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.

"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

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

"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

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.

"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

On 12 Jul 2003 06:08:44 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"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!"

Not sure what you are rabbitting on about, but you seem to require a
little sociology education and a short civics primer.
You don't seem to realise the responsibilities and duties required of
living in your society. Oh well, you're in good company

"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

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
....

"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.

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

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.

The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the typical
consumer. Many people believe that the meat is somehow internally
infected with e.coli. But the bacterium exists in the steer's
digestive system and only contacts the meat through unhygenic
processes during slaughter. So when I buy a roast the only place
possibly contaminated would be the surface, and that can be washed off
or will be killed in the cooking. The problem arises when commercial
butchers pool and grind large quantities of beef into hamburger
several days before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and
giving it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

--Hua Kul

wrote in message ...
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.


As noted above, Monsanto contends that milk from rBST treated cows is
essentially that same as milk produced by non-teated cows. That
really isn't too hard to believe since cows produce BST natuarally.
If they didn't, they wouldn't produce milk.

Monsanto isn't claiming rBST has no effect on cows. Quite the
contrary. They have claimed over and over that use of their synthetic
BST will increase cows' metabloism, thus resulting in increased per
cow milk production and feed efficiency, all other factors being
equal.

From an environmental standpoint, that's a good thing. Same amount of
milk from fewer cows and less feed means less poop and methane, fewer
acres of crops required for to produce feed, etc. Whether the use of
rBST has contributed to an oversupply of milk or the decline of the
"family farm" is fodder for another discussion thread.

There really is no "planting the seeds for that patent to be revoked
or
to reinvent physiology for a brave new world of hormones with no
effects.

Hua Kul writes

A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

Interesting, and a good point.

When I was in berber country (northern sahara), eating at local
eateries, they always had a butcher on the side. You bought the meat,
them paid to have it cooked.

No refrigeration whatsoever.

I had ground meat, but it was ground in front of your eyes.
Oh, and well cooked (and delicious)!

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Hua Kul writes

A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

Interesting, and a good point.

Yes, and one worth making. We have minced beef from our own bullock, but it
is minced by our butcher and I then either make burgers or bag the mince
into 1lb packs before sticking it straight into the freezer. So he minces
the animal at 3pm and by 8pm it is in the freezer.

Jim Webster

The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the typical
consumer. Many people believe that the meat is somehow internally
infected with e.coli. But the bacterium exists in the steer's
digestive system and only contacts the meat through unhygenic
processes during slaughter. So when I buy a roast the only place
possibly contaminated would be the surface, and that can be washed off
or will be killed in the cooking. The problem arises when commercial
butchers pool and grind large quantities of beef into hamburger
several days before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and
giving it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

--Hua Kul



I'm sure you feel much better about yourself now that you have typified the
US consumer as ignorant. Your understanding of steer guts is commendable
also.

The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food quality, purity and
nutritional value as any in modern nations today. With the properly written
and implemented laws we have today regulating food products there is little
need for the person purchasing the family meal to be knowledgeable about any
particular health shortcomings of their choices.

My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the most exacting needs
and wants of consumers. This includes the demand for the best health
safeguards we have available today.

In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and the vast majority of
the retail consumers are a very discerning and critical lot. The continual
barrage of information and disinformation displayed for public benefit has
the buying populace taking even more notice of what is in/on and part of a
given product. This is in large part due to the ambiguous claims of the
organic growers regarding pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

The organic faction has quite a following until tests show what is really in
the produce. One of our larger retail food chains in the area has ceased
selling organic labeled produce because of non-conformance to advertised
standards. The GM issue has even more folks taking notice and becoming more
aware of what they put into the shopping cart.

The US consumer ignorant??

They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use products whose producers
deliberately circumvent the laws and regulations on which we rely to insure
the food we consume is wholesome.

James Curts