Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe
These numbers prove that the FDA and other regulatory agencies are wrong in their attempts to ban raw milk. Kinda makes you wonder why they would be so rabidly against such a safe and nutritious food (and one that people have been consuming for thousands of years). Meanwhile, they're perfectly okay with potato chips and Lucky Charms being labeled as "heart healthy", as well as the numerous additives in processed food that are carcinogenic and neurotoxic. The insanity is almost beyond comprehension!
Raw milk has built-in mechanisms that prevent pathogens from multiplying, but these safeguards are destroyed by pasteurization. Many of the nutritional benefits are also destroyed.
Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com
Written by Kimberly Hartke
Monday, August 01 2011 13:11
WASHINGTON, DC June 22, 2011: Data gleaned from U.S. government websites and government-sanctioned reports on foodborne illnesses show that the risk of contracting foodborne illness by consuming raw milk is much smaller than the risk of becoming ill from other foods, according to research by Dr. Ted Beals, MD, appearing in the Summer, 2011 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
“At last we have access to the numbers we need to determine the risk of consuming raw milk on a per-person basis,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a non-profit nutrition education foundation that provides information on the health benefits of raw, whole milk from pastured cows.
The key figure that permits a calculation of raw milk illnesses on a per-person basis comes from a 2007 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) FoodNet survey, which found that 3.04 percent of the population consumes raw milk, or about 9.4 million people, based on the 2010 census. This number may in fact be larger in 2011 as raw milk is growing in popularity. For example, sales of raw milk increased 25 percent in California in 2010, while sales of pasteurized milk declined 3 percent.
In addition, Dr. Beals has compiled published reports of illness attributed to raw milk from 1999 to 2010. During the eleven-year period, illnesses attributed to raw milk averaged 42 per year.
“Using government figures for foodborne illness for the entire population, Dr. Beals has shown that you are about thirty-five thousand times more likely to get sick from other foods than you are from raw milk,” says Fallon Morell. “And with good management practices in small grass-based dairies offering fresh unprocessed whole milk for direct human consumption, we may be able to reduce the risk even further.”
Read the rest...
Re: Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe
https://www.foodrenegade.com/rawsome...again-by-swat/
This morning (August 3rd), a private organic foods buying club by the name of Rawesome Foods in Venice, CA was raided by a SWAT team for a second time, helmets and bulletproof vests and everything. 3 people were arrested for conspiracy to sell unpasteurized milk products, and all of the buying club's product was seized, including computer equipment. Rawesome owner James Stewert's personal cash and computers were also seized, and his bail was set at $123,000. $10,000 worth of raw milk was dumped down the drain.
All of this is made even more absurd by the revelations in the press release above that raw milk is far safer than most other foods. The agencies involved in the Rawesome investigation (which has been ongoing for a year! - yes, our tax dollars are being used to seize organic foods from peaceful citizens at gunpoint) surely have access to this official government data. The entire purpose of these agencies is to protect the public health, so it is their duty to do research on such matters and be informed.
While all of the details of this raid are completely absurd and despicable, the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that Rawesome does not sell raw milk at all, and they are not even open to the public. The club members are herdshare owners, meaning that they are partial owners of the animals that produce the milk. The animals belong to the members, and therefore so does the milk that those animals produce. Rawesome merely coordinates the delivery of the milk to the members who already are owners of the milk. Public health officials in California are asserting that people do not have the right to board their own animals. This is a serious issue of ownership rights and right to make private contracts, as well as the right to have access to healthy foods.
If I own a goat, and I make a contract with another person to board the goat for a fee and to receive the milk from my own goat each week, health officials are saying that that is illegal! If we don't have the right to do as we see fit with our own property, then we are in serious trouble. I'd love to hear thoughts on this situation from my fellow Waccos. What do you think about the Rawesome raids, or about the legality of herdshares, or even about raw milk in general?
Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com
Re: Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe
Instead of a social order based on mutual support and caring - on sharing
of power, resources and responsibility, we have this: the abuse of power
made possible by its concentration in the hands of known and unknown
authorities and corporate elite, which is the inevitable result of a
hierarchical economic-political system. Those in power are masters at
keeping people distracted and divided (though we do - for the present -
have the option of coming together and building [comm]unity and
supporting each other in moving beyond our self-distracting compulsions).
Right here on Wacco we've seen how people buy into the tactic of getting
one group to blame another for their political powerlessness. The truth
is: we're all relatively powerless with respect to an increasingly
corporate-serving political system.
So what is our choice? We could work to organize people to resist the
dominant forces, e.g., by trying to get laws passed to prevent the abuses.
We could form organizations to investigate and sue those who do the
dirty work of the milk processing industry
(click here to learn more about these folks and their close ties with CA government).
It is possible that some re-education of the CA state legislature could have some effect.
It would at least be a way to find out which legislators are aligned with the corporations
and which with the people.
Or, we could build communities by coming together to support each other
in meeting our needs in ways that do not support these violent,
destructive and inhumane institutions. This means, though, that we would
need to learn to work together - as well as make plans and decisions -
cooperatively, i.e., sharing power and responsibility. Seems to me that
most of us have some learning, growing and healing to do before we are
truly ready to care for - and share with - each other in this way. I believe it is
possible, though, and an option well worth exploring.
In my ideal society, basic human needs are met cooperatively and no one
has to pay anyone else in order to meet basic needs. We all gladly put in
time building and maintaining the small-scale production systems whereby
our needs are met. If a community chose to include dairy products in
their "basic essentials," a herd of cows and/or goats, a milking parlor,
creamery and other facilities would make up this community-owned system.
Community members would all be entitled to a share of the products; no
buying or selling is involved. Of course, if the community wanted to sell
their excess to nonmembers, then they would have to be prepared to deal
with the "real world" outside the community (which could mean meeting the
requirements of an authoritarian government).
These are some of the options that I see we have. My preference is to work with
others on creating alternatives, as Buckminster Fuller advised:
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change
something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
https://www.foodrenegade.com/rawsome...again-by-swat/
This morning (August 3rd), a private organic foods buying club by the name of Rawesome Foods in Venice, CA was raided by a SWAT team for a second time, helmets and bulletproof vests and everything. 3 people were arrested for conspiracy to sell unpasteurized milk products, and all of the buying club's product was seized, including computer equipment. Rawesome owner James Stewert's personal cash and computers were also seized, and his bail was set at $123,000. $10,000 worth of raw milk was dumped down the drain.
. . . . . .
If I own a goat, and I make a contract with another person to board the goat for a fee and to receive the milk from my own goat each week, health officials are saying that that is illegal! If we don't have the right to do as we see fit with our own property, then we are in serious trouble.
I'd love to hear thoughts on this situation from my fellow Waccos. What do you think about the Rawesome raids, or about the legality of herdshares, or even about raw milk in general?
Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com
Re: Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe
Hi Clint!
I appreciate your very thoughtful post, and I’d like to share my thoughts about some of the points you’ve raised.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Instead of a social order based on mutual support and caring - on sharing of power, resources and responsibility, we have this: the abuse of power made possible by its concentration in the hands of known and unknown authorities and corporate elite, which is the inevitable result of a hierarchical economic-political system.
Is it really the inevitable result? I’m not so sure about that. In nature, hierarchies exist, and why should humans be any exception? While it’s clear to me that each person has equal value as a human being and a part of the whole, each person also possesses their own unique skills and shortcomings, as well as different levels of experience. Some people are natural leaders, others not so much. As an example of what happens when a non-hierarchal system is attempted, let’s look to the history of the Community Market in Santa Rosa:
“Community Market started with a very egalitarian model, where everyone earned the same pay and few decisions could be made without the full consensus of all employees. Under this business model, morale dropped and long hours were devoted to arguing minutia. Slowly, changes were made: a graduated pay scale was added, responsibilities and authority were assigned to managers and a board of directors was formed.”
Does power automatically lead to abuse? I don’t think it does, although many will probably disagree with me on this. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject. My take is that it depends entirely on the psychological health of the people involved.
All people have the potential to rise to the heights of health and integration, as well as to descend to the depths of pathological and destructive behavior. I submit that what is important is to have a society that cultivates real psychological integration in its members. When we have such a society, we will naturally find the solutions to our problems. Unfortunately, our society at this point in time has very few truly healthy members (I have only encountered a handful), and we also tend to value characteristics of certain types of people over others, leading to a very imbalanced view of human nature.
We could always, as you’ve suggested, create a new system to replace the old one, but I don’t think it is likely to succeed unless we cultivate our health as a society first. A great many people have their egos, as well as their livelihoods, invested in maintaining the status quo. Without first bringing about an inward revolution of awareness, any change we make will never be a lasting solution to our problems.
Quote:
Those in power are masters at keeping people distracted and divided (though we do - for the present - have the option of coming together and building [comm]unity and supporting each other in moving beyond our self-distracting compulsions).
Absolutely! We all have so much more in common than most are willing to acknowledge. As Lierre Keith would say, we're drawing a line when we should be drawing a circle. We all want safe food.......so let's be open to new ideas and information about what safe means.
Quote:
Right here on Wacco we've seen how people buy into the tactic of getting one group to blame another for their political powerlessness. The truth is: we're all relatively powerless with respect to an increasingly corporate-serving political system.
I mostly agree with this statement, and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the term “corporate-serving political system”. Everyone seems ready to blame our problems on the “other” group, but when it comes down to it, we are all in this together. I do think that we have more power than we realize, however. We have power in numbers, and we have the power to make choices in our everyday lives. We have the power to change the way we think, to change our entire paradigm. The system would like us to believe that we are powerless; in fact, the very continuation of the system is made possible by our collective feeling that there’s nothing we can do.
I’ve seen a lot of disparagement of capitalism on this forum, but in all fairness the system we find ourselves in today is not even close to free market capitalism, and I don’t think it’s right to blame the free market for our problems, because we don’t have a free market. That's not to say that a free market is the perfect solution.....but it would surely be better than a system that is increasingly designed to keep the little guy from ever having a chance at succeeding. Nearly every aspect of our lives is affected by regulations. I cannot build a house on my own property without government permission, and even then I have to build the house out of government-approved materials, even when safer and more affordable options exist (like cob!). If I was pregnant, I could receive free food assistance from the government (obviously a well-intentioned idea), but I would be limited to government-approved foods that I would never eat because they don’t support health.
I feel the best description of our economic and political system would be State Monopoly Capitalism, which is defined by Wikipedia as “an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect large monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from competition by smaller firms.” This is a truly corporate-serving political system, and it’s exactly what we’re seeing illustrated in the government and industry sponsored attacks on small raw dairy producers, as well as in healthcare and many other areas of society.
Quote:
So what is our choice? We could work to organize people to resist the dominant forces, e.g., by trying to get laws passed to prevent the abuses. We could form organizations to investigate and sue those who do the dirty work of the milk processing industry (click here to learn more about these folks and their close ties with CA government). It is possible that some re-education of the CA state legislature could have some effect. It would at least be a way to find out which legislators are aligned with the corporations and which with the people.
It's clear to me that most legislators are aligned with the corporations, whether they intend to be or not. It's hard to change other people's points of view on things like food safety. Either they're ready for a new way of thinking, or they are not. You can't force it. It's encouraging to me that so many young people are catching on to this stuff. I don't mean any offense at all to older people, but they often have invested so much in their points of view over the years, and there's more inertia to overcome to change those points of view. Of course, that's not absolute at all. Anyone can change. I'm very hopeful that the truth will come to light. It always does.
Quote:
In my ideal society, basic human needs are met cooperatively and no one
has to pay anyone else in order to meet basic needs. We all gladly put in time building and maintaining the small-scale production systems whereby our needs are met. If a community chose to include dairy products in their "basic essentials," a herd of cows and/or goats, a milking parlor, creamery and other facilities would make up this community-owned system. Community members would all be entitled to a share of the products; no buying or selling is involved. Of course, if the community wanted to sell
their excess to nonmembers, then they would have to be prepared to deal with the "real world" outside the community (which could mean meeting the requirements of an authoritarian government).
What is the purpose of having no monetary system? Clearly the monetary system we have in place is not working in the interests of the people, to say the least. The problem is fractional reserve banking, where money is created out of debt, and the more money that is created, the less valuable that money is. It’s a subtle way of robbing people. But money does not have to be this way. Money is not the root of all evil any more than the resources it purchases are the root of all evil. Getting rid of money and doing everything on a barter basis will not solve the problem of greed. The only thing that will do that is bringing awareness to greed and understanding why we are so greedy.
Of course, it’s worth noting that these raw milk dairies that are being shut down are not actually selling anything. Their structure is much like what you’ve described. All of the members share ownership in the animals, paying a fee for boarding and care of the animals, and in return they receive a portion of the milk that they rightfully own. Mike Adams from Natural News gave an analogy of a group of people getting together to purchase a property with a year-round stream. Since they are owners of the stream, they each have a right to a portion of the water from that stream, and they could visit every week to collect their share of the water. Or, they could arrange through contracts to have one person maintain the stream, gather the water, and bring it to town to a central distribution point. Each member would pay a fee to that person for their labor. At no point does the government have a right to get involved in this process, to demand permits or licenses, or to insist that the water be subject to testing of any sort, because the water belongs to the members and there is no buying or selling involved.
That is why the War on Milk is so disturbing: the government is saying we don’t have the right to our own property. In the case of Evergreen Acres, the officials even stated that the goat-share would still be illegal even if the members came and milked the goats themselves! In other words, the situation you’ve described, in which community members provide for their own needs in a collective manner, is illegal according to the state of California, because it involves raw milk, regardless of whether the milk is sold or not. If this kind of thinking is upheld, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that the same could eventually happen in our hypothetical of the group-owned stream. When do we decide that we should have the right to do as we see fit with our own property, so long as no one else is harmed?
While I used to share your vision of a self-sustaining community separate from the “real world”, I no longer see this as a viable option. We are all a part of the real world, like it or not. The society is a macrocosm of the family, and I don’t see how we can separate ourselves from the society which we have created through our fragmented familial relationships. If our relationships are fragmented, our community will be as well, whether it’s a commune or a city. The important thing is to heal ourselves, and as we heal, society heals. We each have more influence than we realize.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear
is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness,
that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous,
talented and fabulous?
Actually who are we not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people
won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine as children do.
We were born to make manifest
the glory of God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone.
And when we let our own light shine,
we unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.
- Marianne Williamson
Thanks for reading!
Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com
Re: Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe
(Note: Quotes denoted by > .)
Hi Laurel,
Thanks for making this a public conversation! Maybe others will actually read it!
> Is it really the inevitable result? I’m not so sure about that. In nature, hierarchies exist, and why should humans be any exception?
Yes, I could have qualified that statement about concentration of power - and hence abuse of power - being the inevitable result of a hierarchical eonomic-political system. There's also probably a better word for this than "hierarchical." At this point, I can only think of "pyramidal control structure," in which those higher on the chain of command have more-or-less absolute power over those below them.
What is so different about natural hierarchies and the mega-scale manmade structures that exist is (1) the scale and (2) the loss of relationship between the upper and lower echelons. You're quite right, simple differences in power and/or responsibility don't inevitably lead to abuse, especially when the relationships are maintained. As long as those in leadership position have an attitude of caring connection with those they are leading (and ideally empowering), then there isn't a problem.
The problems arise when the scale and alienation gets to the point where there is a loss of accountability and where those on the lowest levels can be viewed as pawns or statistics. Then we have the situation that draws those who are addicted to power and control into those positions. Such individuals will apparently do just about anything to maintain or increase their access to power. The use of deception and violence is very common. It also seems that such people have developed the ability to divide humanity into two groups: people who matter (e.g., those who can affect access to power) and people who don't (those that can be considered disposable).
So, for example, it would not surprise me at all to learn that dairy processors use their close relationship with the California Department of Food and Agriculture to attack and harrass anyone they might perceive as a threat to their business. This could also be, though, yet another symptom of a highly dysfunctional economic system (another topic I want to write on elsewhere).
> My take is that it depends entirely on the psychological health of the people involved.
Absolutely! (Sounds like something I might have written!) Addictive behavior and antisocial attitudes are definite signs of unresolved psycho-emotional issues. In your example of Community Market, my sense is that here we see the difficulties of bringing people from a culture with a very long history of economic survival based on giving up of power and responsibility into a cooperative setting. My experience is that most people do not realize that you can't just take people from such a disempowering culture and expect them to function well in one based on sharing of power. We lack both the skills and - again - the psychological health (inner wholeness and sense of personal power) that working in close cooperation with others requires.
> I submit that what is important is to have a society that cultivates real psychological integration in its members. When we have such a society, we will naturally find the solutions to our problems.
Amazing! Yes, as I have written a number of times: If we are to realize the true potential of community (e.g., an "intentional community"), the community-building process must begin as a process of healing or psychological re-integration. Environments that support such healing are extremely rare in the dominant society. Those that support the mind in keeping consciousness fragmented, on the other hand, are everywhere.
> We could always, as you’ve suggested, create a new system to replace the old one, but I don’t think it is likely to succeed unless we cultivate our health as a society first.
Those of us who are willing and able to do so can, I believe, come together at any time and begin building that society on a small - even micro - scale. We can only do what we have the power to do, which doesn't include changing society on a large scale. Creating "pockets" of health, cooperation and caring within the larger society can eventually begin to affect that society.
> . . . we're drawing a line when we should be drawing a circle . . .when it comes down to it, we are all in this together.
Yes, and not only our need for healthy food; we share with everyone all our true needs and feelings. So mutual support and cooperation makes total sense.
> The system would like us to believe that we are powerless; in fact, the very continuation of the system is made possible by our collective feeling that there’s nothing we can do.
Yes, and I would change "the system" to "those in positions of great power." Today I told a neighbor about a movie I saw last night, "The Economics of Happiness," which tells about the economic, ecological and cultural destructive effects of globalization - and the antidote: localization (producing and consuming locally). His response was, "That's never going to change anything." My unexpressed thought was, "Yes, and as long as we carry that belief, it will be fulfilled!" He and I tend to agree though that it will probably take a major catastrophic economic breakdown before significant numbers are willing to try something different. Seems we could be well on our way . . .
> It's hard to change other people's points of view on things like food safety.
You may be right, though I would like to believe there are some legislators who have somewhat of an open mind and are willing to question the myths and assumptions they've been fed. And certainly there are those who have too much of a vested interest in the status quo to consider other views.
> What is the purpose of having no monetary system?
I wasn't suggesting having no monetary system, but using money (or an equivalent) only for trade of nonessentials or "luxury" items - and perhaps for trade between communities or villages. My view is that everyone has a right of free access to the natural resources, tools and information that are required to meet their basic needs. In an ideal society in which most people are willing to collaborate in building and maintaining the systems whereby those needs are met (e.g., shelter, food, energy, etc.), then there should be no need of accounting for the distribution of the products of these systems. Everyone who participates gets a share of what they need for their own use.
I'm currently reading a novel - based on fact - about some of the earliest European settlers on the harsh coast of Newfoundland. In this one settlement, no one had any money, and they all worked together to produce what they needed. Of course, this will change as they become more productive and more connected with outside commercial centers.
> The problem is fractional reserve banking, where money is created out of debt, and the more money that is created, the less valuable that money is.
I'm no economist, but it does seem that money goes into - and out of - circulation. When it goes out - or when there is increased economic acitivity - the money supply would need to increase. Otherwise you have economic stagnation or decline, as we're presently seeing in this country. Having some in a position to profit from injecting money into the economy does seem like quite a racket, however. This is but one of many glaring problems of the dominant economic system.
> In other words, the situation you’ve described, in which community members provide for their own needs in a collective manner, is illegal according to the state of California, because it involves raw milk, regardless of whether the milk is sold or not.
I wonder if this is true or if it's some use of deception by a government official. I read on the realmilk web site - that it IS legal to sell raw milk in the state as long as it's certified. It would seem pretty outrageous if one couldn't do as they saw fit with the milk their own cow or goat produced!
> While I used to share your vision of a self-sustaining community separate from the “real world”, I no longer see this as a viable option. We are all a part of the real world, like it or not.
Yes, the "real world" (if it exists) is somewhat hard to escape. It exists in many forms, though, and many have and do live in alternative ways, including those who are relatively independent of the dominant economic system. I also don't think a community or ecovillage should strive to be separate or isolated from the outside world. I do believe it is quite feasible, though, for such a group to work together to create ways of meeting their needs that do not support violence, injustice or ecological destruction. It would be rather difficult to do this without using some modern technology, and such a community would be very open to outside visitors as a way of sharing what they're learning and doing. Some degree of economic independence is what I see as feasible and desirable - and equivalent to local self-reliance.
> The society is a macrocosm of the family, and I don’t see how we can separate ourselves from the society which we have created through our fragmented familial relationships. If our relationships are fragmented, our community will be as well, whether it’s a commune or a city. The important thing is to heal ourselves, and as we heal, society heals. We each have more influence than we realize.
We're very close; I would say that the society is a reflection of the collective consciousness from which it arises. In our case, that consciousness is rather fragmented - and, yes, so are our relationships and the larger society. My view is that we - those of us who are ready - can come together and create community as a place of healing. This is an option that exists for us now, and I believe that, in a group equipped with certain tools and understandings, there is a potential for healing that goes well beyond what we can do alone or even with the help of professionals. This is how I believe we must begin if we wish to realize our individual and collective potential to live in peace and within the earth's means to support our presence here.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Hi Clint!
I appreciate your very thoughtful post, and I’d like to share my thoughts about some of the points you’ve raised.
[snip]
The important thing is to heal ourselves, and as we heal, society heals. We each have more influence than we realize.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear
is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness,
that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous,
talented and fabulous?
Actually who are we not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people
won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine as children do.
We were born to make manifest
the glory of God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone.
And when we let our own light shine,
we unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.
- Marianne Williamson
Thanks for reading!
Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com
