,

> >

> > This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> > differences in the

> > two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> > differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> > should allow

> > milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> > non-use of rBGH.

> >

> > As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> > while back

> > there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> > their

> > product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> > grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

> > revisited.

> >

> > Steve

> >

> > On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > > Hi Steve:

> > >

> > > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> > > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > > >

> > > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> > rBGH--bad

> > > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > > >

> > > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> > gallons

> > > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> > BUT it

> > > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> > group gets

> > > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> > distinguished the

> > > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items

> that are

> > > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> > cows,

> > > > I'd like to hear about.

> > > >

> > > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > > > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> > operations and

> > > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> > instance - to

> > > > water down the organic standards.

> > > >

> > > >--

> > > >

> > > >Steve -

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > > >

> > > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > > >--Hannibal Barca

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

FYI - I just read on the Horizon Organic milk carton I have: " Produced

WITHOUT the use of Antibiotics, added Growth Hormones or Dangerous Pesticides " .

It is expensive, about twice the price of other milk. . I believe milk is

deficient in magnesium so I supplement with magnesium and B6 if I drink a small

glass with my meal. I'm sure there are a lot of ideas on whether milk should be

consumed at all. S.J.

Jim <huuman60@...> wrote: Dave: You forgot to mention

that they look identical (someone has to

keep you straight)... .Jim

Dave Narby wrote:

> Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of COWS..!

>

> steve wrote:

> >

> > Hi ,

> >

> > This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> > differences in the

> > two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> > differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> > should allow

> > milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> > non-use of rBGH.

> >

> > As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> > while back

> > there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> > their

> > product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> > grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

> > revisited.

> >

> > Steve

> >

> > On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > > Hi Steve:

> > >

> > > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> > > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > > >

> > > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> > rBGH--bad

> > > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > > >

> > > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> > gallons

> > > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> > BUT it

> > > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> > group gets

> > > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> > distinguished the

> > > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items

> that are

> > > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> > cows,

> > > > I'd like to hear about.

> > > >

> > > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support the

> > > > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> > operations and

> > > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> > instance - to

> > > > water down the organic standards.

> > > >

> > > >--

> > > >

> > > >Steve -

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > > >

> > > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > > >--Hannibal Barca

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hi. : I have had great luck with the transdermal magnesium

chloride. It is a mild astringent and makes a great after bath body

rub if you don't overdo it. Obviously, it is a great source for

magnesium, since it is all absorbed. As to milk, I eat my oat

cereal every day as a morning ritual piled high with various fruit and

smothered in whole golden guernsey milk... not about to give that up

even if it is bad for me. Cheers, Jim

> FYI - I just read on the Horizon Organic milk carton I have: " Produced

> WITHOUT the use of Antibiotics, added Growth Hormones or Dangerous

> Pesticides " . It is expensive, about twice the price of other milk. . I

> believe milk is deficient in magnesium so I supplement with magnesium

> and B6 if I drink a small glass with my meal. I'm sure there are a lot

> of ideas on whether milk should be consumed at all. S.J.

>

> Jim <huuman60@... <mailto:huuman60%40comcast.net>>

> wrote: Dave: You forgot to mention that they look identical (someone

> has to

> keep you straight)... .Jim

>

> Dave Narby wrote:

>

> > Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of

> COWS..!

> >

> > steve wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi ,

> > >

> > > This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> > > differences in the

> > > two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> > > differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> > > should allow

> > > milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> > > non-use of rBGH.

> > >

> > > As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> > > while back

> > > there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> > > their

> > > product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> > > grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this

> will be

> > > revisited.

> > >

> > > Steve

> > >

> > > On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > > > Hi Steve:

> > > >

> > > > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > > > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of

> primary

> > > > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > > > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > > > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > > > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > > > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > > > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > > > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > > > >

> > > > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> > > rBGH--bad

> > > > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > > > >

> > > > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> > > gallons

> > > > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> > > BUT it

> > > > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> > > group gets

> > > > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> > > distinguished the

> > > > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items

> > that are

> > > > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> > > cows,

> > > > > I'd like to hear about.

> > > > >

> > > > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > > > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I

> support the

> > > > > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> > > operations and

> > > > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> > > instance - to

> > > > > water down the organic standards.

> > > > >

> > > > >--

> > > > >

> > > > >Steve -

> > > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > > > >

> > > > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > > > >--Hannibal Barca

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Hey, I've seen brown and pink milk! ;-)

Steve

On Monday 19 February 2007 1:21 pm, Jim wrote:

> Dave: You forgot to mention that they look identical (someone has to

> keep you straight)... .Jim

>

> Dave Narby wrote:

> > Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of

> > COWS..!

> >

> > steve wrote:

> > > Hi ,

> > >

> > > This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> > > differences in the

> > > two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> > > differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> > > should allow

> > > milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> > > non-use of rBGH.

> > >

> > > As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> > > while back

> > > there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> > > their

> > > product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> > > grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this will be

> > > revisited.

> > >

> > > Steve

> > >

> > > On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > > > Hi Steve:

> > > >

> > > > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > > > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of primary

> > > > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > > > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > > > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > > > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > > > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > > > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > > > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > > > >

> > > > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> >

> > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> >

> > > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> > >

> > > rBGH--bad

> > >

> > > > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > > > >

> > > > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> > >

> > > gallons

> > >

> > > > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> > >

> > > BUT it

> > >

> > > > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> > >

> > > group gets

> > >

> > > > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> > >

> > > distinguished the

> > >

> > > > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items

> >

> > that are

> >

> > > > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> > >

> > > cows,

> > >

> > > > > I'd like to hear about.

> > > > >

> > > > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > > > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I support

> > > > > the dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> > >

> > > operations and

> > >

> > > > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> > >

> > > instance - to

> > >

> > > > > water down the organic standards.

> > > > >

> > > > >--

> > > > >

> > > > >Steve -

> > >

> > > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> >

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> >

> > > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > >

> > > > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > > > >--Hannibal Barca

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Ah...

But cow's milk and goat's milk LOOK the same too!!! : )

Jim wrote:

>

> Dave: You forgot to mention that they look identical (someone has to

> keep you straight)... .Jim

>

> Dave Narby wrote:

>

> > Identical perhaps in the sense that both types of milk come out of

> COWS..!

> >

> > steve wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi ,

> > >

> > > This is the first time I've heard that they have identified

> > > differences in the

> > > two types of milk - that's good to know,. I don't know if these are

> > > differences that make a difference health wise, but certainly it

> > > should allow

> > > milk advertisers to promote their product in a way that highlights the

> > > non-use of rBGH.

> > >

> > > As for my general source of knowledge on this, one source is that a

> > > while back

> > > there was some news on a group out east that was sued for advertising

> > > their

> > > product as produced without the use of rBGH. They lost the suit on the

> > > grounds that the two types of milk were identical. Perhaps this

> will be

> > > revisited.

> > >

> > > Steve

> > >

> > > On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:31 am, Brown wrote:

> > > > Hi Steve:

> > > >

> > > > Did you read the book? The book review cited indicates that there is

> > > > a difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk, both in terms of

> primary

> > > > effects (proteins present) and infection byproducts, etc. This is

> > > > new information, apparently. The previously published information

> > > > came from the Monsanto studies, it would seem. Where does your

> > > > understanding that the two milk sources are equal come from? I would

> > > > be interested if you've read the book or the research cited in it

> > > > that apparently shows these significant differences.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > At 09:01 PM 2/11/2007, you wrote:

> > > > >On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:18 pm,

> > > > >

> > > > ><mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>rhonda5412@...

> <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net>

> > > <mailto:rhonda5412%40comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > > > This is why I only consume dairy that is organic and has no

> > > rBGH--bad

> > > > > > stuff and should be avoided like the plague.

> > > > >

> > > > >I typically don't drink milk but years ago I used to drink several

> > > gallons

> > > > > a week. I would prefer local organic farms on general principles

> > > BUT it

> > > > > is my understanding that milk from two sets of cows where one

> > > group gets

> > > > > rBGH and the other does not produce milk that cannot be

> > > distinguished the

> > > > > one from the other. Now, if there are proteins or other items

> > that are

> > > > > different IN THE MILK that can distinguish rBGH cows from non-rBGH

> > > cows,

> > > > > I'd like to hear about.

> > > > >

> > > > >I really agree with organic in general but this milk issue is more

> > > > >fearmongering than science at this point. Nevertheless, I

> support the

> > > > > dairy farmers right to advertise non-hormone use in their

> > > operations and

> > > > > am against the push by other large interests - walmart for

> > > instance - to

> > > > > water down the organic standards.

> > > > >

> > > > >--

> > > > >

> > > > >Steve -

> > > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>dudescholar3@...

> <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > > <mailto:dudescholar3%40basicmail.net>

> > > > >

> > > > > " We will either find a way, or make one. "

> > > > >--Hannibal Barca

> > > >

> > > >