Subscribe: Raw Milk: Fight For Food Freedom
Preview: Raw Milk: Fight For Food Freedom

Raw Milk: Fight For Food Freedom

Updated: 2014-10-04T17:32:28.271-07:00


Raw Milk: A Question of Profit or Public Safety?


It is a sad day for democracy when people are being denied their basic rights when trying to access Raw Milk.The case for Raw Milk in Canada has been a growing topic of interest with several high profile cases of Government offices trying to shut down operations on farms mainly in Ontario (Michael Schmidt) and in British Columbia (Home on the Range). With the landmark ruling in the Ontario provincial courts, Raw Milk drinkers breathed a sigh of relief only to have the government appeal the decision on the opening day of the Olympics hoping the news would be buried. Since this battle for food freedom began (and I say food freedom because the final outcomes of this case will have repercussions on just about all foodstuffs we are able to access from thereon) so many years ago some puzzling developments have occurred in Canada's food supply. On one hand, we have the Government fighting to ban Raw Milk as it is a 'potential danger' to the people, yet on the other we have bagged salad and maple leaf meat products consistently finding their way back onto our supermarket shelves after major recalls and continued findings to prove they are not safe for consumers. Never mind the alcohol, cigarettes and carcinogenic ingredients that can be purchased quite easily that has PROVEN to cause illness and disease or fast food which makes our society obese which leads to health complications later in life.So, why then is Raw Milk the bad, bad food that must be stopped at any cost? The answer is simple. Profit.The Milk industry has been a staple in Canadian society for decades. It is rare not to hear commercials glorifying milk's healthy attributes on the news or radio or on billboards or even on government mandated food charts... we are taught from an early age that milk is good and that we should drink it to grow up and be big, strong and healthy adults. Yet... this is not the case - more adults are showing signs of osteoporosis - a disease characterized by low bone mass and deterioration of bone tissue, more heart disease, more acne, cancers and numerous other health issues are beginning to afflict the population of developed countries. Why? New studies are beginning to partially point the finger at milk - not just any milk, Pasteurized Milk (especially homogenized). However, the Government ignores these reports and continues to advertise and stock store shelves with 'white gold' in bottles with friendly cows staring back at consumers. The Government (and Dairy Boards) has a lot to gain from 'white gold' - mainly - profit. Each farmer must pay a figure of over $30,000 per cow to have its milk pasteurized for its lifetime - a sum which rarely is earned back leading to subsidization of the dairy system - which means taxpayers will eventually pick up the tab.Milk itself was once always served Raw (and continues to be offered in Raw form in almost every country in the world except Canada) until a French Man, Louis Pasteur developed a way to prevent wine and beer from souring by heating it and then bottling it (since its invention the French have discarded the technique for its wines) - eventually it was applied to Raw Milk as industrialization had degraded the quality of Raw Milk to where it was causing disease and death (this was caused by a mixture of cows being fed an unnatural diet of the waste of beer production as well as other industrial byproducts compounded with poor living conditions). Raw Milk was still offered by farmers who treated their cows properly for decades until an industrious man Nathan Straus realized the profit that could be made from pasteurization and began a smear campaign which is still continued to this day. Raw Milk today can be a safe and delicious product - aside from being produced locally by a farmer who knows your name Raw Milk producers also make sure their herd is healthy, pasture and hay fed and is treated properly and tests are done to determine if the cow is sick or carrying diseases before it is even milked. If done properly, Raw Milk can be a safe and enjoyable product which puts less stress on the en[...]

Response to: "As Food-Safety Push Grows, Consumers Sort Out Dos, Dont's"


Article by: Laura Landro With new food-safety legislation making its way through Congress, safety advocates are hoping the FDA will soon have sweeping new powers to protect the nation’s food supply, as I write in the Informed Patient column today. But in the debate over how to make food safer, it can be tough for consumers to figure out what’s safe to eat. Take a study released earlier this month by Consumers Union, which analyzed 208 samples of bagged, pre-washed salad, and reported finding “indicator organisms” –- bacteria found in the digestive tracts of humans, animals and the environment. The study authors say those bacteria indicate the potential for the presence of more dangerous bacteria, but none of the dangerous bacteria were found in the salad packages tested. A spokeswoman for the Produce Marketing Association, which represents the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, says the study found no evidence of public health risk. And while cautious consumers might decide to re-wash the bagged salad to be on the safe side, she recommends against it: a scientific panel that studied the issue in 2007 warned that re-washing ready-to-eat, packaged leafy greens introduces a risk of cross-contamination of other surfaces in the unlikley event that harmful bacteria is present. Likewise, a number of dairy producers and consumers are strongly advocating consumption of raw milk, on the grounds that it is more nutritious, better tasting and no more harmful than pasteurized milk, which is heated to kill bacteria. But its sale is illegal in many states, and the FDA warns that raw milk can harbor dangerous microorganisms that can pose serious health risks, such as E. coli and listeria. The Health Blog asked food-safety specialist Sam Beattie at Iowa University about both issues. While he says bagged salad should be considered safe to eat because of steps taken by processors to test for pathogens, he suggests using products furthest from the expiration date on the package and avoiding bags whose contents look wet or wilted. When it comes to raw milk, however, he recommends against it. “I can’t think of a more unsafe food,” he says. His advice: steer clear of unpasteurized dairy products in general.Think about comparing bagged salad and raw milk like comparing apples and oranges. Bagged salad has a huge distribution - one that ranges from coast to coast in grocery changes - it is a global food. Raw Milk on the other hand is a localized food. If there are problems with bagged salad it will affect the entire USA, ifs its with Raw Milk its very localized and can be determined quickly which cannot be the same for the BS which can take weeks to sort out with hundreds if not thousands more people becoming ill (and dying). Comparing the two in this article is both wrong and deceitful.What a double standard. Bagged salad has been behind several statewide recalls (that cannot be said for Raw Milk) and the fact that it is a bagged salad advocate with a stake in sales making the ‘determination’ that it is safe should set off warning bells for any consumer. His stake is his profit not anyones safety. Mass produced food has become a danger to society afflicting thousands while small farm foods have less potential to make people ill on a wide scale. I wonder who pays Sam Beattie’s bills and research dollars… its not going to be the small farmers that are being targeted for products like Raw Milk which are not as unsafe as people believe.[...]

Raw Milk: The Fight for Food Rights and Personal Freedoms


For the last few weeks the issue of Raw Milk has surfaced in headlines all across Canada – some of the articles preach the benefits of a product which has sustained human kind for centuries but most (even with a ‘positive’ message) downplay sound research and hype incorrect statistics and biased research to discredit one of the oldest foods in the World. Most articles I’ve come across have an undertone of how dangerous Raw Milk is and how consumers in Canada should not even be allowed to have the choice to drink Raw Milk regardless if they actively seek out sources after properly researching the product. I had the honor of attending the Raw Milk protest outside the New Westminster Law Courts on Monday, February 1, 2010 where one hundred members of the Home on the Range cow share program listened to Alice Jongerden, the farmer, Gordon Watson, a Raw Milk advocate, and Michael Schmidt who came from Ontario to participate in the rally after winning his own decade long battle in Ontario a week before. Men, women and children all gathered to listen and stood with signs emblazoned with ‘My World is Not Pasteurized’ and listing all the countries in the G8 which allow the sale of Raw Milk in one form or another (minus Canada). It occurred to me that I was surrounded by dozens of individuals like myself who were struggling against the bad press and attempting to take control of their own lives despite repeated attempts by the Government and affiliated Dairy Boards to halt the flow of Raw Milk. The courtroom could not accommodate us all so we were herded into a waiting room to hear bits and pieces of news that was passed on by those stepping out and I had the pleasure of speaking to a few individuals and families who had taken time out of their busy schedules to support their right to choose. The consensus was clear that Raw Milk outweighed Pasteurized on many levels and the current battle for Raw between the shareholders and the Government only made everyone’s resolve stronger. It is not hard to see the tactics the Fraser Health Authority is taking to undermine the legal rights of the people and of the shareholders who are well within their rights to obtain Raw Milk. Not once has a person become ill (with evidence to substantiate the claim) from the Raw Milk from home on the range and the FHA knows it – their desperate bid to diffuse the claim that no evidence was provided to show the Milk’s danger was to state simply that the Government did not need to provide proof as Raw Milk is considered a health hazard in the revised Milk Act. Many people may read the articles which are springing up across the internet and disregard their own stake in the situation that is unfolding. The fight for Raw Milk is not about safety – if it had the Supreme Court Justice of the Peace would have shut down operations effective immediately. This court battle effectively gives power of food choice to our Governments – the same government which has allowed for contaminated Maple Leaf meat products to find their way back onto the shelves, sodium filled baby foods to be sold by the thousands, products proven to cause obesity and cancer to be consumed en mass and our food supply to be manipulated by corporate agendas to ensure their responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders is met. If the Government cannot allow educated individuals to access a food which they know is good for them under the guise of concern for health – we must ask why they allow carcinogens, sugar laden foods, alcohol, hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals and additives to exist in our culture when we all know how damaging they are to our health. Maybe the real concern here is profit, not health. This case seeks to halt the growing popularity of Raw Milk to protect the profits of Big Dairy and the Government. They have much more to lose if the people win their right to choose their food but not unless we do something to protect our rights and the rights of our future generations. [...]