Milk Debate Image Gallery
Last 30 Uploads
InCharge
8 y
752
(NaturalNews) For the past several years, as it rose in popularity, "raw" milk – that is, milk that has not undergone pasteurization – has been heavily criticized as being unclean, disease-ridden and dangerous to consume. But a growing body of research and evidence suggests that pasteurizing milk may actually be robbing us of vital protection against major allergic conditions, as well as destroying many nutrients that contribute to much better health, the UK's Daily Mail Online reports.
While raw milk can be legally purchased from farmers, milk sold in retail stores must be pasteurized – that is, a process by which milk is heated to about 162 degrees F for 25 seconds, in order to remove any E.coli and other potentially lethal pathogens like salmonella.
But the process may also be destroying vital nutrients that protect us from a range of sicknesses and ailments, as well as allergies in children and adults.
The Mail Online further reported that a study involving more than 1,100 children by pediatric allergy specialists at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany, found that kids who regularly consumed unpasteurized milk had a much lower risk of developing allergic asthma.
The Daily Mail also noted:
"The findings of this large-scale, long-term (six-year) study are in line with earlier, smaller studies. But the German study also points to omega 3 fatty acids as the substance in raw milk that may be key to the benefits. Tabea Brick, one of the immunologists who led the research, says that these play a crucial role in enabling the body to create chemicals that reduce harmful inflammation."
Essentially, asthma is an inflammatory allergic reaction in the lungs' airways.
"Fresh, unprocessed cow's milk has a higher content of omega 3 than does pasteurised, homogenised [where it's treated to stop the cream separating] or low-fat milk," she wrote in this month's edition of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. "This factor partly explains why children who consume the unprocessed product are less likely to develop asthma."
While our bodies don't produce omega 3 fatty acids, they can nevertheless come from foods like fish and dairy products (though raw dairy is much better for you). Still, the authors of the German study decided not to actually recommend that consumers switch to unpasteurized milk due to bacterial concerns.
So, instead, the researchers are urging milk producers to developing processing techniques that are far less aggressive than pasteurization so that all the beneficial components in milk are protected and preserved while still eliminating pathogens.
In the United States, raw milk producers have become the target of various federal and state government agencies whose interests are motivated more by outside lobbying groups than by giving the American people the freedom to choose whatever form of milk they wish to consume.
One of these farmers is raw milk producer David Hochstetler who – after six years of being hassled by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Justice – is finally free to do what he does, which is raise livestock and produce a wonderfully pure, organic dairy product.
As reported by NewsTarget, Hochstetler, of rural Middlebury, Ind., began being harassed by federal officials after they suspected his farm of being the source of a 2010 bacteria outbreak in Michigan. However, an investigation by a county sheriff failed to yield evidence substantiating those claims. He was defended by his local sheriff, who warned federal officials of consequences – including arrest – if they continued to search Hochstetler's property without a proper, constitutional, court-issued warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment.
What's the government's real problem with raw milk anyway? According to Economics 21, it is born of an irrational – and incorrect – view of the product:
"The CDC states that 'While it is possible to get foodborne illnesses from many different foods, raw milk is one of the riskiest of all.' Yet newly-released CDC data show that, from 2007 to 2012, there were a total of 81 reported outbreaks associated with unpasteurized milk and that these outbreaks resulted in 979 illnesses, 73 hospitalizations, and 0 deaths. Over a five-year period of relatively wide consumption, raw milk did not kill a single person, even though it is estimated that in California alone 100,000 people drink raw milk weekly."
Sources:
DailyMail.co.uk
NewsTarget.com
NaturalNews.com
Science.NaturalNews.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053511_raw_milk_pasteurization_allergies.html#ixzz44mVA3Yj0
White Tiger
18 y
43,554
irisheyes2
18 y
5,402
RN Dquixote1217
15 y
18,750
† C †
Though not new, I had never seen this video posted anywhere before.
FOX NEWS Reporters (Reporters Steve Wilson & Jane Akre) uncovered the fact that most of the Milk in the USA and across some parts of the world is unfit to drink due to Monsanto Corporation's POSILAC®, which has been proven to be a cancer-causing growth hormone.(known in short as "BGH" "BST" or "rBGH" ), but they were fired for trying to tell people the truth.
This is a nonpartisan video that shows the lengths some will go to further their agendas. It ends with a Florida judge ruling that the news doesn't need to be true. This video is not doom and gloom or conjecture about what could happen, because it did happen. And I'm sure it's not just Fox that has these policies.
Add This Forum To Your Favorites!
Challenge the message and not the messenger!
The first person to resort to name calling and personal attacks automatically loses the debate!
Personal attack is often the best indication that the writer knows his logic is flawed and therefore tries to deflect attention by attacking the opponent, instead of attacking the arguments of the opponent.
Forum Stats:
forum viewed 455,564 times
230 messages
66 topics
topics per page limited to: 8
average number of messages per page: 29
8 pages
CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with www.netatlantic.com
Copyright 1999 - 2024 www.curezone.org