Re: PA Farmer arrested for selling raw milk

[Guest guest]

,

> I think there's a key error many people are making here in assessing

> the situation. While the government is supposed to be of people, by

> the people and for the people, it's been co-opted by big business and

> now it's of big business, by big business and for big business.

Unfortunately, the guy who uttered " of the people, by the people, and

for the people " was none other than King Lincoln. Leaving aside that

he blatantly plagiarized that statement from Wycliffe, who said

it in defending himself against the Roman Catholic ecclessiacrats of

his day as to why the Bible should be available for the common man to

read, Lincoln was the chief expansionist of gov't power, running holy

hell against the constitution and civil liberties and proving to be

one of the greatest terrors to hold the office of POTUS.

What is doubly sad is that he made that statement at Gettysburg,

looking out over the myriads of deaths he had directly caused by his

odious and insane war.

So, assuming for the moment that your statement is correct about gov't

being co-opted by big business, which I think is a blinkered way of

describing the situation, what big business co-opted was not a gov't

" of the people, by the people, and for the people " but rather a gov't

that under Lincoln and his ideological descendants had long since left

the people behind. What big business finds, contrary to your later

statement, is tools it would otherwise have no access to without the

hand of big gov't, i.e. the ability to enforce with the threat of

violence their preferred position in the marketplace.

> And

> yet most people seem furious at the concept of government itself

> rather than at the Monsantos and Archer s Midlands of the world

> which have taken over.

Of course, since it was the gov't that showed up and arrested Mark

Nolt, deprived him of his liberty and stole the fruit of his labor,

not Monsanto or Archer Midlands.

Most people understand in their heart of hearts, despite your

protestations to the contrary, that the *concept* of gov't is

precisely what is at play here, regardless of who is behind it.

Without the power to violently enforce your ways, there is a certain

toothlessness about exerting your agenda on someone else. It is hard

to imagine in a world where we could freely eat what we want without

legislative restraint, Archer Midlands having much say about

raw milk.

As a quick aside, your comment assumes that in the absence of *civil*

government there would be no alternate structures to maintain peace

and civility in society. I don't even think that is close to being

true and it certainly isn't historically true. See Bruce Benson's, _To

Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice_.

Interesting read.

> Get rid of government and big business will

> adjust its tools and tactics as necessary to achieve its ends;

Get rid of BIG government and BIG business as we know it today will

cease to exist. Of course I think you are making an error here

yourself. I don't think anyone on this list is an individualist

anarchist other than myself. So when people are making their cases I'm

sure they are doing so within the context of believing there should be

some type of civil gov't, just not one that should be regulating food

in general, and/or raw milk in particular.

Even when I made my comment I sourced Walter , who certainly

is not an anarchist of any stripe.

> take

> back government and we the people will actually have a modicum of

> power with which to secure our freedoms again.

Well your faith in politics is admirable but history has born out that

even small governments never remain that way. The internal dynamic of

gov't is to grow. Logical consistency necessitates such. And the grand

experiment that was once America cum police state is only the latest

example of that internal logic.

--

" And true manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life. On

the contrary, the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has

trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father

and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and

pain. It is won by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for

his family, shows himself inseparable from the love of God. "

- Clement of andria

[Guest guest]

,

> Thanks, Lana. I sometimes find it depressing that there's so much

> short-sighted anarchist anti-government sentiment in the traditional

> and (genuinely) healthy foods movement.

>

>

> -

I think you overstate the case. I don't think there is anyone on this

list other than me who is an individualist anarchist. Rather than

getting side swiped by a political discussion on gov't philosophy,

which this list has travelled down many times, it would be more

interesting to know if you support the police action taken against

Mark Nolt, and if so why, and if not, why not.

We already know where Lana stands, but you and have moved into

philosophy without addressing the situation that prompted this

discussion.

--

" And true manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life. On

the contrary, the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has

trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father

and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and

pain. It is won by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for

his family, shows himself inseparable from the love of God. "

- Clement of andria

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> I truly and wholeheartedly agree. It is really nice to know I'm not the

> only one that feels that way!

>

> -Lana

>

>

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

>

> > > Well said, !!

> >

> > Thanks, Lana. I sometimes find it depressing that there's so much

> > short-sighted anarchist anti-government sentiment in the traditional

> > and (genuinely) healthy foods movement.

Sheeez, don't feel so all alone. I dare say MOST people believe and

think the way you (and ) do.

--

" And true manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life. On

the contrary, the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has

trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father

and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and

pain. It is won by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for

his family, shows himself inseparable from the love of God. "

- Clement of andria

[Guest guest]

Folks, please remember to use the POLITICS tag for political

discussions, like this thread.

(Moderator)

[Guest guest]

> Folks, please remember to use the POLITICS tag for political

> discussions, like this thread.

>

> (Moderator)

raw milk is political as is a 'traditional' diet..evidence in

the arrest of Mark///law is political,enforcement is political etc..

>

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> That is all fine and well but exactly how would one go about saving

> people from their brainwashing?

, hopefully, the truth will overcome misconceptions eventually.

That is already happening with trans-fats. And more and more people

are recognizing the many problems with polyunsaturated fats - the tide

is turning. The same is true about raw milk, albeit rather slowly.

The misconception that raw milk is inherently a great health risk

because of potentially harmful microbes is heavily ingrained in the

public mind. Just ask my wife, who is still afraid to drink raw milk,

even though I've been drinking it for over two years now

> And while you are at it can you provide an historical example where

> such a dramatic altering of the people's mindset was ever

> accomplished peacefully?

There's plenty of examples - flat earth, sun orbiting the earth, and

trans-fats are good for you - to name a few

Spreading the truth is the difficult part. Maybe you've heard of the

cascade effect. We need to start a cascade for raw milk. I think

WAPF is working very hard to that end. Hopefully these efforts will

gradually snowball and gain momentum as more and more people spread

the word and more and more people listen and recognize the truth.

<the eternal optimist>

[Guest guest]

It is funny how the same crowd that accepts that breast milk from an

unhealthy mom can be inferior can insist that *all* raw milk is perfectly

safe. Raw milk produced in the right conditions is perfectly safe, but it

doesn't mean all raw milk is safe. That's why there are permits - to assure

that it is all produced under safe conditions. As unfortunate as it is,

some milk really should be pasteurized. Is it really in our best interest

to have inferior raw milk out there making people sick and giving raw milk a

bad name?

-Lana

> The misconception that raw milk is inherently a great health risk

> because of potentially harmful microbes is heavily ingrained in the

> public mind.

>

[Guest guest]

,

> --- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> > That is all fine and well but exactly how would one go about saving

> > people from their brainwashing?

>

> , hopefully, the truth will overcome misconceptions eventually.

Okay, well I can understand the " hope/faith " but that is not exactly

the same as if it is going to happen. Thus my question.

> That is already happening with trans-fats. And more and more people

> are recognizing the many problems with polyunsaturated fats - the tide

> is turning.

It is just as easy for the tide to turn the other way, given the

nature of intellectually vested interests. Scientifically speaking,

falsehoods can and sometimes do replace a more truthful paradigm. I

will leave it at that for the moment to in the interests of brevity

:-)

> The same is true about raw milk, albeit rather slowly.

And this is a perfect example of how the tide can turn *either* way.

How many times in history was milk considered a wonderful and good

product? The father of medicine wrote very highly of it. In the early

part of the 20th century in places like the Mayo Clinic, it was used

as a medicine, successfully so, to cure many diseases. That is a

demonstrable fact. So what happened? Why did the tide turn against raw

milk? Where did all that " truth " go?

> The misconception that raw milk is inherently a great health risk

> because of potentially harmful microbes is heavily ingrained in the

> public mind. Just ask my wife, who is still afraid to drink raw milk,

> even though I've been drinking it for over two years now

Yes I know people like that :-)

> > And while you are at it can you provide an historical example where

> > such a dramatic altering of the people's mindset was ever

> > accomplished peacefully?

>

> There's plenty of examples - flat earth, sun orbiting the earth, and

> trans-fats are good for you - to name a few

No that is not what I meant (although no one ever really believed the

earth was flat, that is a modern myth). I was talking of a wholesale

mindset, which belief in the efficacy of the regulatory state

represents, being changed *peacefully*, not individual truths here and

there.

> Spreading the truth is the difficult part. Maybe you've heard of the

> cascade effect. We need to start a cascade for raw milk. I think

> WAPF is working very hard to that end. Hopefully these efforts will

> gradually snowball and gain momentum as more and more people spread

> the word and more and more people listen and recognize the truth.

>

> <the eternal optimist>

You would be surprised at how optimistic I am **long term**, probably

far more than you and for reasons very different than you. But in the

short term, America is done, IMO. Short of a financial collapse (which

is generally how all empires get their initial comeuppance), nothing

will permanently change the nature of the American empire and this

ugly nasty police state which has developed under the nose of the

American citizenry.

--

" And true manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life. On

the contrary, the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has

trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father

and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and

pain. It is won by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for

his family, shows himself inseparable from the love of God. "

- Clement of andria

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> It is funny how the same crowd that accepts that breast milk from an

> unhealthy mom can be inferior can insist that *all* raw milk is perfectly

> safe.

There is a difference between milk that is nutritionally inferior, and

milk that is deemed unsafe. There is raw milk on the market that is

perfectly safe but is lacking nutritionally. Nor am I sure that anyone

on this list believes that all raw milk is safe. I don't think that is

what said either.

> Raw milk produced in the right conditions is perfectly safe, but it

> doesn't mean all raw milk is safe.

I'm with you here.

> That's why there are permits - to assure

> that it is all produced under safe conditions.

We part company here. The permitting process does NOT ensure safe

milk. It doesn't even ensure safe pasteurized milk (there are

pathogens which routinely survive pasteurization). That is a fallacy

which I would be happy to elaborate on if such a thing interests you.

> As unfortunate as it is,

> some milk really should be pasteurized.

Absolutely not. Any milk that *needs* to be pasteurized should not be

sold **at all** Further, under most conditions (though certainly not

all) I would rather drink poorly handled raw milk than poorly handled

pasteurized milk.

The tragedy is that when bad pasteurized milk shows up in the

marketplace, people barely even blink because of course, gov't is

protecting them. They never once think to consider that maybe there is

something wrong with the process because of course father...errr...I

mean gov't knows best.

On the other hand when raw milk is blamed for some sickness, everyone

gets a twitter, and the dairy suffers accordingly and comes under

tremendous scrutiny. The latter example is how it SHOULD happen for

all dairies, and how the market polices itself. Let pasteurized

dairies compete with any and all comers sans gov't control, and let

people decide for themselves what they want to drink.

> Is it really in our best interest

> to have inferior raw milk out there making people sick and giving raw milk a

> bad name?

Raw milk already has a bad name, and it has nothing to do with people

getting sick (or rather it has to do with an unfortunate historical

situation that has long since passed), since the overwhelming majority

of sicknesses from milk over the last 50 years has come from

pasteurized milk.

IMO, the better question is " do we really want to give people the

power of the gun to determine our food choices? "

--

" And true manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life. On

the contrary, the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has

trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father

and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and

pain. It is won by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for

his family, shows himself inseparable from the love of God. "

- Clement of andria

[Guest guest]

-

>

Raw milk produced in the right conditions is perfectly safe, but it

> doesn't mean all raw milk is safe. That's why there are permits -

to assure

> that it is all produced under safe conditions.

nothing is 'safe' short of heaven.

a permit does not make it safe. a permit does not address 75% of the

ideals that would make it safe... way tooo long of a story to tell ...

books have been written on the subject.

hey... your water is not 'safe'. does one consider most processed

food safe? it is made with a permit. in time it will cause great

discomfort and possibly death

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> > The misconception that raw milk is inherently a great health risk

> > because of potentially harmful microbes is heavily ingrained in the

> > public mind.

> It is funny how the same crowd that accepts that breast milk from an

> unhealthy mom can be inferior can insist that *all* raw milk is perfectly

> safe.

There's nothing in the quote that says that. The quote implies that

it is not inherently a great risk, but that does not itself imply that

raw milk is inherently safe.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@> wrote:

> > > That is all fine and well but exactly how would one go about

> > > saving people from their brainwashing?

> >

--- wrote:

> > , hopefully, the truth will overcome misconceptions

> > eventually.

>

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Okay, well I can understand the " hope/faith " but that is not exactly

> the same as if it is going to happen. Thus my question.

, I think giving people information is the best way to overcome

brainwashing. It's certainly not always effective. In my case, it

was information that I found by accident on the WAPF and Mercola web

sites that opened my eyes. I'm sure there are plenty of people who

have seen the same information and rejected it because it didn't fit

with their view of the world perpetrated by misinformation from big

money interests. It took me a week or two of thinking and further

reading and re-reading to decide that many of the conventional ideas I

had come to believe were not likely to be true. Things like saturated

fat and cholesterol are bad for health and polyunsaturated fats are

good for health. I also initially had trouble believing that raw

milk, raw egg yolks, and liver are good for health.

Information can be given verbally or through writing. The internet in

general and forums like this one are great places for the promotion,

exchange, and discussion of ideas. Ultimately, people do have to be

receptive to logic and new ideas. There are always a few who are

entrenched in their beliefs and no amount of logical persuasion will

convince them. But I think there are many more people who are open

minded enough to consider new ideas on their merits.

> It is just as easy for the tide to turn the other way, given the

> nature of intellectually vested interests.

Yes, that's quite true and it's an uphill battle still for raw milk.

I believe the internet is a powerful tool that helps to level the

playing field. Hopefully it won't become corrupted and censored.

[Guest guest]

>

> There is a difference between milk that is nutritionally inferior, and

> milk that is deemed unsafe. There is raw milk on the market that is

> perfectly safe but is lacking nutritionally.

I was speaking as to the bad bacteria that seeps through from someone who

has a bad gut. I really don't think it is possible to have nutritionally

inferior, yet microbially ideal milk come from the same source.

> The permitting process does NOT ensure safe

> milk. It doesn't even ensure safe pasteurized milk (there are

> pathogens which routinely survive pasteurization). That is a fallacy

> which I would be happy to elaborate on if such a thing interests you.

It does a better job than nothing at all. es, TB and several other

bacteria can be tested for and regulated. I am aware that some pathogens

survive pasteurization and I honestly think pasteurized milk should be

tested for those heat tolerant pathogens, just like raw milk should be

tested for it's common pathogens.

> Absolutely not. Any milk that *needs* to be pasteurized should not be

> sold **at all**

Well, that would certainly be ideal, however, if all commercial dairies are

as bad as we think of them on this list, I get the feeling that the nation

would have a pretty severe milk shortage if that were to occur!

> Further, under most conditions (though certainly not

> all) I would rather drink poorly handled raw milk than poorly handled

> pasteurized milk.

I can understand that, although, I can't help but to think of someone not

moving the milk bucket fast enough when the cow decides to pee... Or a

cow infected with es which can cause chrons disease...

The tragedy is that when bad pasteurized milk shows up in the

> marketplace, people barely even blink because of course, gov't is

> protecting them. <snip>

>

> On the other hand when raw milk is blamed for some sickness, everyone

> gets a twitter, and the dairy suffers accordingly and comes under

> tremendous scrutiny. The latter example is how it SHOULD happen for

> all dairies, and how the market polices itself.

I agree.

> Raw milk already has a bad name, and it has nothing to do with people

> getting sick (or rather it has to do with an unfortunate historical

> situation that has long since passed), since the overwhelming majority

> of sicknesses from milk over the last 50 years has come from

> pasteurized milk.

I've been sick before from raw milk and it isn't fun. Actually, that's the

reason I stopped getting milk from a particular co-op when I was back in

NJ. First time I tried to blame something else, second time (different

batch) I realized the only factor in common was that farm's raw milk (which

I didn't think tasted as good as it could have, but it was my only source at

the time). My fault really for never visiting the farm but at a 6+ hour

round trip I had chosen to trust the people running the co-op. I later

found another source and never had another issue. OTOH, I have never to my

knowledge gotten sick from pasteurized milk, and even if I did at one time

and just didn't associate it with the milk, nothing I had experienced

previously could really compare to how sick I got from the raw milk. So

based on my experience (limited as it is), I have to wonder if the majority

of milk sickness being caused by pasteurized milk is because more people

drink pasteurized milk than raw. Do you have access to figures that are or

can be corrected for the difference in population consuming the two

different types of milk?

-Lana

[Guest guest]

That's a good point... The quote is what made me think of it, I didn't

intend to address directly to the quote. Oops!

-Lana

> There's nothing in the quote that says that. The quote implies that

> it is not inherently a great risk, but that does not itself imply that

> raw milk is inherently safe.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> nothing is 'safe' short of heaven.

>

That is true. Even when I use the word safe I understand there are some

exceptions. Sorry I didn't state that specifically.

a permit does not make it safe. a permit does not address 75% of the

> ideals that would make it safe...

So let's say your figure it right, that a permit addresses 25% of the ideals

that would make it safe. Would you agree that permitted milk is safer than

non-permitted milk?

> does one consider most processed

> food safe? it is made with a permit. in time it will cause great

> discomfort and possibly death

We're discussing milk that gets one sick in the more immediate sense, not

milk that is nutritionally inferior to the point where it runs down one's

health. I don't see what the processed food example, which falls in the

latter category, has anything to do with the prior category. Short of

improperly canned food, I can't think of any processed food that would cause

immediate illness (vomiting and the like). Same goes for the water. It

isn't going to get you sick immediately, but the methods they use to keep

microbial content under control (among others) will run down your health

over time.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

> I can understand that, although, I can't help but to think of

someone not

> moving the milk bucket fast enough when the cow decides to pee...

Or a

> cow infected with es which can cause chrons disease...

>

I can't speak for cows, but I've milked goats for over a year now and

never had one try to pee or poop while I was milking it.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> I can't speak for cows, but I've milked goats for over a year now and

> never had one try to pee or poop while I was milking it.

I've never milked a goat (or a sheep or a cow or a deer or a yak or an

elk or a horse or any other kind of livestock <g>) but on some show on

the Discovery Channel I once watched a goat pooping right into the

container it was being milked into. (The farmer then stuck the

container onto a fire to field-pasteurize it -- with the goat crap

still floating on top!) Obviously that was a repugnant situation and

not something we'd ever want happening in any source of milk, even

pasteurized, but evidently it can happen.

-

[Guest guest]

Lana-

> I was speaking as to the bad bacteria that seeps through from

> someone who

> has a bad gut. I really don't think it is possible to have

> nutritionally

> inferior, yet microbially ideal milk come from the same source.

I'm not sure what " microbially ideal " would really mean, but it's

certainly possible to raise cows entirely on grass and produce

completely safe but nutritionally inferior raw milk if the pasture

land and the grass (and the cows) aren't of the highest quality. I

doubt any of us have access to nutritionally ideal foods nowadays.

> It does a better job than nothing at all.

Exactly. And while I certainly don't mean to suggest that the

permitting process can't be dramatically improved, because obviously

it can, it's quite revealing that some people insist that government

is unacceptable because it can't help but fail to achieve perfection,

and yet they fail to hold other systems to anything like so rigorous a

standard.

> Well, that would certainly be ideal, however, if all commercial

> dairies are

> as bad as we think of them on this list, I get the feeling that the

> nation

> would have a pretty severe milk shortage if that were to occur!

Given that the vast majority of dairy is grain-fed, yes, there would

be, but it would be good to transition over a period of time towards

an all-raw all-pastured dairy system.

> So

> based on my experience (limited as it is), I have to wonder if the

> majority

> of milk sickness being caused by pasteurized milk is because more

> people

> drink pasteurized milk than raw. Do you have access to figures that

> are or

> can be corrected for the difference in population consuming the two

> different types of milk?

That certainly accounts for a large portion of the greater absolute

quantity of dairy-borne illnesses, but I believe someone recently

found some data that indicates that raw milk is safer on a per-serving

basis too. Of course if people started to sell tons of grain-fed milk

raw, that might change, but I don't think anybody here wants that to

happen.

-

[Guest guest]

,

My granny ran a dairy farm in Zambia for years (I wanna say at least 30, but

I don't know the exact number). When I was watching the cows get milked, I

witnessed it - actually the milker was so good she knew before the cow

started to pee! When I asked her how often it occurred, she said about once

a day or so. Not always the same cow either. She said it was a big concern

because if the milker didn't move fast enough, they lost up to a whole

bucket of milk. I guess it depends on the cow!!

-Lana

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:55 AM, gdawson6 <gdawson6@...> wrote:

>

> > I can understand that, although, I can't help but to think of

> someone not

> > moving the milk bucket fast enough when the cow decides to pee...

> Or a

> > cow infected with es which can cause chrons disease...

> >

>

> I can't speak for cows, but I've milked goats for over a year now and

> never had one try to pee or poop while I was milking it.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Ya I guess it depends. Maybe its because I milk my goats on a stand

where there head is held in place and they get to eat while being

milked...or maybe its just my goats...but goats do squat before they

pee so it would be easy to avoid...I'm guessing cows just pee standing

straight up.

On a side note, I heard an Armenian tradition that to get a yogurt

culture from scratch all you have to do is add a little bit of baby

goat poop while they are still drinking colostrum and not eating solid

food yet. So sometimes you may want to add poop to milk

-

>

> >

> > > I can understand that, although, I can't help but to think of

> > someone not

> > > moving the milk bucket fast enough when the cow decides to pee...

> > Or a

> > > cow infected with es which can cause chrons disease...

> > >

> >

> > I can't speak for cows, but I've milked goats for over a year now and

> > never had one try to pee or poop while I was milking it.

> >

> > -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> We have been a police state for many decades.

Oh, I know we've been here for a while Dave, although I have no idea for how

long. It just seems to be getting exponentially worse...Patriot Act, NAIS,

Real ID and now farmers being arrested for selling raw milk without a

permit...

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> I'm not sure what " microbially ideal " would really mean, but it's

> certainly possible to raise cows entirely on grass and produce

> completely safe but nutritionally inferior raw milk if the pasture

> land and the grass (and the cows) aren't of the highest quality. I

> doubt any of us have access to nutritionally ideal foods nowadays.

>

That is a good point, I hadn't thought of the inferior pasture example when

I was saying that. I was thinking that most nutritionally inferior raw milk

would come from grain fed cows which would have awful microbial populations.

> Exactly. And while I certainly don't mean to suggest that the

> permitting process can't be dramatically improved, because obviously

> it can, it's quite revealing that some people insist that government

> is unacceptable because it can't help but fail to achieve perfection,

> and yet they fail to hold other systems to anything like so rigorous a

> standard.

>

You really have a way with words.

> That certainly accounts for a large portion of the greater absolute

> quantity of dairy-borne illnesses, but I believe someone recently

> found some data that indicates that raw milk is safer on a per-serving

> basis too.

Thanks for mentioning that - I'm certainly not surprised given the ability

of lactic acid to select the more ideal organisms out of the crowd, it just

seemed that the difference couldn't be that overwhelmingly towards raw milk.

> Of course if people started to sell tons of grain-fed milk

> raw, that might change, but I don't think anybody here wants that to

> happen.

>

That would be just awful!!! It is bad enough there's raw milk being

marketed as pasture fed when grain is supplemented. Sometimes I feel the

only way I'll ever be absolutely sure of what the cows are eating is if I

have my own. I've gotten the farmer genes from my granny, now if only I

could get a farm...

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Keep milking, it'll happen. <G> And they'll step in the bucket as

well. Can't say as I've ever had a goat poop into the bucket but while

milking, yes. Cows are a bit worse as the sheer volume can be a bit

overwhelming. Doesn't happen often, most cows either develop the habit

of going before they enter to be milked or they hold it.

Gotta watch that tail, it goes up and you just know to stand back!

Belinda

> I can't speak for cows, but I've milked goats for over a year now and

> never had one try to pee or poop while I was milking it.

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> I was speaking as to the bad bacteria that seeps through from someone who

> has a bad gut. I really don't think it is possible to have nutritionally

> inferior, yet microbially ideal milk come from the same source.

Sure it is. I have had clean grass fed milk that was perfectly safe

but the cows were raised on low fertility pasture land.

> > The permitting process does NOT ensure safe

> > milk. It doesn't even ensure safe pasteurized milk (there are

> > pathogens which routinely survive pasteurization). That is a fallacy

> > which I would be happy to elaborate on if such a thing interests you.

>

> It does a better job than nothing at all.

Well not exactly, although I understand where you are coming from.

It does a better job than nothing at all only if you are assuming in

the absence of the gov't permitting process no one would do anything.

Although I understand why you would say this, that is not likely to

happen, anymore than it happens now where the gov't permitting process

is not a part of the process of ensuring safety (many if not most of

the products you use fall outside of this process and are perfectly

safe or have a rating as to their relative safety).

People don't realize how much of our safety was handled by the private

market (and still is), ranging from airplanes to even food. And in the

areas where gov't has taken over it has done so to the ***detriment***

of the safety process, including food. Usually the gov't was invited

in as a part of the process **not** for safety reasons but for

economic reasons, as regulation is a great way to hamper your

competition under the guise of " leveling " the playing field in the

early stages, and keeping competition out in the more mature stages.

The big boys do it all the time to keep any competition from messing

with their profits. You name the foodstuff, milk, eggs, grains, etc.,

and a study of the industry will astound you as to how

****regulation**** is used to keep the status quo in place. It is

nasty and ugly and features true believers and industry hacks alike.

Also, as the gov't tries to mimic private industry standards, because

of the perverse incentives that face a gov't agency versus a private

entrepreneur, the standards over time actually worsen.

I remember when the natural foods industry first talked of inviting

the feds to standardize the organic certification process. I said from

the very beginning that is a HUGE mistake, and would do nothing except

one day make that certification nearly useless. Why? Because the big

boys with far more money and political influence would skew the

process in such a way to benefit them. Any process that is subject to

political forces will ultimately yield to those who have the most

political pull, and organic certification is no exception.

Today of course, the term organic is nearly useless.

No process is perfect, so it does no good to argue as if all hell

would break loose if the gov't wasn't involved. People are getting

sick anyway, despite the current permit process. So the question, at

least from a utilitarian perspective, is which mode of assuring

safety, gov't permitting versus independent certification, would be

better for safety purposes. That question has already been answered

historically for independent certification. That question is still

being answered today, in favor of independent certification. So this

isn't an all or nothing proposition as your statement above assumes,

but rather what is the best way to go about ensuring food safety for

the benefit of most.

It has been awhile but I have posted this article several times before

as it clearly lays out a powerful example of what I am talking about:

What Keeps Us Safe

http://snipurl.com/26efz

> es,

I'm sure you are aware that es infecting humans is quite

controversial. Nonetheless I wouldn't want it in my milk. It is my

understanding that es is also heat resistant, although I could be

wrong about that.

> TB and several other

> bacteria can be tested for and regulated. I am aware that some pathogens

> survive pasteurization and I honestly think pasteurized milk should be

> tested for those heat tolerant pathogens, just like raw milk should be

> tested for it's common pathogens.

Yes, and there is nothing preventing you from demanding such a test

from your supplier, and having that test independently certified, if

your potential supplier wants your business.

Further most folks who are involved in the raw milk movement learn

early on that the remedy for a safe milk supply is **not** heat, but

rather cleanliness. That is why the original gov't pasteurization

movement (yes it had to be imposed because it was initially greatly

resisted by farmers) missed the mark. It cleaned up some things, let

other things continue, and never really got to the heart of the

problem BUT it gave people a false sense of security because

Father...err I mean gov't knows best.

> > Absolutely not. Any milk that *needs* to be pasteurized should not be

> > sold **at all**

>

> Well, that would certainly be ideal, however, if all commercial dairies are

> as bad as we think of them on this list, I get the feeling that the nation

> would have a pretty severe milk shortage if that were to occur!

A telling admission to say the least, and further evidence that the

process is badly flawed.

Notice I said shouldn't be sold, not that it wouldn't be sold. In no

way am I suggesting that the gov't ought to prevent the dairies from

marketing their goods. On the contrary, what I am suggesting is that

the gov't get out of the way.

Lets see. What is the mostly likely response? A severe shortage of

milk? I doubt it. In the lack of gov't involvement consumers, fearing

that even cooked milk might make them sick, would be far more

energised to know their sources, independent verifiers would show up,

and dairies would clean up their act in a hurry for fear of losing

untold millions of dollars. They still might lose out if people felt

they could only trust a local dairy because the gov't is no longer

involved.

But even more, if what you described above were to happen, from my

vantage point that would be a good thing, letting market forces clear

out a bad product. So if such a thing led to a shortage of cooked

milk, lets hasten the arrival of that day! But the bottom line is that

if there were a demand for milk, milk would be available in a much

cleaner form.

> > Further, under most conditions (though certainly not

> > all) I would rather drink poorly handled raw milk than poorly handled

> > pasteurized milk.

>

> I can understand that, although, I can't help but to think of someone not

> moving the milk bucket fast enough when the cow decides to pee... Or a

> cow infected with es which can cause chrons disease...

Right. And the answer to that is not heating the milk, but certifying

that the process is scrupulously clean..

> The tragedy is that when bad pasteurized milk shows up in the

> > marketplace, people barely even blink because of course, gov't is

> > protecting them. <snip>

>

> >

> > On the other hand when raw milk is blamed for some sickness, everyone

> > gets a twitter, and the dairy suffers accordingly and comes under

> > tremendous scrutiny. The latter example is how it SHOULD happen for

> > all dairies, and how the market polices itself.

>

> I agree.

Great. And the reason this doesn't happen is because of the very

process you are championing. This is one of the bad side effects of

gov't licensing in any industry, it causes people not to be as

vigilant as they should be in their choice of providers (it also

limits competition, which thereby lowers quality, but that is another

story).

> > Raw milk already has a bad name, and it has nothing to do with people

> > getting sick (or rather it has to do with an unfortunate historical

> > situation that has long since passed), since the overwhelming majority

> > of sicknesses from milk over the last 50 years has come from

> > pasteurized milk.

>

> I've been sick before from raw milk and it isn't fun. Actually, that's the

> reason I stopped getting milk from a particular co-op when I was back in

> NJ. First time I tried to blame something else, second time (different

> batch) I realized the only factor in common was that farm's raw milk (which

> I didn't think tasted as good as it could have, but it was my only source at

> the time). My fault really for never visiting the farm but at a 6+ hour

> round trip I had chosen to trust the people running the co-op. I later

> found another source and never had another issue. OTOH, I have never to my

> knowledge gotten sick from pasteurized milk, and even if I did at one time

> and just didn't associate it with the milk, nothing I had experienced

> previously could really compare to how sick I got from the raw milk. So

> based on my experience (limited as it is), I have to wonder if the majority

> of milk sickness being caused by pasteurized milk is because more people

> drink pasteurized milk than raw. Do you have access to figures that are or

> can be corrected for the difference in population consuming the two

> different types of milk?

I don't but that is a very good question. I will check around as I'm

sure you aren't the first one to raise the per serving issue.

As an aside however, lets say we took someone who got sick on

pasteurized milk, and inserted them into your story above. They too

trusted that what they were drinking was okay. IMO, best not to trust

any direct provider, but rather reputable third party certifiers (or

take their chances if so inclined), and if someone does get sick, then

of course they have recourse to seek damages.

--

" And true manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life. On

the contrary, the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has

trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father

and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and

pain. It is won by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for

his family, shows himself inseparable from the love of God. "

- Clement of andria

[Guest guest]

,

> , I think giving people information is the best way to overcome

> brainwashing. It's certainly not always effective. In my case, it

> was information that I found by accident on the WAPF and Mercola web

> sites that opened my eyes. I'm sure there are plenty of people who

> have seen the same information and rejected it because it didn't fit

> with their view of the world perpetrated by misinformation from big

> money interests. It took me a week or two of thinking and further

> reading and re-reading to decide that many of the conventional ideas I

> had come to believe were not likely to be true. Things like saturated

> fat and cholesterol are bad for health and raw milk, raw egg yolks,

> and liver are good for health.

This isn't quite what I was getting it with my questions, but we will

leave it at that.

> > It is just as easy for the tide to turn the other way, given the

> > nature of intellectually vested interests.

>

> Yes, that's quite true and it's an uphill battle still for raw milk.

> I believe the internet is a powerful tool that helps to level the

> playing field. Hopefully it won't become corrupted and censored.

It is already is in some parts of the world. I have a friend in China

who can't access certain links that I send her, and mailing her things

is always an adventure.

--

" And true manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life. On

the contrary, the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has

trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father

and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and

pain. It is won by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for

his family, shows himself inseparable from the love of God. "

- Clement of andria