SEARCH:
Sign in | Join | Help
search Mercola.com
 
FREE Subscription 
The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter
The Deception Behind "Organic" Milk

There has been a continuing erosion of organic standards since large corporations started struggling for a share of the market. According to this recent NewsTarget interview with Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, the standards for organic milk have been particularly compromised.

Horizon Organic, the company that supplies Wal-Mart, has continually ignored federal organic standards -- specifically, a cow's access to pasture.

Their "organic" milk actually comes from factory-style dairy farms where the animals are kept in intensive confinement and have been imported from conventional farms as calves.

In fact, the problem has gotten so out of hand that the Organic Consumers Association has called for a consumer boycott on Horizon and its partner Aurora Organic, its first for an "organic" product.

NewsTarget.com April 2, 2007


Dr. Mercola's Comment:

I've warned you before about the destruction of organic standards, especially since mega-companies like Wal-Mart and Dean Foods (the parent company of Horizon Organic) have jumped on the organic milk bandwagon. Evidently, the deception regarding organic milk is even worse than you probably ever imagined.

All of the milk from Aurora Organics and most from Horizon is produced by cows that came from factory dairy feedlots and existed on disgusting diets of genetically modified grains, slaughterhouse waste and chicken manure.

The only good news here is that all the attention paid to this organic problem by news outlets and Web sites like mine is forcing the USDA to act. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean you should be drinking organic milk anyway, considering it's pasteurized just like all the other conventional varieties of milk found at your corner grocery store.

The real issue is not organic versus non-organic milk, it is raw versus pasteurized.

Secondary issues would be the food source that is given to the cow. Ideally, they should be fed exclusively on grass. When you start giving cows grains, even organic ones, their milk will have lower levels of important nutrients such as conjugated linoleic acid.

Your best bet for your good health is to find a local source for raw milk, which I believe is one of the best foods for most people. If you find this statement unusual then please read my article on the reasons why raw milk is becoming more popular.

Related Articles:





 
 Do you find this article interesting?
Comment on This Article Community Comments (93)
 
 
Posted On Apr 05, 2007
To solve the dilemma of milk, organic milk or raw milk. Remember several things:
  • Humans are the only creatures that consume the milk of another into adulthood.
  • Cow's milk is the most acidic food, making the body acidic
  • Human breast milk is alkaline, keeping a proper ph balance
  • Every country that has a high rate of dairy consumption has a high rate of osteoporosis due to leaching of calcium from bones to buffer blood.
Stop drinking milk! Where do cows get calcium from?

 
Dr. David Spitz
Apprentice User Apprentice User, Joined On 12/2006
Dr. David Spitz  
Replied

proatc
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 12/2006
proatc  
 
Posted On Apr 05, 2007

That's why humans are humans!  Don't ever compare humans to anything else, we are unique!  Cows get their calcium from milk, evidently enough from their early formative months until they stop and wean from their mothers udder. The constant standing must stimulate their own bone strength and their muscles must use their bone calcium for muscle contraction/relaxation.
Humans are not creatures, yet a thriving organism.  Raw milk has been proven to do a body good.  Drink up!
 



Russ Bianchi
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 9/2006
Russ Bianchi  
 
Posted On Apr 05, 2007
Read MIRACLE TREE by Dr. Monica Marcu, and eminent and brilliant botancial pharmacologist, you can buy it online at: www.drinklifein.com

She confirms the BEST, and most bioavailable source, of calcium for humans (minus mother's milk during infancy) is PLANTS, dark green leafy plants!!!  Not cows, not goats, not dairy.


Sean Uisce
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 11/2006
Sean Uisce  
 
Posted On Apr 05, 2007
Can't figure what all the fuss is about consuming milk.  No other animal on this planet naturally consumes it beyond it's weaning years... if we humans are somehow unique and actually do require milk our entire lives through, then nature obviously made some kind of mistake by forgetting to set the human breast up to produce milk from puberty to grave... and in also forgetting to have certain wild animals walk up to us randomly and say something like "here human, have some of my milk - after all Nature clearly intended for you to have it"...




Bridestein
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 12/2006
Bridestein  
 
Posted On Apr 06, 2007
Don't these statistics actually pertain to pasteurized milk? I'm fairly certain that the countries with high rates of osteoporosis are not consuming raw milk. And couldn't there be other contributing factors, like lack of sunlight or other nutrients?
Also, it is my understanding that consuming acidic foods (like lemons, for instance) does not necessarily create an acidic response in the body. Does anyone know?
Thanks!



Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 06, 2007
It is not a conclusive correlation to draw. The countries with a high rate of dairy consumption and osteoporosis are likely to be the ones with the Westernized or technologized diets.  If anything, Western diets are reducing milk consumption, with so many alternatives in tha last couple decades.  They have also been reducing consumption of milkfat and animal fat in general for over 50 years.  Sean pointed out fat is a buffering agent against acidification of blood.  I add that reducing fat reduces fat-soluble nutrients (no-brainer) some of which are necessary for good bone density. Fat-free dairy probably is bad.  Just my opinion.  Duane


Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 06, 2007

A previous topic had conversation about dietary influence of acid-base balance. Cathy said it's not scientific - mostly refuted - and the body has elaborate mechanisms to stay in balance. I did some research, and learned the primary mechanism the body uses is through glutamine metabolism.

DigitalNaturopath.com: "The body has an exquisite mechanism for maintaining pH homeostasis. If the pH of the blood is too acidic, more glutamine is directed to the kidneys, where a certain type of glutamine results in the release of bicarbonate ions to correct acidosis. If the pH is too alkaline, more glutamine is sent to the liver, where a different kind of metabolism releases hydrogen ions to correct alkalosis." Also: "Glutamine is the most abundant free amino acid in the serum".

It would seem a meat eater and dairy drinker has the advantage here, in having a better store of glutamine to draw on as a buffer against acid or base swings. A vegetarian may have less glutamine stores to draw on, which may explain their greater interest in dietary effect on acid - base balance. So, quite contrary to what some have claimed, the main influence appears to be glutamine intake, which is found in milk, which provides the body with the its best buffering mechanism. Just my opinion. Duane

 



Dr. David Spitz
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 12/2006
Dr. David Spitz  
 
Posted On Apr 07, 2007
To answer Duane who had a logical response to my comments.

There are additional ways in which the body buffers blood as it gets too acidic. Remember, milk, candy, artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup (the staple of the American diet) are all acidic. Visit Acid Base Chart.

As more acid accumulates in our body, it gets stored and pushed further, and ultimately it gets pushed into the cell. When it gets pushed into the cell, the first thing it does is displace POTASSIUM and then MAGNESIUM and then SODIUM.

Those are three critical minerals in our body. The potassium and magnesium will leave the body, but as a preservation mechanism the sodium will be retained. Remember, the body knows it must place an alkaline molecule in the blood to escort out this increasing acid that is being stored in the tissues and cells. What it will often do (when mineral reserves are low, which is often the case when eating a modern American diet) is draw CALCIUM (the most alkaline mineral known) from the bones and put it into the blood. This leads to something called free calcium excess. It is what's behind osteoporosis, arthritic pain, etc. It is brought about by the body compensating for an ever increasing tissue acidosis somewhere in the body.

By the way...someone asked...Lemons are alkaline. I know it doesn't make sense.


Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 07, 2007
Dr. Spitz - thanks for your response.  I have a question for you.  Knowing the following:
1) the body depletes potassium more easily than sodium.
2) soils are depleted (of potassium I don't know for sure)
3) potassium supplements are capped at 99 mg (3% RDA I think)
I take potassium bicarbonate powder (available by ordering through a compounding pharmacist) and potassium chloride powder (NOW Foods), to the tune of about 1000 mg potassium per day (two separate doses).  I started this for the beneficial effect of potassium on blood pressure, but now believe we may be all deficient in potassium because it is the one mineral that has a very low amount (3% RDA or less) in all supplements, because of safety concerns.

My question to you is: what do you think?  Thanks!  Duane


Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 07, 2007
Cathy -  Good on the "not eating babies" thing!  Ahem... 

Also isn't the calcium in milk in the form of calcium phosphate?  Calcium....Phosphorus....Glutamine....Somehow this whole "milk is the most acidic food" thing is seeming problematic.  Duane


Shelly Dixon Moran
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 4/2007
Shelly Dixon Moran  
 
Posted On Apr 08, 2007
I hear these arguments all the time, but...we aren't cows, just like we aren't rats, or monkeys, or pigs. We cannot metabolize grasses like cows. Also, where should we get calcuium from if we don't get it from dairy? I learned as a child that if you did not keep a certain level of calcium circulating in your blood, your body would leach it from your bones. True or not?

I cannot buy raw milk here in NC, but if I could, I would think it would be an excellent food, and I think Dr. Mercola has stated as such.  If anyone knows where I could get it, please tell. I live in Concord, 30 minutes/miles north of Charlotte.


Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 08, 2007
Shelly Dixon Moran - I don't know where to get raw milk, but you can revitalize pasteurized organic milk by making kefir or yogurt or cultured buttermilk out of it.  Cheese is revitalized, too.  Probably not as good as starting with raw milk, but good lactobacteria and enzymes are back.  Just my opinion (actually Weston A. Price Foundation's opinion).  Duane


helpingheart
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2006
helpingheart  
 
Posted On Apr 10, 2007

Dr Mercola would disagree with Dr David Spitz.

  • It has more nutrients: Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including healthy beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes.

  • People feel the health benefits: Raw milk is not associated with any of the health problems surrounding pasteurized milk such as rheumatoid arthritis, skin rashes, diarrhea and cramps. Even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.

  • It tastes better: As with any food, fresher is always better and this applies to milk as well. Fresh raw milk is creamier and better tasting than pasteurized milk that has a shelf life of several weeks.

Articles: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/09/07/the-expert-are-wrong-about-raw-milk.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/04/24/raw-milk.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/05/24/milk-pregnancy.aspx

http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Time-Magazine-Cites-Mercola-com-as-a-Leader-in-the-Raw-Milk-Movement-7422.aspx

http://www.mercola.com/2005/nov/26/is_there_any_difference_between_organic_pasteurized_milk.htm



helpingheart
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2006
helpingheart  
 
Posted On Apr 13, 2007
Question for Dr. Spitz -

Have you ever drank Raw Milk?  If so how much and for how long?

Sounds like you have not experienced the Benefits for yourself.

Thanks, I look forward to your reply.


captnsaj
Novice User Novice User Joined On 4/2007
captnsaj  
 
Posted On Apr 19, 2007
The best evidence for cows milk being good for humans (very good, infact) is evolution.

In a recent Scientific American article, one of the strongest selection factors in recent human history is lactose!

In a few thousand years, Europeans went from not being able to digest lactose to having over 90% of the population with the lactase gene.  It would only make sense that milk was such a strong survival advantage that people who could drink it were much more successful.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=048C5C9D-E7F2-99DF-3ED2616E392893DB&sc=I100322


Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 19, 2007
captnsaj - that is fascinating.  Adaptation to milk in 8,000 years!  Well, as CathyVM alluded to in an earlier post - some are evolved, and some still need to.. (to be fair, I don't recall if her post had to do with some milk nay-sayer or some fat nay-sayer, or whatever.)  Thanks for that crucial piece of information in helping round out my education.  Duane


terryd1960
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 4/2007
terryd1960  
 
Posted On Apr 20, 2007
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, either, but unless I'm mistaken, the people with the highest incidence of osteoporosis on the planet are Asians, and I don't think they consume a whole lot of dairy products. The issue isn't whether or not to consume dairy products, but to consume them in moderation if you happen to like them, just like any other food, and to eat plenty of non-starchy veggies and moderate amounts of high quality protein, avoiding starches and sugars if you have Type 2 diabetes in your family and tend toward overweight. Every person needs to figure out what kind of diet is best for his or her own body, which can take some experimenting, and can also change as we get older.


TriciaB_203
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 3/2007
TriciaB_203  
 
Posted On Apr 20, 2007
Why do all non-milk drinkers say we are the only species that drinks milk beyond our formative years?  That just simply is NOT TRUE! 
 
I lived on a farm as a child and all 8 of our cats were voracious milk drinkers, and they drank raw cow's milk.  I had a dog who loved cheese and ate it whenever he could get it.  When we skimmed the cream off the top to make butter or whipping cream, the remaining skimmed milk was considered inferior for human consumption and was often added to feed for the hogs and they had no problem consuming it, nor any ill effects from it.  Strangely the same non-fat skimmed milk that used to be considered inferior, is now the milk that is most promoted as healthful by the big food producers, but what's worse is that it is pasteurized. 

Clean raw whole milk is a very healthy food for human consumption and has been for ages.  It's even better when it is cultured.  Even the Mayo Clinic used raw milk for its therapeutic effects for many years as treatment for various illnesses with considerable success.  Having enjoyed the benefits of good health from consuming this wonderful food myself, I simply will not ever be convinced that it is bad for you.   


Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 20, 2007
TriciaB - they say it because they are programmed to say it.  This site is being targeted by people of an ilk that, for starters, do not like milk consumption.  That is something they think has a handle, because of the China Study (easy to refute), and other arguments that are oft repeated.  They are among us, they write posts and answer the posts.  It looks almost happenstance.  In talk  radio they're called "seminar callers".  They are idealogues, and see the milk issue, on such a popular site as Mercola, as an inroad for them.  Some have come and left, some are still among us, some are just popping in.  Their agenda is broader than targeting milk consumption, but it's a convenient start.  Some make clever statements to make us believe otherwise.  I see several angles being tried.  Maybe I'll keep a scorecard and summarize their antics and we can even grade them!  By the way,  I liked your post, TriciaB.  Duane


ukbelle
Novice User Novice User Joined On 4/2007
ukbelle  
 
Posted On Apr 20, 2007
I agree 100% with your comments.

From my own and my children's experience, I have found that excluding dairy from our diet was far healthier for us... Fewer colds, no earaches and coughs and less mucous in the body. But that had to be combined with a more natural, healthy diet.
I also found that my thinking got clearer and faster.


TriciaB_203
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 3/2007
TriciaB_203  
 
Posted On Apr 20, 2007
to terryd1960:  I really like your comments here, especially about moderation and balance in your diet and the fact that everyone is different and we all have differing nutritional needs which can change throughout life.  Thanks for bringing those points to our attention.

to Duane:  I'm glad you enjoyed my post.  I probably sound like a raw milk hawker here, but I'm really not.  I just know that it is very good for me and probably is a very good healthy food for most (not all) people.  It just irritates me when people make sweeping claims and judgements that have no basis in fact about certain foods, using scare tactics to keep people from consuming them.  If milk isn't for you, fine, don't drink it!  But don't say that it isn't good for everyone...that just isn't true!


Loyal Follower
Novice User Novice User Joined On 4/2007
Loyal Follower  
 
Posted On Apr 20, 2007
I am an employee of Horizon Organic and a loyal follower of Dr. Mercola's website since 2001.  The claims again Horizon regarding not grazing our cows are very political, originate from one radical group, and are not based on the real facts.  I highly respect Dr. Mercola, and trust in his articles.  However, this one is based on a rumor intended to hit at a large company simply because it is a large company.  The truth is that Horizon milk is CERTIFIED ORGANIC, and Horizon goes an extra mile above and beyond the requirements for Organic Certification.  You can taste the difference in Horizon Organic milk vs. conventional.  We have a large and growing network of family farms, and our cows are grazed.  Dr. Mercola, if you want to speak with experts at Horizon Organic regarding specific details of our organic certification, or grazing schedules at various farms and dairies, I would be happy to connect you directly with the appropriate people.


Witch Doctor
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 9/2006
Witch Doctor  
 
Posted On Apr 21, 2007
Loyal Follower (employee at Horizon) - Well, well, well... it turns out Walmart, Walgreens and Dean Foods (parent of Horizon Organic) are all major contributors to the Republican Party.

To all - everytime you see a hit piece against WalMart, Walgreens & Horizon - think "hit piece against evil GOP contributor."  Of course there is FOX News, too.

One might wonder if there is payola involved in propogating such hit pieces.  MoveOn,org, George Soros, etc... are paying big bucks in their fight against political freedom.


TriciaB_203
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 3/2007
TriciaB_203  
 
Posted On Apr 21, 2007
To Loyal Follower:

The media is so full of cow-pattie slinging , it's often hard to tell where the REAL deception lies.  Thanks for coming here and giving us the opinion of someone who really knows.  I've purchased Horizon plain yogurt in the past and rather enjoyed it.

Now I have a question for you.  Why in the world does Horizon Organic Ultra-pasteurize good organic milk that they go to all the trouble to get from organic family dairy farms?  I mean doesn't that pretty much defeat the purpose of producing good quality milk?


primate
Novice User Novice User Joined On 4/2007
primate  
 
Posted On Apr 23, 2007
There are many foods with higher calcium levels than milk,  and they are also alkaline as a digestive end product - so no negative net cacium inbalance.  Figs,  oranges,  and sesame seeds come to mind.  Almost all vegetables have abundant calcium.  Nuts and seeds are high in calcium,  as are most fruits.  Look it up for yourself on a nutrition table sometime.


primate
Novice User Novice User Joined On 4/2007
primate  
 
Posted On Apr 23, 2007
   There is no class of animals more closely related to humans in every way  from tooth structure and chewing motions,  to digestive anatomy and chemistry,  even down to such minutia  as the make up of salivary and stomach secretions, as the higher primates called, anatomically, frugivores.   The Bonobo monkey being our closest genetic cousin. (Interestingly, the Bonobos mate face to face).  We differ quite significantly from herbivores and carnivores.  Whether you believe in creation or evolution the  instincts of these animals ensure their habits to be those that most benefit their form and function.   Humans can learn much by studing these animals habits (Pro 6:6).  Instinctively these animals will eat fruits and vegetables,  almost exclusively,  if these foods are in supply.  The silverback gorrilla,  said to be the strongest mammal on earth,   pound for pound,  subsists largely on greens.  I have never heard of a report of a primate anywhere suckling or milking a cow.  In the wild,  these animals all live to an age approx. 7 times their age at maturity ( that would be 120-140 for humans),  active and swinging in trees up until the day of their death.  All of the longest lived peoples on earth,  the Hunzas (Himilaya),  the Vilicabambans(Andes),  the Abkazians (Georgia Russia) ,  ate diets primarily abundant in fruit and vegetables,  with very small amounts of animal foods,  most often goat milk for their cheese , milk and yogart.  In 1976 National Geographic did a great article on this subject.  These people were active and healthy into their hundreds.  Adult cats and dogs that drink milk do so only because it is provided them by humans.  It is not seen in the wild,  except for the small amount they would obtain when eating a whole kill. 


NonToxicMama
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2006
NonToxicMama  
 
Posted On Apr 28, 2007
I think Dr.M should look into what Loyal Follower has to say. I think in most things Wal-MArt is a huge disgrace but I read the Horizon site and this is what they say about it...
http://www.horizonorganic.com/aboutus/press/2007_3_8.html
Are they blatantly lying/deceiving and going unchecked???

I have to wonder.


Dr. David Spitz
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 12/2006
Dr. David Spitz  
 
Posted On Jun 15, 2007
Duane-- sorry for the late answer...i just saw your question....we eat about one tenth the potassium of our paleolithic ancestors and about 10 times the sodium. I think the best way to get potassium in your diet is to eat foods rich in potassium rather than supplementing. Bananas and prunes are two examples...you can look up on google to get more...but the point is, that getting it from the food is the way it was intended and will be best for you. don't add salt to any food and don't go to fast food rest. you'll get enough sodium from food during the week without really trying....

hope this helps

dr dave


Dr. David Spitz
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 12/2006
Dr. David Spitz  
 
Posted On Jun 15, 2007
To answer many of your questions:
  1. I don't drink raw milk and don't plan to
  2. I don't imply we should get our calcium from grass, that's ridiculous. Look at the post below from a smart vital voter to get sources of calcium that are non dairy or look up online yourself.
  3. I know that Dr Mercola pushes raw milk, and this is an area i disagree with him on. I am a free thinker, have been a health practitioner for 25 years, do my own research, study our paleolithic ancestors and sorry, i disagree about the raw milk.
  4. Just because our bodies adapted to lactose by genetically becoming lactose tolerant and those people survived, doesn't mean it is what's best. That's just part of the story. In Africa only 25% are lactose tolerant. The reason the number is higher in European descendants is that that is where dairy agriculture began and has stayed very prevalent, all survived and most Europeans drank milk so their offspring will have genes to adapt...however it doesn't mean healthier...sometimes adaptation causes unintended consequences..for example in Blacks sickle cell anemia is an unintended consequence of trying to adapt to malaria. The unintended consequence of lactose tolerance is osteoporosis if also not buffering blood with lots of veggies and alkaline food.
  5. As far as cats drinking milk on the farm...yes, you gave it to them...think about it!
  6. I am ashamed of those of you that gave negative points to primate for thinking differently than you. This is an area for lively discussion and negative points should be used for comments that don't belong on topic, rude comments etc....not for difference of opinion. I have seen positive points given for ridiculous accolades back and forth between vital voters....just my thoughts...I hope you respect them...even if you disagree.
Dr Dave

PS---for duane...very sorry took me so long to answer you....hope you got the answer.


drold
Novice User Novice User Joined On 4/2007
drold  
 
Posted On Dec 15, 2007

How can your profession be so limited?  Ever read Biochemical Individuality by Roger Williams 1956?  I wonder how so many of you can be so smart, yet so ungrounded in the basics of your chosen profession.  Its an individual level.  We are all diverse biologically.  So most of the research done by the health industry is limited by the fact that you don't control the most important independent variable in your research!  The type of person being studied.  Ever hear of Eskimos? 90% fats and proteins. Go tell a cardiologist your eating a similar diet watch him/her blow their top.  What about the Quechua Indians? Mostly plants.  Both very health in their indigenous lifestyle.  Two very distinct diets.  Seriously what is so hard to understand about that?


 
 
 
Posted On Apr 04, 2007
The desires of an informed sub-segment of the population for “actual, real food” are bound to be subject to something of a long-term tug of war. If anyone truly thought “organic” was all there was to it and the struggle would be over, they’re unfortunately sadly mistaken.

Occasionally, I’ll meet someone and the topic of food will arise.  I’ll offhandedly mention I’m into organics and the typical reaction is, “Oh, you’re one of those organic health nuts!” I then suggest that ALL food was organic a 100 years ago, and the look on their faces is priceless, as you can see the gears turning in their minds.

The industrial process model has been applied to food production.  However, this model works only to a point, and we passed that point several decades ago. A widget manufacturer can save a few cents per widget by shaving input costs here and there, allowing profit to accrue directly to the bottom line, and no one is the wiser or worse for it.  However, apply this method to food long enough and the end product ceases being food, instead becoming a “food-like” product.

The industrial model will pollute the meaning of organic, as that’s what they’ve been doing the last hundred years. They denuded & toxified most “foodstuffs”, while everyone assumed their best interests were always in the forefront. Now they’ll corrupt the meaning of organic, for profit, while simultaneously limiting the possibility of actual, competing “food” replacing the current model.

This is what large corporations do. Life is not the goal. Health is not the goal. Accountability is not even on the radar. Only profit matters. It is the end-all and be-all of all corporations. In many ways, the issue revolves more around how humans organize themselves to conduct business, agribusiness & food processing just being a small (though very critical) part of the bigger picture.

Caveat emptor.

 
Bob2_203
Savvy User Savvy User, Joined On 6/2006
Bob2_203  
Replied

Lynn46
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 12/2006
Lynn46  
 
Posted On Apr 19, 2007
Bob2, congratulations on writing the most balanced and sensible blurb on this particular topic!

Mercola.com readers, as well as other savvy consumers, must now realize that any food or food product labeled "organic" should be viewed as a potential deception. As someone else here pointed out (Dr. Mercola does elsewhere on this site, too), savvy consumers should, as much as possible, look for LOCAL sources of dairy, poultry, meat, and produce, whether or not they are certified as "organic." Getting the so-called organic certification is too expensive and bureaucratic at best for most SMALL farmers.

My suggestion is to find local food co-ops who have gotten to know local farmers and their farming practices, especially with regard to how they feed and treat their farm animals. I have finally found a local food co-op and have just placed my first order for raw milk. I live in Maryland and the farmers local to my area are Amish farmers in Lancaster County, PA. These farmers all abide by traditional, nonchemical farming methods. They treat their land and their animals well. I will also be buying their beef and poultry products in the near future.

I agree with Mercola and think that raw milk is an excellent food. For those of you who eschew even raw milk--well, you are entitled to your opinion. I, for one, am not giving up my intake of dairy products.

As Bob2 so succinctly put it, Caveat Emptor (whether it is food or information)!


Lynn46
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 12/2006
Lynn46  
 
Posted On Apr 19, 2007
Addendum to my previous message:
To be able to sell raw milk products (milk, cheese, yogurt), the farmers supplying my co-op must label the milk products as "for consumption by pets only." They must do this because of restrictive laws in Pennsylvania and Maryland. This same situation exists in most other states.

For those of us who want more widespread access to raw dairy products (as well as nonirradiated meat and poultry), we have a long way to go to change the restrictive state laws. That means a lot of citizen lobbying to educate state legislators and average consumers alike to get these laws changed. Many states have citizen groups who are working on this very issue.

If you are interested in getting involved in this grassroots effort, go the Weston A. Price Foundation web site as a starting point to find a group in your state.


Tinkrmann
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2006
Tinkrmann  
 
Posted On Apr 20, 2007
 

What Bob2 says is depressingly true; but also I would offer that, in 1913, Congressman Lafferty defined a "corporation" as a "quasi-public" entity.

Public entities come under the control of Congress; laws made in the "public interest" or to protect the "public interest" are then, by definition, to protect corporations, not flesh and blood men and women.

Child labor laws are an example of laws that were promulgated in the public interest; let children be idle and not learn the value of work alongside their parents. Dairy laws were and are to protect and/or create the large corporations we have today at the expense of the many "private" dairy farms that once existed.

There were many local dairies here in this relatively small community where I live (approximately 150,000) that sold raw milk to the public from cows that ate grass; they are now all gone. One dairy somewhere in northeast La. comes to a local market twice a week here, and delivers raw milk and real butter in limited quantities. The milk supplies are usually gone by the second day on the shelf.

We are no longer in control of our country and the powers that be are using the food supply as another way to control the masses.

We are, according to some who claim their God-given rights, an occupied country. Laws will become even more restrictive before the end.


 
 
 
Posted On Apr 19, 2007
I have never tasted better milk than that which comes straight from the cow (or the conscientious farmer's bulk tank). I have been very fortunate to find farmers who understand it's importance and health benefits and are willing to take the risk of losing their dairy licenses to make it available (imagine that!) - it has been key in bringing my own health out of the dumpster, and provided unimagined immunity for my children, once weaned. All of that being said, our politicians have found a new way to protect us from ourselves and to keep it out of our hands and diets in the future - YOU NEED TO ACT NOW TO KEEP IT!!! There is a new animal registry program called N.A.I.S (National Animal Identification System). It IS a federal law, that is currently in it's "volunteer" registration phase in most states (individual states can decide to embrace it or not). ALL farm animals (incl. bunnies, chickens, ducks etc.) are now subject to federal regulation whenever used or sold for food production, or if they leave a farm property for ANY reason. Fines will be imposed for those who don't comply (there is a registration fee, per animal, that adds up in a hurry), and tax databases are being mined to provide livestock history for farms and farmettes. Large, a.k.a. "factory" flocks and herds are only required to register as a single group number (it is assumed that they will always have exemplary records, I guess...?). Can you see where this could be going? I encourage you to read up on this in "Countryside & Small Stock Journal", a magazine by and for modern homesteaders - the very people who could be selling you your health-bringing raw milk. They watched it closely as the idea developed, begged for people to fight it through their elected officials, but ultimately didn't have enough numbers to keep it from becoming a reality. It is impossible to overstate how deeply this is going to affect our access to privately-raised and sold meat-and-dairy source foods in the future.

 
vikingbeerlady
Novice User Novice User, Joined On 1/2007
vikingbeerlady