..


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)!

On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, (Ron) wrote:

.


The Bully's New Victim


Snip chain letter whingeing about alleged corporate misdemeanours


If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and vote for a
regulator that will make them do so. QED.

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

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

"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

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

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

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

"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

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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