FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Fresh milk is illegal and you cannot take milk from your own cow!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
The fight for fresh real food that sustains our bodies is going on now in many countries. In fact a few years ago in Michigan lawmakers tried to make it illegal for farmers and their families to drink their own fresh milk straight from their animals and now the fight is coming to a head in both Kentucky and Ohio:
 
Quote: KENTUCKY AND OHIO: RAW MILK BATTLEGROUND
by Sally Fallon and Pete Kennedy
A lot is happening in Kentucky and Ohio, starting with two unfortunate incidents—an undercover sting operation and a police raid—with silver linings in the form of pending legislation to legalize the sale of raw milk in both states.
UNDERCOVER ENTRAPMENT Amish dairy farmer Arlie Stutzman won a victory on April 17 when Judge Thomas D. White denied the motion of the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) for a default judgment against him in a hearing at the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas. If the judge had granted the ODA’s motion, the Court would have ordered a permanent injunction against Arlie, restraining him from violating the Ohio Dairy Code and the Administrative Rules adopted thereunder. ODA had originally filed for a preliminary and a permanent injunction against him on Dec. 19, 2005. Judge White had granted the preliminary injunction on January 17, 2006; and ODA had filed a default judgment motion on March 15 to obtain the permanent injunction when Arlie had failed to file an answer to the initial motion as required by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Arlie filed a response to the motion for default judgment on April 14. At the hearing Judge White ruled that the filing was a sufficient answer to the ODA’s initial motion and set a June 30 date for a final hearing on the merits of ODA’s motion for a permanent injunction.
The dispute in this case arose from a transaction on September 20, 2005 when Arlie accepted two dollars from an ODA undercover agent after providing him with a gallon of milk in an unlabeled container furnished by the agent. ODA claims the transaction was a sale that violated state and federal labeling laws. Arlie claims that the money he accepted was a donation and that he only took the money after the agent persisted in asking what he wanted for the milk. The incident garnered several newspaper reports which cast the ODA in a very bad light.
In denying ODA’s motion for a default judgment, Judge White stated that several legal issues would be considered before the Court at the June 30 hearing:
1. Was the transaction a sale or a donation? If the transaction was a donation, it would not fall under the Ohio Dairy Code and would, therefore, be outside the jurisdiction of the ODA.
2. Did the actions of the ODA agent constitute entrapment? Even if the transaction was a sale, the judge could deny the motion for a permanent injunction if there was an entrapment. Arlie claims he would not have accepted two dollars for the milk had it not been for the actions of the agent.
3. Do the ODA’s actions violate Arlie’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion? At the April 17 hearing Arlie (who represented himself) cited several passages from the Bible in support of his belief that he has a religious duty to provide food to those in need. He claimed an injunction would penalize him for obeying the teachings of his religion in giving food to those in need who ask for it.
On the same day as the hearing, the ODA made a surprise move by issuing Arlie a Grade A dairy license. Previously, he had held a Grade B license (allowing him to sell his milk for cheese), which he had maintained without a single penalty or customer complaint for over 12 years until the ODA revoked it following an administrative hearing on February 8. ODA moved to issue the Grade A license after public outrage over Arlie’s treatment. Less than six weeks earlier, before the ODA had realized the public anger over their actions in this case, an ODA inspector had told Arlie that he would not be able to obtain even a Grade B license unless that license was issued in the name of either his wife or his son.
We’ll be watching this case carefully as several important legal issues are involved.
THE POLICE ACT TOUGH Gary and Dawn Oaks of Double O Farms in Verona, Kentucky, started a cow-share program in 2004 and have seen it grow to over 100 families. On March 6, 2006, just after noon, Gary pulled into St. Bernard’s Church parking lot in Cincinnati, Ohio to deliver milk to waiting shareholders. He proceeded to unlock the back door of his trailer of his vehicle when suddenly several policemen and agriculture officials from Kentucky and Ohio stormed up, blocking access to the shareholders. The police officers told the shareholders not to touch the milk—the “white liquid substance” as they called it—and refused to give identification when shareholders asked for it.
“Shut up, this doesn’t concern you,” was their response. When some of the shareholders tried to explain that this did concern them, that they were being denied access to the milk from their own cows, the response was the same—rude and intimidating.
The officials took Gary to the other side of the parking lot and would not let shareholders get close to him. When some shareholders tried to go to their cars, parked near Gary’s truck, the officers shouted “Get away from the trailer!” So the shareholders—mothers and children—continued to observe. Inside the car, the police browbeat Gary, attempting to make him confess that he was selling raw milk.
Gary then came out from one of the police cars and the shareholders started to walk toward him to offer support. His face was bright red and he looked ill. “Gary, you don’t have to tell them anything,” said one witness. “You don’t have to say a word until you talk to your lawyer.”
For her pains, one officer got close to her face and said, “Look lady, shut up.”
Gary was taken into another car while officials transferred the items from Gary’s trailer to official state vehicles. Witnesses could see that Gary looked very ill and on the point of collapse. But their requests to the police to call 911 were met with derision. “I am 911, so shut the hell up,” shouted one officer.
However, one shareholder did call 911 on her cell phone. By this time, Gary was lying down on the cold, wet cement next to a police car. The ambulance arrived a few minutes later and took Gary away.
A VENDETTA Following the incident, Gary has checked into the hospital several times with undisclosed difficulties. At an informal hearing convened by the Kentucky Milk Safety Board, the Oaks were told that they or their shareholders could only consume their milk on the property—anyone carrying the milk away would be subject to criminal charges.
Shortly thereafter, however, Kentucky officials took a softer tack, promising to “study the issue,” which means that the Kentucky Cabinet for Health Services is conducting an internal investigation to determine whether they have jurisdiction over herd shares.
It turns out that the Oaks had been the subject of intense harassment from a neighbor for several years and that the two Kentucky dairy officials involved in the raid had been egged on by the same neighbor. Both the Oaks and the shareholders are considering their legal options and the cow share program continues unimpeded. Shareholders have helped with the milking and chores during Gary’s illness.
While the state of Kentucky is holding off for the moment, the state of Ohio sent the Oaks a certified letter on May 25 stating that the state is considering legal action against Gary related to the raid on March 6. The first step in this process is an administrative hearing.
Donations to help defray legal and medical expenses would be most welcome and can be sent to Double O Farm, 14340 Brown Road, Verona, Kentucky 41092.
AGENCY SUPPORT Meanwhile, proponents for legislation to legalize raw milk in Kentucky, headed by Ben Abell of the Community Farm Alliance, testified at two House Agriculture Committee hearings. The legislators were enthusiastic about the idea of legalizing raw milk sales under certain guidelines; many of them grew up on farms and told stories of consuming raw milk themselves.
On the second day of testimony, a Kentucky Department of Agriculture spokesman said that his agency was aware of consumer demand for raw milk and raw milk products and realized the opportunity this presented to Kentucky’s small farms. He announced that the department would conduct a series of meetings in order to recommend legislation for legalizing raw milk sales in the next session.
Surprisingly, a spokesperson for the Health Department stated that the agency was committed to working with the agriculture department to evaluate whether raw milk sales could be made legal while maintaining adequate requirements to protect the public health. So the odds of legalizing raw milk sales in Kentucky look good. Stay tuned.
THE OHIO HEARING Ohio officials are proceeding carefully after negative publicity over ODA tactics. They had begun proceedings against a large cow share program in southern Ohio after two raw-milk-drinking individuals from two different families in the Dayton area suffered from campylobacter infection in January. (No other shareholders reported any illness.) Resistance from the shareholders to requests for information has led to a standoff for the moment. The shareholders are ably represented by attorney David Cox.
All eyes are now focused on House Bill 534, the “Raw Milk” bill, which had its first hearing on May 10. Over 170 supporters of raw milk heard Warren Byles, Executive Director of the Raw Milk Organization of Ohio, Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy, attorney David Cox, Ohio dairy farmer Paul Schmitmeyer and Carol Goland, Executive Director of the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, testify on the health, safety and economic benefits of Nature’s Perfect Food.
Particularly impressive was a presentation by Marilynn Anater, senior and co-valedictorian at Lehman Catholic High School in Sidney, Ohio, who described the results of her science fair project entitled “The Nutritional Content of Bovine Milk: A Comparative Analysis.” Her project, which received an award from the Ohio Department of Agriculture, described chemical analyses used to demonstrate the denaturing of proteins and sugars in pasteurized milk.
Several moving testimonials followed and word from the corridors is that the legislators were impressed. The Raw Milk Organization of Ohio is well organized and cautiously optimistic about the passage of the raw milk bill along with an end to strong arm tactics against Ohio dairy farmers.
I am restarting this thread because I wish not to be a cause backbiting and insults but in the hope that we as Catholics can have a civilized discussion on the topic.
 
RULES of the thread:

  1. No backbiting, no insults, no sins of the tongues whatsoever.
  2. You must read all sources given to refute your post/response and debunk them (if possible) in a proper and clear manner (the format of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa would be great).
  3. No dismissing any sources whatsoever wherever they come from.
  4. You must believe truth is truth and that it does not need to be peer-reviewed to be reputable.
Thank you!
 
---
As well I'd like to bring up an economic issue surrounding raw milk. It helps family farms stay alive and sustainable for generations to come. Next time you buy store-bought pasteurized milk remember that the average U.S. farmer only gets $0.60 per gallon of milk if not less, and about $1.00/gal for organic.
 
Catholicmilkman Wrote:I am restarting this thread because I wish not to be a cause backbiting and insults but in the hope that we as Catholics can have a civilized discussion on the topic.
 
RULES of the thread:

  1. No backbiting, no insults, no sins of the tongues whatsoever.
  2. You must read all sources given to refute your post/response and debunk them (if possible) in a proper and clear manner (the format of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa would be great).
  3. No dismissing any sources whatsoever wherever they come from.
  4. You must believe truth is truth and that it does not need to be peer-reviewed to be reputable.
Thank you!
 
---
As well I'd like to bring up an economic issue surrounding raw milk. It helps family farms stay alive and sustainable for generations to come. Next time you buy store-bought pasteurized milk remember that the average U.S. farmer only gets $0.60 per gallon of milk if not less, and about $1.00/gal for organic.
 
  And don't get me, an old farm boy started on egg prices: the price paid the family farmer (if he can find a buyer if he doesn't own an egg factory, that is) vs. the price paid in the grocery store!
jovan66102 Wrote:
Quote:As well I'd like to bring up an economic issue surrounding raw milk. It helps family farms stay alive and sustainable for generations to come. Next time you buy store-bought pasteurized milk remember that the average U.S. farmer only gets $0.60 per gallon of milk if not less, and about $1.00/gal for organic.
  And don't get me, an old farm boy started on egg prices: the price paid the family farmer (if he can find a buyer if he doesn't own an egg factory, that is) vs. the price paid in the grocery store!
  It's not just eggs and milk but everything save grass/pasture fed products. The Campaign for Real Milk and www.eatwild.com are helping with that though; the family farm, whose co-op I'm trying to get into, gets equivalent to $5/gal. That could help family farms if only all the other industries could sustain themselves. Sadly they can't it seems.
catholicmilk man,

you are indeed breaking your rules. You are not seeking the truth...you are covering it up. I foolishly did not save ny of my posts. I never insulted anybody personally, something that you and jleight cannot claim with honestly.

You removed my posts after they so throughly dicredited yours. I was right about the hand, the pasturization process, and I was right about putting the issue of raw milk into its persepctive in the whole discusion.

Needless to say, I am not going to post in this thread any longer. I have learned that at least some of the mods of FE lack intellecual integrity.
Rules of the forum:
Quote: Rule #9: Don't ever delete your own posts (a capacity posters have, sadly). If you want to edit, then edit, but deletion of posts is now reserved to moderators. Why? Because deleting the first post of a thread deletes the entire thread
argaddini Wrote:catholicmilk man,

you are indeed breaking your rules. You are not seeking the truth...you are covering it up. I foolishly did not save ny of my posts.

 
Because posts are mailed to me, I will reproduce what I can salvage below.
 
Quote:Needless to say, I am not going to post in this thread any longer. I have learned that at least some of the mods of FE lack intellecual integrity.
 
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean there is a lack of intellectual integrity -- and saying there is such a lack is insulting.
 
Anyway, the posts I could salvage:
 

 
Thank you Jleigh for this post.
 
It incidentally drives home one of my points with information I was unaware of. Insulin Growth Factor is a protein hormone. It is NOT denatured by pasteurization, as you point out! In fact, IGF is found in human milk, too! All milk contains hormones. There is not such thing as hormone free milk. Hormones are those few proteins that may be absorbed by the intestines. I mentioned that a few proteins (and steroid hormones too) can be absorbed by the body, but this is rare.
 
I decided to do some research on IGF and what I found out it is pretty unexciting. It’s not a big deal. May I direct the humble readers of FE to the following links…
 
The single most prestigious journal in science has spoken on the matter, Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...9/4971/875
 
From JAMA:
http://www.igf-1-and-milk.com/PDF/NIH%20JAMA.pdf
 
From American Academy of Pediatrics Journal:
http://www.igf-1-and-milk.com/PDF/PEDIATRICS-92.pdf
 
Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine
http://www.igf-1-and-milk.com/PDF/Baylor.pdf
 
Even Consumer Reports says IGF is not a big deal (January, 2000 Vol. 65, No. 1; Pg. 34). You have to pay for this, sadly.
 
I would recommend that readers not entertain any articles from advocacy groups, quacks, or other biased sources. The sources I cite are prestigious, relatively current (none are more than 16 years old, sorry, there is no reason to delved back to the 60s to find information as one poster opined), and have authority. With authority comes responsibility. If the FDA does something stupid, people get angry, jobs get lost, etc. If a quack does something stupid, nobody cares. This is because not many people are fooled by quacks and when they are they deny it. Quacks have nothing to lose from their quackery.
 
Indeed, the conditions of most non-organic dairy farms may be terrible, but I am sure that some organic ones are terrible as well. I am SURE that some organic farms are terrible because I frequent disgusting Amish run farms in Southwestern Wisconsin. I am pretty sure I contracted diarrhea from eating raw milk from one of these wretched farms.
 
If you know a clean and sanitary organic farm by all means buy raw milk from it! But if it is one of those terrible hormone-pumped, unsanitary, cruel corporate farms, give me pasteurization!
 
Let’s for a moment entertain the notion that milk hormones cause early menarche in girls. There is some evidence (something I can’t say for milk hormones) that artificial lighting does the same. Does this mean that we should ban milk or artificial lights?
 
I suppose it’s all a balance. Eating super fresh clean organic raw milk may be better than your typical milk (I seriously doubt this), but how much better? Does it justify the cost and inconvenience? For me, it does not. I only drink $2/gallon skim pasteurized homogenized fortified factory milk. Right next to it in the freezer is “organic” milk that costs $5/gallon. I am sorry, but I am not willing to shell out that much more for milk that is probably not much better for you. I am a single man. If I had 8 children to feed, I would be 800% less likely to shell out that money. The same reasoning applies to so many things.
 
Smoking is bad for you. This is an obvious scientific fact far more clear than the decisions between organic milk and regular milk. I do not smoke because the enjoyment I would get from it would not compensate for its cost and health hazards. Many people do smoke. It’s their choice.
 
There are so many things that are more worrisome than milk. Most highly processed foods have bad oils in them, too much salt, and have little nutrition. People don’t get enough fiber, drink enough water, and nurse their babies. Did you know that cloth diapers are better for babies than plastic? Should we start railing against huggies? Automobiles have probably been the most pernicious factor to health in the last 50 years or so. We walk less. The cars have changed our lifestyle immeasurably for the worse. Fast food, long commutes, road rage, accidents! Should we do like the Amish do? Now that’s a topic worthy of some discussion!
 

 
I am quite sure that the "beneficial bacteria" in the raw milk did not cause my runs, Sophia. I am not sure if it was the milk or the beaver, either. I eat plenty of raw vegetables (and dirt when I was a kid), and I am sure that my intestinal flora is quite robust. My family can testify to this. You don’t want to know how I know this, either. ;-)
 
JLeigh have cited two advocacy groups. As far as I can tell there is no peer review, and they are not really open to any criticism. I am dismissing them for a good REASON. If you gave me a reason for dismissing my sources, then I would be far more willing to budge. But your only reason so far is speculation of conspiracy. Indeed, they are not infallible sources. There was a big scandal at Nature this year over a dispute with Encyclopedia Britannica, but over time they have been stellar compared to others. The only man made product that is infallible is Papal Dogma issued under very specific circumstances (ex cathedra, on matters of the faith, etc.).
 
If you think JAMA is in bed with “big pharma” then why does their editor publish articles criticizing for-profit medicine on a repeated basis? If you think JAMA has a bias (and they do) then I don’t want to know what kind of bias Cancer Prevention Coalition, Inc. has. Could it be that Cancer Prevention Coalition, Inc. sees cancer everywhere? Also, I would appreciate it if you could provide links.
 
I live in Chicago, and I have my entire life. I do not recall this salmonella outbreak ever happening. I would like sources.
 

 
JLeigh, you were the one who moved from raw milk discussion to the IGF, not me.
 

 
Catholicmilkman,
 
You are personally attacking me.
 
the human hand is composed of whole cells. whole cells are destroyed by heat for the reasons I stated. most proteins are not. In fact the dreaded IGF PROTEIN that jLeight is so uptight about is one of those protiens NOT DENATURED BY PASTURIZATION.
 
Please read what I wrote instead of attacking me.
 

 
I did provide relevant documentation from reputable sources. Something I have not seen anybody else do in this thread.
 
The argument against pasteurization is basically that it somehow makes food unhealthful because heat somehow completely destroys the nutritional value of the milk. At least one person has claimed that it is SO BAD that it MAY SLOWLY KILL a person. I have two points to make.
 
1 Time is slowing killing me…should I rail against time? Should I stop drinking beer? Eating sugar? This whole line of thinking reeks of puritanical thinking. I am sad to see that Catholics are falling victim to it.
 
2 Cooking probably destroys more nutrition in food than pasteurization does (because cooking involves greater temperatures and longer amounts of time). Does this mean we should only eat raw foods? I am sure that cooking meat reduces some of its vitamin content. Should we eat raw meat? I suppose you can if it’s fresh enough. The same goes for milk and I have said this before. Raw milk is great if you can get if fresh and from a farm with cows that are healthy. Most people, like me, live in cities. Good Raw milk is harder to come by, and it will always cost more because of its shorter shelf life and greater thermal sensitivity. The alleged health benefits are not compelling enough for me to pay significantly more for raw milk.
 
Of course digestive denaturization is very different than pasteurization. THIS WAS MY POINT. The denuration that occurs in pasteurization does not occur to as great as an extent and it is largely undone. It involved only temperature. Digestion involved enzymes, acids, and salts which all act to denature protein far more thoroughly!
 
Quackery is a harmful and pernicious thing. I for one do not believe that pasteurized milk is harmful or significantly less nutritious compared to raw milk. I resent people who try to convince other people that raw milk is so great when it is not. It is deceptive. It also wastes money. Some people may even be tempted to drink unfresh or unclean raw milk which will surely be worse than drinking the pasteurized milk. This is what happened to me on my friend’s farm, possibly.
 
The insistence on reading seriously out of date scientific material is bizarre. Do you realize that we did not even know weather DNA or protein contained hereditary information in the 1930s? For the last 80 years doctors have waffled on what’s good for you…are eggs bad or good, etc? Doctors used to prescribe organ meat and lard to people in the 30s for ailments! What doctor would do that now? Would you like me to perform surgery based upon a 1902 manual? What folly! Let’s get out the bleeding cups and humor reading instruments!
 

 
There is a world of difference between white bread and pasturized milk. White bread has practically all the fiber and the more nutritions parts of the plant rendered out. Pastrized milk is simply milk that has been pasturized. Somtimes it is even fortified with additional vitamins.
 

 
Jleigh,
 
I must renege in my vow to let you have the last word, but what you write just steams me because you seem to simply ignore what I SAY.
 
You still have not provided me a reason why your sources are better than mine or even equal. It is clear that I discredited your sources and you do not critically read them. See above for proof of this.
 
I never said that raw milk was bad. I said the Ohio authorities were wrong to limit choice twice. I never wanted to deny anybody his or her freedom and never suggested so. Yes, the urge to excise all less than perfectly healthful is puritanical. I stated this before, we all have to make choices about what we do, eat, etc. I do not think whatever benefits there may be to raw milk (I doubt there are any) justify the additional cost. I choose to drink what I want, and criticize what you write, namely that raw milk is better.
 
I have not contradicted myself. If you would read more carefully you would see that cooking involves greater temperatures and distinctly changes the composition of food. This is why food tastes so different after cooking but pasteurized milk tastes hardly any different from raw. I have had both, so don’t claim there is some huge difference in taste. THERE IS NOT! Pasteurization is mild compared to most forms of cooking. My overall point is that going by your line of reasoning we should stop cooking food and pasteurizing milk and all eat raw food and raw milk all the time.
 
I never said it was ok for farmer to go to jail over drinking his or her own milk. Furthermore NONE OF THE REPUTABLE JORNALS SAID RAW MILK WAS BAD! They didn’t say this because it is nonsense. Raw milk is fine if fresh, clean, etc. I called you on this attempt at straw man argument before. Now you are engaging in try-to-exhaust-the-opponent strategies.
 
I stated my reasons for fighting quackery before. I am not repeating them. I never brought breast milk up before. Furthermore, breast milk is obviously fresh and from a human. Raw cow’s milk is far less fresh, depending on the time from teat to mouth (as I have said before). Plus, it is from a cow. The composition of the milk is different and so are so many other things. Please stop changing the subject. You did this already with IGH, which you seem to have abandoned now. What’s next?
 
You cannot cough up one reputable source showing raw milk is better. NOT ONE. I on the other hand coughed up an ample supply of widely read and respected sources that no reasonable person disputes, which do not have outright bias or monetary gain, attached. There are reasons why mine are better than yours. You should consider this rather than attack me. Notice how I never disparaged your intelligence or called you a quack or called you arrogant. You and catholicmilkman use ad homin attacks with too much liberality.
 
Waffling…ha! I was demonstration how silly it is to rely on the opinion of doctors that lived 80 years ago. Today we know more. We are not in perfect knowledge and never will be, but we know more than we did 80 years ago. Speaking of waffling…you still have not recanted the post you made earlier that proved stated that IGF from milk in cows does not absorb into the human bloodstream. You have also not awknoledged the fact that I was right in that many (most in fact) proteins survive the pasteurization process intact.
 
I never once acted as though modern medicine is perfection. I always carefully qualified my arguments and demonstrate that they are not infallible. This is something you do not do.
 
We are an unhealthy nation because we are a bunch of fat decadent slobs. We don’t walk anywhere or work with our bodies. We sit in front of a screen for hours end. Yes, this forum is bad for us!
 
As I stated before (“do like the Amish do”), we should be discussing how the automobile and modern ways of life affect our health. Modern medicine is perhaps the only thing that has come about in the last 50 years that actually helps human health! We survive heart attacks, cancer, infections, and injuries with an unprecedented rate. We survive childbirth and infancy with such a much higher rate that it dramatically affects the average lifespan!
 
People are not getting cancer at a higher rate than ever. It is simply that people are living longer and not dying of influenza, TB, and phenominia like they did years ago. Do you know anything about cancer and how difficult it is to work with? It is a very puzzling disease. Diabetes is an epidemic because people eat too much. Allergies are puzzling phenomena, and one that should be studied. I suspect that the high-levels of cleanliness that we experience as children are what cause are allergic sensitivities as adults, but I am not sure.
 
I do not believe doctors are Gods either. I certainly do not approve of their rampant prescription of questionable medicine (Ritalin, contraceptives to stop menstrual pain, etc). I don’t approve of abortion either. I use my own brain to make arguments, but I recognize that I am not an expert at everything.
I have reposted my last post below, in response to argaddini's last post.
 
BTW: As has already been pointed out, not agreeing with you does not equal intellectual dishonesty.
_________________________
 
Quote:Jleigh,I must renege in my vow to let you have the last word, but what you write just steams me because you seem to simply ignore what I SAY.You still have not provided me a reason why your sources are better than mine or even equal. It is clear that I discredited your sources and you do not critically read them. See above for proof of this.

Ah yes, I remember how you discredited my sources. You came into this thread and announced that they gave off that "quackery" odor, therefore you were proclaiming them disreputable. I hadn't realized it was so easy.
 
Quote:I never said that raw milk was bad. I said the Ohio authorities were wrong to limit choice twice. I never wanted to deny anybody his or her freedom and never suggested so. Yes, the urge to excise all less than perfectly healthful is puritanical.

For the record, I must state that you don't have a single clue as to how I conduct my health (other than that I *gasp* drink raw milk), so that means you can't make an educated guess about whether or not it's "puritanical".

Quote:I stated this before, we all have to make choices about what we do, eat, etc. I do not think whatever benefits there may be to raw milk (I doubt there are any) justify the additional cost. I choose to drink what I want, and criticize what you write, namely that raw milk is better.
 
That's what I'm doing too. I'm choosing to drink what I want AND I'm criticizing what you write, namely that the government can make milk as good for you as God can.

Quote:I have not contradicted myself. If you would read more carefully you would see that cooking involves greater temperatures and distinctly changes the composition of food. This is why food tastes so different after cooking but pasteurized milk tastes hardly any different from raw. I have had both, so don’t claim there is some huge difference in taste. THERE IS NOT!

First of all, the way a food tastes after cooking is not an accurate indication of its nutritional value. Second of all, the way raw milk tastes is entirely dependant on the type of cow it comes from. Shorthorns have a very high milk output and lower butterfat content, while Jersey cows have a lower milk output and high butterfat content. I have tried raw milk from both a 100% Shorthorn dairy herd and a Jersey Shorthorn cross herd. The Jersey milk is way better. Oh, and they both taste different than store milk. My point (excuse my little foray into Dairy Farming 101) is that raw milk DOES taste different. It's fresher and creamier.

Quote:Pasteurization is mild compared to most forms of cooking. My overall point is that going by your line of reasoning we should stop cooking food and pasteurizing milk and all eat raw food and raw milk all the time.

I have never suggested that we stop all forms of cooking.
 
Quote:I never said it was ok for farmer to go to jail over drinking his or her own milk. Furthermore NONE OF THE REPUTABLE JORNALS SAID RAW MILK WAS BAD! They didn’t say this because it is nonsense.

Oh they didn't?

Here's an abstract from a JAMA article: Unpasteurized Milk: The Hazards of a Health Fetish

Quote:Raw milk is fine if fresh, clean, etc. I called you on this attempt at straw man argument before. Now you are engaging in try-to-exhaust-the-opponent strategies

Explain to me then, if they are saying how "fine" it is as long as it's fresh and clean, why they fight against it being legalized? They can make health standards for pasteurized milk, but they can't do it for raw milk?

Quote:I stated my reasons for fighting quackery before. I am not repeating them. I never brought breast milk up before. Furthermore, breast milk is obviously fresh and from a human. Raw cow’s milk is far less fresh, depending on the time from teat to mouth (as I have said before). Plus, it is from a cow. The composition of the milk is different and so are so many other things. Please stop changing the subject. You did this already with IGH, which you seem to have abandoned now. What’s next?

1.) Why are you the official quackery detector? Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so.
2.) Raw milk is fresh too. The farmers have to milk the cows every day - it isn't just sitting on a shelf in a store until people buy it.
3.) You said average commercial dairy milk is just as good as raw milk. I made a comparison. Is making a comparison not allowed in the rules of debate? I must have missed that memo.

Quote:You cannot cough up one reputable source showing raw milk is better. NOT ONE. I on the other hand coughed up an ample supply of widely read and respected sources that no reasonable person disputes, which do not have outright bias or monetary gain, attached.

Correction: I cannot cough up one source that you would deem reputable. That's entirely different. If you want more in-depth studies on the superiority of raw milk, Google is free. If that doesn't work, there's always Yahoo! search.

Quote:There are reasons why mine are better than yours.

Because you said so?

Quote:Notice how I never disparaged your intelligence or called you a quack or called you arrogant. You and catholicmilkman use ad homin attacks with too much liberality.

That's very funny. You have called my beliefs puritanical and my sources quackary. And you're complaining about what I said?!
 
Quote:Waffling…ha! I was demonstration how silly it is to rely on the opinion of doctors that lived 80 years ago. Today we know more. We are not in perfect knowledge and never will be, but we know more than we did 80 years ago. Speaking of waffling…you still have not recanted the post you made earlier that proved stated that IGF from milk in cows does not absorb into the human bloodstream. You have also not awknoledged the fact that I was right in that many (most in fact) proteins survive the pasteurization process intact.

Oh my. How funny. Every time I did post something in regards to IGF, you promptly labeled it non-reputable, ancient, or quackery. This means that further time spent on more articles for you to trash would be a waste of my time.

Quote:I never once acted as though modern medicine is perfection. I always carefully qualified my arguments and demonstrate that they are not infallible. This is something you do not do.

No? Then why do you disparage any sources that haven't made it to your "official reputable sources" list?
 
Quote:We are an unhealthy nation because we are a bunch of fat decadent slobs. We don’t walk anywhere or work with our bodies. We sit in front of a screen for hours end. Yes, this forum is bad for us!

Sure, that's part of it. So is the kind of foods we eat, which was my whole point.
 
Quote:As I stated before (“do like the Amish do”), we should be discussing how the automobile and modern ways of life affect our health. Modern medicine is perhaps the only thing that has come about in the last 50 years that actually helps human health! We survive heart attacks, cancer, infections, and injuries with an unprecedented rate. We survive childbirth and infancy with such a much higher rate that it dramatically affects the average lifespan!

I am not talking about an Amish lifestyle - I like electricity as much as the next guy. What I am talking about is first and foremost, the right to be able to choose what foods we eat and what milk we drink based on true science, not junk science and hysteria.
 
Quote:People are not getting cancer at a higher rate than ever. It is simply that people are living longer and not dying of influenza, TB, and phenominia like they did years ago.

Now how on earth can one decide that the reason people have more cancer now is simply because they live longer?? Are you saying that the medical profession has decided that those people who had shorter lifespans would have gotten cancer if they had lived longer? That's ridiculous and there is no way to prove that.


Quote:Diabetes is an epidemic because people eat too much.


It's not that simplistic. It's also what they eat. Diabetes gallops in my family, so I know quite a bit about it. One doesn't usually get diabetes from excess salad intake.

deleting the posts was lacking in intellectual honesty, not disagreing with me. I am frankly sick of posting in this thread, and I am satisfied.

Good day.
argaddini Wrote:deleting the posts was lacking in intellectual honesty, not disagreing with me. I am frankly sick of posting in this thread, and I am satisfied.

Good day.

Are you sure you understand what happened? The mods did not delete the posts. Not Vox, not JLeigh, not Sophia, nor any of the other mods. The time and effort you put in to your posts was matched by the time and effort Jen put into hers.
 
I know it is frustrating, but you are assigning blame to the wrong people.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5