|
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
..
The Bully's New Victim Monsanto has declared war on another little guy. Monsanto is a big bully, but I've got a secret that will bring them to their knees. Their timing was designed to create despair and suffering. Their legal papers were filed on the Thursday before the long July 4th holiday weekend. No time for attorneys to review the complaint. A long Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for Althea, Stanley, and William Bennett, third generation owners of Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine. Their timing is also unfortunate for Monsanto's stockholders. As biotechnology is being debated around the world, as the European Community considers easing rules regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in American foods, as George Bush blackmails African nations with loss of American dollars in exchange for accepting GMOs, the last thing Monsanto needs is a revelation of the manner of duplicity that I will reveal in today's column. The Bennett's crime was to market their milk with this label: "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Source page Monsanto has filed papers in federal court, arguing that milk from cows treated with their genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is no different from untreated milk. That is a lie, of course, and Monsanto knows it. I have evidence that Monsanto's own scientist (Margaret Miller) confirmed the validity of an assay that can determine the difference between genetically engineered milk and normal milk. Scientist Margaret Miller left Monsanto in the middle of the FDA approval process and went to work at FDA where she analyzed her own research, which led to approval. In approving Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, the Food & Drug Administration determined that there were no differences between "wholesome" milk and the new genetically modified version. The FDA relieved Monsanto from the obligation of developing a test for the new milk, stating that there could be no test because the milks were identical. Of course, this was a lie. Since Miller now worked for FDA, she was aware of the lie. Since she once worked for Monsanto, it is clear that the pharmaceutical giant knew of the lie, too. How do I know this? I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Miller's FDA job application. On that document, she boasts of having performed that very test. Talk about smoking guns! I also interviewed the scientist who holds the patent for that test. He confirmed Miller's complicity. Monsanto hired ex-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who stated that the two milks were indistinguishable. After such confirmation from the esteemed Dr. Koop, who needed a second opinion? However, I have uncovered a previously unpublicized secret. I am sharing this with you and Oakhurst Farm so that the truth be known about genetically engineered milk. I am not a popular person in this new America. The United States of Monsanto-land. To the Monsanto government, I am a terrorist for revealing this secret of state. If you doubt who runs things, review this: http://www.notmilk.com/pelican.html The milks are different, Monsanto claims? Cornell University dairy scientist, Vitaly Spitsberg, owns a patent for a method to detect hormonal treatment in animals (US Patent #5,635,401). The unbelievable part of this patent confirms that Cornell University was given grant money by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1992, two years before Monsanto received official approval for the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) in dairy cows (Grant #92-27206-779). Who says Monsanto and the U.S. government are not one big happy family? Monsanto's plays both sides of the political fence. I have no information as to activities that occur behind closed doors of the oval office, but President Clinton praised Monsanto in his 1998 State of the Union Address. Now to the evidence that will win the case for Oakhurst. The same evidence that is a condemnation of genetic engineering and biotechnology. Nature always finds a way to tame the arrogance of man. One feature of milk is that it is loaded with saturated fat. These fat molecules are not entirely fat. They are actually composed of many different layers. The thin outermost layer is made of protein, and that is the key. While one would assume that genetically engineered milk could be tested by measuring the levels of bovine growth hormone or insulin- like growth factor-I, the new patented test measures an unusual protein in the membrane named "milk fat globule membrane" or MFGM. Keeping this simple, the MFGM contains an unusual protein named mammary derived growth inhibitor, which is a fatty acid-binding protein (MDGI or FABP). The new patented method measures the amounts of these new proteins so that an easy test of milk can determine whether it has been genetically engineered. FDA's conclusion that the milk was identical is more than a deception. It's more than a lie. It's a betrayal to the American public. What I am revealing to you today just adds more evidence that somebody knew the truth a few years before final approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. I am helping Oakhurst Dairy because it is the right thing to do. If not for Monsanto, I would be developing real estate. Monsanto taught me about genetic engineering and milk. I've learned that all milk contains powerful growth hormones. Oakhurst Dairy is careful not to represent that their milk is hormone-free. It is not. If you drink cow's milk, genetically engineered or otherwise, you will be ingesting powerful steroid and protein growth hormones. Permission is given for you to share this column with other persons or groups. The truth about genetic engineering must be known. The Internet remains our opportunity to level the playing field. I have risked a lot by writing this column. Please do your part in helping to get out the truth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Cohen, author of: MILK A-Z (201-871-5871) Executive Director ) Dairy Education Board http://www.notmilk.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them. Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so, have them send an empty Email to and they will receive it (automatically)! |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
|
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
MO0$H wrote in message . ..
On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, (Ron) wrote: If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and vote for a regulator that will make them do so. Let me fill you in on what your omniscient regulators are doing in the US. They are forbidding the Amish farmers in my home state from selling their milk. The Amish don't practice pasteurization. It doesn't matter if I want to drink their milk anyway, I have to be protected from their *evil* old-fashioned practice, which somehow was good enough for thousands of years. --Hua Kul |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good enough for
thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world did not have access to storageble quantities of milk until relatively recent times and the utilization of pasteurization made it possible. The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially for our children. That is not an attack on religion but on ignorance. James Curts "Hua Kul" wrote in message om... MO0$H wrote in message . .. On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, (Ron) wrote: If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and vote for a regulator that will make them do so. Let me fill you in on what your omniscient regulators are doing in the US. They are forbidding the Amish farmers in my home state from selling their milk. The Amish don't practice pasteurization. It doesn't matter if I want to drink their milk anyway, I have to be protected from their *evil* old-fashioned practice, which somehow was good enough for thousands of years. --Hua Kul |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world did not have access to storageble quantities of milk until relatively recent times and the utilization of pasteurization made it possible. The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially for our children. drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our family for as far back as anyone wants to go, certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going to be a problem any more. It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to many things might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here. Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the import and no one can come up with enough evidence Jim Webster |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with my children
for a while and all was well. We produced and handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked well up to a point. I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health safeguards. James Curts "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world did not have access to storageble quantities of milk until relatively recent times and the utilization of pasteurization made it possible. The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially for our children. drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our family for as far back as anyone wants to go, certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going to be a problem any more. It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to many things might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here. Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the import and no one can come up with enough evidence Jim Webster |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.135.74.117
X-Trace: newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk 1057527284 27574 217.135.74.117 (6 Jul 2003 21:34:44 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jul 2003 21:34:44 GMT X-Complaints-To: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!In.nntp.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfee d.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!diablo.theplanet.net !news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.agricultu62549 rec.food.veg:65952 sci.med.nutrition:167408 "James Curts" wrote in message news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03... I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with my children for a while and all was well. We produced and handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked well up to a point. I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health safeguards. James Curts In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run through to sell unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that it probably isn't an economic concern Jim Webster |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "James Curts" wrote in message news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03... I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with my children for a while and all was well. We produced and handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked well up to a point. I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health safeguards. James Curts In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run through to sell unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that it probably isn't an economic concern Jim Webster Jim, When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "James Curts" wrote in message news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03... I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with my children for a while and all was well. We produced and handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked well up to a point. I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health safeguards. James Curts In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run through to sell unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that it probably isn't an economic concern Jim Webster Jim, When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed... When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. While we were milking we got a letter from a chap at one of the universities who wanted to test our herd for e coli 157. The problem was, if we had found it, given the panic at the time, our milk buyer would have stopped collecting it until we had treated all the animals, whereas as the milk was all pasteurised it isn't a problem anyway. So having them tested was a no-brainer. I phoned the chap and had a chat with him and discovered everyone else had worked this out as well. The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible traces of muck. This means that these cattle have to be trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a few people injured trying to do this. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. The UK Food Standards Agency is consulting on getting rid of OTMS (for our non-UK readers this is the Over Thirty Month Scheme where bovines do not enter the food chain once they get over thirty months old but are incinerated instead.) To maintain the current system is estimated to cost £736 million, To go over to testing individual animals like the rest of Europe will probably cost £48 million. The estimate is that the OTMS scheme probably prevents 1 case of nvCJD a year; out of 80+ a year anyway. Interestingly Susan Myles et al have produced a paper quoted by the FSA report. Basically you have to put a cost on the results of car accidents, kidney failure etc so you can do the equivalent of financial triage to put the money where it will do most good. It is estimated by the NHS that they have an average cost of £50,000 per nvCJD patient. Susan Myles calculates the costs for the family at a median cost of £32,000. Hence currently we are burning £736 million to save one life and £82,000. Admittedly this is not an uncommon sort of occurrence in the course of the BSE epidemic. Indeed at 90 cases a year, the cost is about £7.3 million. Given that there is as much emotional pain and suffering for families who's loved ones die of other diseases, I suspect that nvCJD is going to drop well down the list for research priorities and a lot of researchers who have made a good living out of the disease are going to have to find a new field of endeavour. Jim Webster. Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
One short question: Is e. coli157:H7 the only issue of concern with the
pasteurization of milk in these instances? Thank you James Curts "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed... When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. While we were milking we got a letter from a chap at one of the universities who wanted to test our herd for e coli 157. The problem was, if we had found it, given the panic at the time, our milk buyer would have stopped collecting it until we had treated all the animals, whereas as the milk was all pasteurised it isn't a problem anyway. So having them tested was a no-brainer. I phoned the chap and had a chat with him and discovered everyone else had worked this out as well. The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible traces of muck. This means that these cattle have to be trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a few people injured trying to do this. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. The UK Food Standards Agency is consulting on getting rid of OTMS (for our non-UK readers this is the Over Thirty Month Scheme where bovines do not enter the food chain once they get over thirty months old but are incinerated instead.) To maintain the current system is estimated to cost £736 million, To go over to testing individual animals like the rest of Europe will probably cost £48 million. The estimate is that the OTMS scheme probably prevents 1 case of nvCJD a year; out of 80+ a year anyway. Interestingly Susan Myles et al have produced a paper quoted by the FSA report. Basically you have to put a cost on the results of car accidents, kidney failure etc so you can do the equivalent of financial triage to put the money where it will do most good. It is estimated by the NHS that they have an average cost of £50,000 per nvCJD patient. Susan Myles calculates the costs for the family at a median cost of £32,000. Hence currently we are burning £736 million to save one life and £82,000. Admittedly this is not an uncommon sort of occurrence in the course of the BSE epidemic. Indeed at 90 cases a year, the cost is about £7.3 million. Given that there is as much emotional pain and suffering for families who's loved ones die of other diseases, I suspect that nvCJD is going to drop well down the list for research priorities and a lot of researchers who have made a good living out of the disease are going to have to find a new field of endeavour. Jim Webster. Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "James Curts" wrote in message news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03... I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with my children for a while and all was well. We produced and handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked well up to a point. I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health safeguards. James Curts In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run through to sell unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that it probably isn't an economic concern Jim Webster Jim, When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. Gordon It is costing Canada millions a *DAY*. Many family run operations are suffering severe financial pain and may have to shut down as a result. The US keeps the border closed to Canadian beef while there is a one in 20 chance that the cow actually came from the US. Go figure. TC |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "James Curts" wrote in message news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03... I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with my children for a while and all was well. We produced and handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked well up to a point. I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health safeguards. James Curts In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run through to sell unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that it probably isn't an economic concern Jim Webster Jim, When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. Gordon It is costing Canada millions a *DAY*. Many family run operations are suffering severe financial pain and may have to shut down as a result. The US keeps the border closed to Canadian beef while there is a one in 20 chance that the cow actually came from the US. Go figure. TC |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "James Curts" wrote in message news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03... I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with my children for a while and all was well. We produced and handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked well up to a point. I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health safeguards. James Curts In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run through to sell unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that it probably isn't an economic concern Jim Webster Jim, When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. Gordon It is costing Canada millions a *DAY*. Many family run operations are suffering severe financial pain and may have to shut down as a result. The US keeps the border closed to Canadian beef while there is a one in 20 chance that the cow actually came from the US. Go figure. TC |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"James Curts" wrote in message news:lEiOa.127610$R73.15357@sccrnsc04... One short question: Is e. coli157:H7 the only issue of concern with the pasteurization of milk in these instances? No, in the UK I would say that the big ones are TB and Brucella Jim Webster Thank you James Curts "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed... When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they tested all the dairy families and people who had been around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true for several other pathogens on the farm. While we were milking we got a letter from a chap at one of the universities who wanted to test our herd for e coli 157. The problem was, if we had found it, given the panic at the time, our milk buyer would have stopped collecting it until we had treated all the animals, whereas as the milk was all pasteurised it isn't a problem anyway. So having them tested was a no-brainer. I phoned the chap and had a chat with him and discovered everyone else had worked this out as well. The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible traces of muck. This means that these cattle have to be trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a few people injured trying to do this. In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease. I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow continues to cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the charade after the problem is understood is foolish. Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure benefited from it. The UK Food Standards Agency is consulting on getting rid of OTMS (for our non-UK readers this is the Over Thirty Month Scheme where bovines do not enter the food chain once they get over thirty months old but are incinerated instead.) To maintain the current system is estimated to cost £736 million, To go over to testing individual animals like the rest of Europe will probably cost £48 million. The estimate is that the OTMS scheme probably prevents 1 case of nvCJD a year; out of 80+ a year anyway. Interestingly Susan Myles et al have produced a paper quoted by the FSA report. Basically you have to put a cost on the results of car accidents, kidney failure etc so you can do the equivalent of financial triage to put the money where it will do most good. It is estimated by the NHS that they have an average cost of £50,000 per nvCJD patient. Susan Myles calculates the costs for the family at a median cost of £32,000. Hence currently we are burning £736 million to save one life and £82,000. Admittedly this is not an uncommon sort of occurrence in the course of the BSE epidemic. Indeed at 90 cases a year, the cost is about £7.3 million. Given that there is as much emotional pain and suffering for families who's loved ones die of other diseases, I suspect that nvCJD is going to drop well down the list for research priorities and a lot of researchers who have made a good living out of the disease are going to have to find a new field of endeavour. Jim Webster. Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
It is costing Canada millions a *DAY*. Many family run operations are suffering severe financial pain and may have to shut down as a result. The US keeps the border closed to Canadian beef while there is a one in 20 chance that the cow actually came from the US. Go figure. TC As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes Jim Webster |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
Jim Webster writes
As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes Seconded. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes Seconded. I see they are trying to get is squared up the end buy the end of July. If we don't close our borders to Canada the rest of the world will close theirs to us. Japan seriously considered stopping US beef as well becuse practically there is little distinction between US and Canada in trading cattle across the border. The guys up north don't like it much because they feel the Canadian cattle hurt their prices. But that has been a long running battle between the US and Canada all my life. The guys from Canada come down and cut wheat for 10% less than the guys in the US can because they don't have to pay taxes on the money made in the US and we have to pay taxes on money made in Canada. We are the only country that taxes income made in other countries. I have a friend living out side of London that avoid paying taxes anywhere most of his life. He worked for one of the oil companies in as a geologist in the north sea. When they want to transfer him back to the US to Houston he quit and when into consulting. Siberia he might have considered but not Houston. Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f091b24_3@newsfeed... "Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes Seconded. I see they are trying to get is squared up the end buy the end of July. If we don't close our borders to Canada the rest of the world will close theirs to us. Japan seriously considered stopping US beef as well becuse practically there is little distinction between US and Canada in trading cattle across the border. The guys up north don't like it much because they feel the Canadian cattle hurt their prices. But that has been a long running battle between the US and Canada all my life. The guys from Canada come down and cut wheat for 10% less than the guys in the US can because they don't have to pay taxes on the money made in the US and we have to pay taxes on money made in Canada. We are the only country that taxes income made in other countries. Please, Gordon, study the U.S.A., Canada treaty a little closer that that. It states: "Income U.S.A. residents recieve for the performance of dependent personal services in Canada(except as public entertainers) is exempt from Canadian tax if it is not more than $10,000 in Canadian currency for the year. If it is more than $10,000 for the year, it is exempt only if: 1) The residents are present in Canada for nor more than 183 days during the calender year, and 2) The income is not borne by a Canadian resident employer or by a permanent establishment or fixed base of an employer in Canada. This treaty works both ways. You can replace the word Canada with the U.S.A in the example above. In other words, when the custom harvesters come up here,(there are a lot of them), it makes for the same situation. Now that I've said that: "When a Canadian resident is transferred to the U.S. for a short term assignment, the starting point for saving taxes is determining whether it is possible to break Canadian residence. A Canadian resident is subject to Canadian tax on global income regardless of the source of the income or where it is paid. A non-resident of Canada would be subject to Canadian tax only on income from Canadin sources. Since the U.S. tax rates are typically much lower than Canadian rates, it is generally advantageous to be taxable in the U.S. rather than in Canada." Check out the following link. It illustrates the tax liability as a resident of Canada as compared to the taxes payable as a resident of the U.S. at different income levels. http://www.grasmick.com/lesstax.htm Not as rosy as you thought is was, now is it?????? Dean I have a friend living out side of London that avoid paying taxes anywhere most of his life. He worked for one of the oil companies in as a geologist in the north sea. When they want to transfer him back to the US to Houston he quit and when into consulting. Siberia he might have considered but not Houston. Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03...
The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Actually, they read quite well. --Hua Kul |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
Ah, yes, but to inconsequential avail. Other than suppressing their own kind
and preventing their youth from joining and advancing with the rest of the modern world their small cult survives by enforcing a form of isolationalism. Yet another form of a religious pestilence which only survives by rote of one man having indisputable control over another. This is one of the issues which separate civilized people from those of other harshly suppressed groups through out the third world areas We certainly do not need their crude products dispersed among the unsuspecting. James Curts "Hua Kul" wrote in message om... "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Actually, they read quite well. --Hua Kul |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
Ah, yes, but to inconsequential avail. Other than suppressing their own kind
and preventing their youth from joining and advancing with the rest of the modern world their small cult survives by enforcing a form of isolationalism. Yet another form of a religious pestilence which only survives by rote of one man having indisputable control over another. This is one of the issues which separate civilized people from those of other harshly suppressed groups through out the third world areas We certainly do not need their crude products dispersed among the unsuspecting. James Curts "Hua Kul" wrote in message om... "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Actually, they read quite well. --Hua Kul |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03...
The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. I got the impression that's what they were doing, only the government was stepping in and saying `we know best`. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. If that's what they want to do, shouldn't that be the only reason they need? |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed...
In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on pasteurizing everything. Those damned bacteria with their superior lobbying skills... :) |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
Perhaps, but when they try to sell an ambiguous product the public the door
is rightfully opened for governmental intervention. In this instance government does work. James Curts "Fred Bloggs" wrote in message m... "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. I got the impression that's what they were doing, only the government was stepping in and saying `we know best`. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. If that's what they want to do, shouldn't that be the only reason they need? |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
To continue, we have mentally disadvantaged religious sects in this country
who will allow their children to die from relatively minor ailments and injuries. Thankfully they are being rooted out and the abusers are finding homes in jails and the rest are being encouraged to join the more wise thinkers of their race. I cannot in any manner condone the refusal to use all of today's common sense tools to improve, protect and promote human life and particular for our children. James Curts "Fred Bloggs" wrote in message m... "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. I got the impression that's what they were doing, only the government was stepping in and saying `we know best`. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. If that's what they want to do, shouldn't that be the only reason they need? |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
To continue, we have mentally disadvantaged religious sects in this country
who will allow their children to die from relatively minor ailments and injuries. Thankfully they are being rooted out and the abusers are finding homes in jails and the rest are being encouraged to join the more wise thinkers of their race. I cannot in any manner condone the refusal to use all of today's common sense tools to improve, protect and promote human life and particular for our children. James Curts "Fred Bloggs" wrote in message m... "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. I got the impression that's what they were doing, only the government was stepping in and saying `we know best`. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. If that's what they want to do, shouldn't that be the only reason they need? |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Dean Ronn" @home wrote in message ... "Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3f091b24_3@newsfeed... "Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes Seconded. I see they are trying to get is squared up the end buy the end of July. If we don't close our borders to Canada the rest of the world will close theirs to us. Japan seriously considered stopping US beef as well becuse practically there is little distinction between US and Canada in trading cattle across the border. The guys up north don't like it much because they feel the Canadian cattle hurt their prices. But that has been a long running battle between the US and Canada all my life. The guys from Canada come down and cut wheat for 10% less than the guys in the US can because they don't have to pay taxes on the money made in the US and we have to pay taxes on money made in Canada. We are the only country that taxes income made in other countries. Please, Gordon, study the U.S.A., Canada treaty a little closer that that. It states: "Income U.S.A. residents recieve for the performance of dependent personal services in Canada(except as public entertainers) is exempt from Canadian tax if it is not more than $10,000 in Canadian currency for the year. If it is more than $10,000 for the year, it is exempt only if: 1) The residents are present in Canada for nor more than 183 days during the calender year, and 2) The income is not borne by a Canadian resident employer or by a permanent establishment or fixed base of an employer in Canada. This treaty works both ways. You can replace the word Canada with the U.S.A in the example above. In other words, when the custom harvesters come up here,(there are a lot of them), it makes for the same situation. Now that I've said that: "When a Canadian resident is transferred to the U.S. for a short term assignment, the starting point for saving taxes is determining whether it is possible to break Canadian residence. A Canadian resident is subject to Canadian tax on global income regardless of the source of the income or where it is paid. A non-resident of Canada would be subject to Canadian tax only on income from Canadin sources. Since the U.S. tax rates are typically much lower than Canadian rates, it is generally advantageous to be taxable in the U.S. rather than in Canada." Check out the following link. It illustrates the tax liability as a resident of Canada as compared to the taxes payable as a resident of the U.S. at different income levels. http://www.grasmick.com/lesstax.htm Not as rosy as you thought is was, now is it?????? Your as bad as we are. It is making the Caribbean Islands a popular place to set up businesses with very low income taxes and very closed mouthed about their business. The US is driving major corporations off shore. Last time I was in Canada I read an article it was a problem there as well. I do know one fellow that never stays in any country 6 months. He can work were every he can connect to the internet the company he works for is incorporated under one of the convenient flags that aren't very communicate about tax matters. I expect he will tire of it one day but at 28 and newly married it is a nice honeymoon. There are inequities on both sides of the border that are attractive to people living on the border. I always buy a bunch of mercury camera batteries when I am up there. They are outlawed down here. You meat in Vancouver was a better buy than it was in Oklahoma the last time I was there. Your sales taxes smart a bit but we are going to catch up a lot over then next couple of years. Gordon Gordon |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
On 6 Jul 2003 03:02:24 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:
MO0$H wrote in message . .. On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, (Ron) wrote: If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and vote for a regulator that will make them do so. Let me fill you in on what your omniscient regulators are doing in the US. Not my regulators, Sunshine. I vote for mine with a view to doing the best for the Australian community. They are forbidding the Amish farmers in my home state from selling their milk. The Amish don't practice pasteurization. Seems fair enough. Public safety and all that. Why won't they make it safe by pasteurisation? Same reason they wear those silly hats? It doesn't matter if I want to drink their milk anyway, I have to be protected from their *evil* old-fashioned practice, which somehow was good enough for thousands of years. If you drank the milk and got ill, who would have to look after you and yours? The public purse? If you could arrange to sign a legal waiver of your (and your dependents') civil rights here, you probably would be allowed to buy it. Else you could start your own country with your own rules. |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:24:13 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world did not have access to storageble quantities of milk until relatively recent times and the utilization of pasteurization made it possible. The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially for our children. drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our family for as far back as anyone wants to go, Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :) certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going to be a problem any more. But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons, would they? It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to many things Where do you get this from? might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here. I believe you might :) Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the import and no one can come up with enough evidence I thought they had. |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:24:13 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world did not have access to storageble quantities of milk until relatively recent times and the utilization of pasteurization made it possible. The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially for our children. drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our family for as far back as anyone wants to go, Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :) have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing it has to go through I haven't any worries. certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going to be a problem any more. But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons, would they? god alone kows It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to many things Where do you get this from? just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here. I believe you might :) Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the import and no one can come up with enough evidence I thought they had. plenty of hysteria, no evidence Jim Webster |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:24:13 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: "James Curts" wrote in message news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03... Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world did not have access to storageble quantities of milk until relatively recent times and the utilization of pasteurization made it possible. The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves. Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form of control of one man over others and has little of merit on which to proceed. Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially for our children. drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our family for as far back as anyone wants to go, Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :) have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing it has to go through I haven't any worries. That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to want to dispense with all of that new fangled testing and stuff. I wouldn't buy unpasteurised dairy from a roadside stall. certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going to be a problem any more. But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons, would they? god alone kows Two puns in the one short sentence. Good one, Jim :) It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to many things Where do you get this from? just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any population is more immune to what it is often exposed to. And those who don't measure up just die out :) might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here. I believe you might :) Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the import and no one can come up with enough evidence I thought they had. plenty of hysteria, no evidence Can't remember where (or what day it is :) but recently I read about the number of cases of food poisoning from unpasteurised cheese. Perhaps it was a public scare propaganda campaign to stop unpasteurised imports :) |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :) have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing it has to go through I haven't any worries. That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to want to dispense with all of that new fangled testing and stuff. I wouldn't buy unpasteurised dairy from a roadside stall. In the UK you might be able to sell it from a roadside stall, but the stall would have to meet certain standards and the milk would still be tested. Indeed in theory I ought to have a warning notice on our fridge so that my wife and daughter know that it is unpasteurised milk. Ignoring the health aspect for a minute, unpasteurised milk is best drunk cold (direct from the bulk tank is ideal) and a road side stall is unlikely to be cold enough) certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going to be a problem any more. But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons, would they? god alone kows Two puns in the one short sentence. Good one, Jim :) we exist purely to serve :-) It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to many things Where do you get this from? just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any population is more immune to what it is often exposed to. And those who don't measure up just die out :) rural or farm immunity to E Coli 157 was mentioned earlier in this thread. I suspect my level of immunity to ringworm is a lot higher than the population at large :-) Can't remember where (or what day it is :) but recently I read about the number of cases of food poisoning from unpasteurised cheese. Perhaps it was a public scare propaganda campaign to stop unpasteurised imports :) certainly the French are perfectly happy with unpasteurised cheese. In the UK I think they merely suggest that they are not advised for pregnant women Jim Webster |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
Moosh:] writes
I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any population is more immune to what it is often exposed to. And those who don't measure up just die out :) This is not what has been reported in the UK, from trials in many parts of the world. *RURAL* populations have the same level of asthma. Families of livestock farmers have very significantly lower rates, as to people living in unsanitary environments (typically third world). There have been threads on this giving references, but I forget the precise names. You could try searching for "let them eat dirt", which was the first new scientist article that collated some of the (early) evidence, there is more certain later work. It will probably have been referenced somewhere in most of the threads. There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main mutually inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I always forget). One basically designed to hit bacteria, the other viruses and toxins. In the event of unnaturally low exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary living) the virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both allergies and auto-immune diseases (both being very significantly higher in the first world). Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of antibiotics in young farm animals (babies in effect) attacked by a serious virus. It is usual for them to recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial disease (often scours). The switching over to viral attack, leaves their immature immune system open to attack by bacteria. This is so common as to be expected. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Moosh:]" wrote in message . ..
If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and vote for a regulator that will make them do so. I vote for mine with a view to doing the best for the Australian community. If you drank the milk and got ill, who would have to look after you and yours? The public purse? If you could arrange to sign a legal waiver of your (and your dependents') civil rights here, you probably would be allowed to buy it. Little buzzing fly wants to be Big Brother. If you had lived in the United States in 1776 you probably would have been a Loyalist. "Can't drink my tea without paying huge taxes on it? Sure! Tax my milk too, even though the cow is mine!" --Hua Kul |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
|
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Hua Kul" wrote in message om... "Moosh:]" wrote in message . .. If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and vote for a regulator that will make them do so. I vote for mine with a view to doing the best for the Australian community. If you drank the milk and got ill, who would have to look after you and yours? The public purse? If you could arrange to sign a legal waiver of your (and your dependents') civil rights here, you probably would be allowed to buy it. Little buzzing fly wants to be Big Brother. If you had lived in the United States in 1776 you probably would have been a Loyalist. "Can't drink my tea without paying huge taxes on it? Sure! Tax my milk too, even though the cow is mine!" --Hua Kul Hua Kul, Your history is somewhat flawed but of more import is the fact that owning a production item (cow) does not impart to you the unrestricted right to sell at profit a product from this production item which does not conform to the standards deemed safe today and enforced by law. I do not condemn your isolationist way of life but certainly do not wish it's short comings and risks foisted on friends and family. Thank you James Curts |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
Ron wrote: . The Bully's New Victim Monsanto has declared war on another little guy. Monsanto is a big bully, but I've got a secret that will bring them to their knees. Their timing was designed to create despair and suffering. Their legal papers were filed on the Thursday before the long July 4th holiday weekend. No time for attorneys to review the complaint. A long Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for Althea, Stanley, and William Bennett, third generation owners of Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine. Their timing is also unfortunate for Monsanto's stockholders. As biotechnology is being debated around the world, as the European Community considers easing rules .... Monsanto has filed papers in federal court, arguing that milk from cows treated with their genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is no different from untreated milk. That is a lie, of course, and Monsanto knows it. The proof of that is that they hold a patent. a patented product is by definition something unique and special, otherwise it wouldn't be patentable. If the hormones have no effect on the cows, how are they producing more milk per unit of feed? I think Monsanto is planting the seeds for that patent to be revoked or to reinvent physiology for a brave new world of hormones with no effects. I have evidence that Monsanto's own scientist (Margaret Miller) confirmed the validity of an assay that can determine the difference between genetically engineered milk .... |
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :) have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing it has to go through I haven't any worries. That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to want to dispense with all of that new fangled testing and stuff. I wouldn't buy unpasteurised dairy from a roadside stall. In the UK you might be able to sell it from a roadside stall, but the stall would have to meet certain standards and the milk would still be tested. Indeed in theory I ought to have a warning notice on our fridge so that my wife and daughter know that it is unpasteurised milk. Ignoring the health aspect for a minute, unpasteurised milk is best drunk cold (direct from the bulk tank is ideal) and a road side stall is unlikely to be cold enough) certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going to be a problem any more. But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons, would they? god alone kows Two puns in the one short sentence. Good one, Jim :) we exist purely to serve :-) It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to many things Where do you get this from? just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any population is more immune to what it is often exposed to. And those who don't measure up just die out :) rural or farm immunity to E Coli 157 was mentioned earlier in this thread. I suspect my level of immunity to ringworm is a lot higher than the population at large :-) Can't remember where (or what day it is :) but recently I read about the number of cases of food poisoning from unpasteurised cheese. Perhaps it was a public scare propaganda campaign to stop unpasteurised imports :) certainly the French are perfectly happy with unpasteurised cheese. In the UK I think they merely suggest that they are not advised for pregnant women I would have no problems drinking unpasturised milk when I was a kid we had a cow and then a goat for a while. Goats milk is the better of the two. The health and safety people are over zealous on the subject and they will win. It is amazing the differences in what different people have problems with. In California it fine to kill a horse and make dog food out of it but it is against the law to sell it if it is going to be used for human consumption. Sure has hurt the California horse sales and helped their neighbors. We are going to let the world beat us to stem cell research by placating the religious right. I expect we are loosing researchers to friendlier climates faster than we are gaining biotech people. The whole world is upside down on risk management. They let a few squawking crows side track the whole world. Gordon. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter