Pasteurization and The "Milk Problem"
Chef Jem replies to the notion that pasteurization corrected the "milk problem" of over a century ago & replies to a more current article supporting that same belief.
Date: 1/24/2012 8:33:06 PM ( 5 y ) ... viewed 1651 times
A viewer at my YouTube station:
"thousands of children died from raw milk at the first part of the last century, thus the pasteurization was created"
Those incidents were consequential to the "milk problem" of that time which was due to the compromised state of those particular "swill" confinement dairy operations and many of the children who were sickened by that inferior milk were healed with the real milk from healthy cows fed their natural healthy diet of green pastures rather than the discarded brewery swill. As long as this context is included in your statement then I can say "Yes, that is essentially true"! But pasteurization needs to be seen as the band-aid that it was at the time and not a real correction of the core problem with these confinement dairies and their terrible conditions, not to mention the God-awful disgusting diet that was fed to these animals!
Update on June 9, 2012 -
Just posted the following at USA Today:
I am very familiar with this kind of reporting about raw milk. Just as in so many reports - the incidents reported need to be seen within a context that is typically missing on these kinds of reports. For instance: "The agency points out that raw milk killed many people - especially young children - before the onset of pasteurization, which kills disease-causing germs by heating milk to high temperatures for a specific period of time." My enlightening DVD: "Raw Milk: The Whole Truth" features Mark McAfee, founder and CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy, the largest raw milk dairy in the country and he (along with Dr. Dale Jacobson, DC) addresses this history and positively identifies the true source of the "milk problem". It's a must hear (IMO) and especially if you have any concerns about "potential danger".
I have four video clips at You Tube from this video. I also have quotes at my blog on raw milk. In a nutshell the larger context is that there are actually two milks and the origination of the two milks goes back before pasteurization to shortly after the war of 1812. The "milk problem" that "killed many people - especially young children" was from milk that came from cows who were fed "distillery slop" (and worse) which caused malnourishment in the cows. On top of that the utterly despicable environmental conditions of the cows (who were confined to living in their own waste) was a natural breeding ground for things that are not found in green pastures. Consequently the milk that these poor animals produced under completely unsanitary conditions was a formula for disaster and there were a lot of disasters!
However, at the very same time that these disasters were occurring in New York (and other big cities of that era) milk from Amish farmers and the like was being giving to cure the sick people suffering the consequences of the "other milk"! In other words it is not simply a matter of "raw milk" but it is wholly a matter of the health and care of the cow and that is especially a matter of whether or not they are in their natural environment of green pastures. Any "reporter" pointing a finger at any "milk problem" who doesn't consider all the conditions of the milk source and how to distinguish between "the two milks" is simply blowing smoke into their readers eye.:
In addition to the above (that I originally wrote to my cousin whom I am introducing raw milk to) I also wrote:
Another quote from the article:
"The intensity with which raw milk supporters believe in this product is almost unheard of, certainly for a food," said Sarah Klein, an attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's like snake oil."
First re: "the intensity" reported here it needs to be seen in it's true context (just like "the milk problem" itself). The fact is there is an armed war being waged by the federal government against the right to choose healthy foods and that is focused in large part on raw milk (documented by film: Farmagedon http://farmageddonmovie.com/).
Therefore the "intensity" deserves to be seen in this light of the governmental attack/s against the Rights of the people! Access to food is certainly a large part of this but it is actually (virtually) all about our Rights (food Rights and more, some of which I have addressed in other blogs and may add links here).
Then there is "snake oil". (Very interesting that today is "4 Serpent" in the Mayan calendar!) "The phrase snake oil is as a derogatory term used to describe quackery, the promotion of fraudulent or unproven medical practices.":
Leave to "an attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest" to declare: "It's like snake oil."! There is a saying: "it takes one to know one". I'd first like to know What part of "snake oil" actually pertains to raw milk? Looks like I may have to slither my way in locating the attorney and ask her myself.
Update - July 5, 2012 -
"In 1985, a Chicago salmonella outbreak linked to post-pasteurization contamination of milk at a single Illinois dairy plant caused 16,000 illnesses and several deaths."
I intend to search for the cite in "A Closer Look at Dairy Safety," FDA Consumer, Vol. 20, No. 3, April, 1987, p. 14.
Has anyone ever heard of any "salmonella outbreak" incidents of that magnitude involving raw, pasture-fed, whole milk in 1987 or at any time within twenty-five years of that date? Neither have I!
Moments later - I do not know whether or not I'll be able to find the article (that is cited above) based on the following:
"FDA Consumer was a magazine published from 1967 through 2007 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). From 1967 to 1972 it was known as FDA Papers before changing title to FDA Consumer with v.6 #6 (July/August 1972).
The journal's stated focus was to provide 'in-depth information on how to get healthy and stay healthy'. Copies were distributed to depository libraries which selected to receive it. FDA Consumer ceased publication with v.41 #2 (March-April 2007), though existing articles continue to be updated.":
Wow, "in-depth information on how to get healthy and stay healthy"! I have been searching for the truth of getting "healthy", etc. since 1971. I wonder why, in all of my many searches, I have never once come across a single shred of information that recognized anything about "how to get healthy and stay healthy" that was published by the "FDA Consumer"? Now I am all the more intrigued as to the contents these publications.
A little later - I began to feel hopeful when I found this site with a page: "Most Recent Articles from FDA Consumer":
However, although they list three:
"FDA Consumer: Issues from 1987
Dec 1, 1987, Nov 1, 1987, Mar 1, 1987" there is nothing listed for the one that I am searching for that was published in April of that year! Isn't that interesting? And I don't see any contact information on that page otherwise I'd be writing to them right now asking about the April issue!
Well, at least there is some record about the outbreak in Chicago and that it is another indication that pasteurization doesn't assure healthy milk. In fact, it's appears to me as if pasteurization is the modern-day milk problem!
Later still - In one of the issues I read about the FDA's interstate raw milk ban: "FDA has banned the interstate shipment of raw milk because of the product's role in transmitting diseasecausing bacteria such as Salmonella.":
It goes on further to say: "FDA proposed the ban in June in response to an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after a suit was brought by the Public Citizen Health Research Group."
This is all the more curious that an order by the "U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia" would be the apparent source for the FDA proposal! Is this an expansion under "color of law" or what? I wonder whether or not any other American has looked at this from the perspective of the Organic Laws. More to search.
One more entry for today -
In my search for "FDA Consumer archives" here was an ad for FDA answers that I clicked on and thought it actually was part of the FDA. I wrote a question asking how do I access the April '87 issue. Then this site had a price of $15.00 to submit my question. I proceeded. The next page asked for my payment information and claimed they would only take a $1.00 deposit and take the balance of the payment after I got the answer. I choose PayPal. Then it was about to transfer me to PayPal and I realized that my simple, non-medical question, that doesn't require a doctor to answer, was about to cost me $15. and I cancelled that process and closed the tab on that!
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!