For most of my day-to-day life, conventional and alternative health experiences proceed on parallel tracks. I visit a primary care physician or dermatologist to deal with certain health issues. I visit an acupuncturist and nutritionist to deal with other health issues.
Mostly, they speak different languages. The primary care physician expresses concerns about cholesterol and infections. The acupuncturist talks about the strength of my pulse and my kidney and liver meridians. The dermatologist wonders about dry skin and the nutritionist inquires into whether I have mineral and vitamin deficiencies.
Both the conventional and the alternative practitioners accept the fact that they speak different languages because, in reality, they come at health from entirely different vantage points. The conventional practitioners are focused on germs and organs, while the alternative practitioners are focused on energy fields and total body functioning-the “terrain,” as the nineteenth century physiologist Claude Bernard put it. They essentially work in different worlds, conceptually, and thus have little need to battle with each other.
Occasionally, these two worlds intersect, and when they do, it tends not to be pretty. For example, when MDs decide that acupuncturists or chiropractors are poaching on their turf, there can be bitter regulatory battles. Now, admittedly, there are some interesting efforts to bring these two words together, via integrated health centers, but these are fairly isolated.
The one place where these worlds are clashing on an increasingly regular basis is in the arena of public health, over the issue of raw milk. The alternative universe sees huge health benefits in raw milk, while the conventional world sees only bad germs.
I provide this background as prelude to assessing Steve Bemis’ eminently sensible suggestion for re-categorizing raw milk so as to distance it from the realm of public health. The big obstacle to his suggestion, the conventional health people will argue, is that raw milk is something people ingest and, well, you never know…you just never know! And as Dave Milano suggests, there are other factors, like political power and control, at work (though he illustrates clearly the power of labeling, for better or worse.)
But I wonder if there might be a variation on Steve’s idea, one that has precedence in our regulatory and economic marketplace. Right now, we categorize certain foods (like fish oil and protein powders) as nutritional supplements, which have more regulatory leeway in the marketplace than foods. The main restriction on the vitamins and supplements is in their labeling, that they avoid making specific health claims–for example, that they can cure asthma or cancer. Colostrum, which is the first milk produced by a cow after giving birth, is sold as a probiotic supplement–this is how California’s Organic Pastures Dairy Co. can legally market its colostrum in Nevada retail stores.
According to the FDA, the 1994 act that separated regulation of food from supplements, provides that “a firm is responsible for determining that the dietary supplements it manufactures or distributes are safe…”
Consumers use vitamins and supplements at their own risk. Occasionally, we learn about problems with one or another–for example, vitamins A and D can be toxic in too-high doses. I’m sure there have been problems with contaminated supplements. As consumers, we try to reduce those risks by purchasing from high-quality producers.
How about simply designating all raw dairy products–milk, cream, butter, and yogurt–as nutritional supplements? Then, raw dairy could join the alternative universe, and not interfere at all with the conventional world. Everyone could go their own way.
CODEX ALIMENTARIOUS is not very well known many of the articles written claim that this is a very great threat to our health freedoms relating to vitamins, minerals and food suplements.
We still have a long way to go, but the communication is very much happening and there are many benefits.
Last week I was at the hospital while my brother underwent a quadruple bypass. He was having a hard time afer the surgery getting blood pressure stabilized. The receptionist and I started to talk about alternative medicine, and she was very interested and supportive, and as a result gave me more info than a family member might otherwise get. It helped that I let her know I had just come from teaching an herbology class at the med school next door.
I said out loud that I would like to be in the room working with the docs, helping him stabilize. She said that sounded like a good idea to her, and she would see if she could arrange it. No problem, I was welcomed into his room along with his daughter, and we were able to be very helpful. In the fish bowl environment of cardiac intensive care, I did my energy work and cranialsacral therapy in plain view, no one blinked an eye.
And my brother said afterwards it was invaluable. The nurses commented that they welcome help from all places.
And yes, I was teaching my yearly herbal preparations class to second year med students. And enthusiastic group, ready and willing to learn and use herbs.
The MAJORITY of medical people I encounter are enthusiastic an supportive, and becoming more and better informed.
As for the supplement issue, the FDA doesn’t do much as far as regulating, but the new production laws for herbs and supplements manufacturing being phased in over the next few years are the death to small herbal manufacturers due to testing requirements, batch testing, and other manufacturing and packaging issues. I can’t make and sell herbal products (even simple tinctures and oils) anymore. The cost is too great to meet the requirements.
If small dairys also had to do all the testing and measuring, I doubt they could afford it. Without exceptions for small manufacturers, small cottage herbal industries are going to be gone. The issues of extensive and expensive govt. regs are everywhere across the board.
I guess I’d stick with the idea of simply labeling raw milk as such.
raw milk should be labeled as such…and made available to whomever wants it. the health of the citizenry shouldn’t be held hostage to the monstrous profits of Big Dairy.
In all of these areas I expect things to get better before they get worse because the federal government is growing more bold about taking away rights. We may try to press our right to consume foods of our choice, but such arguments are quickly loosing favor with the state.
For example, the border constitution free zone that has been expanded to include 2/3s of all Americans:
http://aclu.org/privacy/gen/37306prs20081022.html
My point is that labeling of ingredients does NOT protect us. Wrong assumptions and obfuscation by the agencies in charge of our labeling rules have made our labels untrustworthy. MSG is a glaring example. The USDA says this:
"Hydrolyzed proteins, used by the food industry to enhance flavor, are simply proteins that have been chemically broken apart into amino acids. The chemical breakdown of proteins may result in the formation of free glutamate that joins with free sodium to form MSG. In this case, the presence of MSG does not need to be disclosed on labeling. Labeling is required when MSG is added as a direct ingredient."
As far as I know, everything in that statement is true, but it is still very misleading, because of what is NOT said. What is left out is this: Synthesized free glutamate is anything but benign–it is absolutely not equivalent to natural glutamate, is treated very differently by the body, and is well known to be a dangerous neurotoxin. Why does the USDA allow it to exist in manufactured foods without showing up on the label? Because it is not "added as a direct ingredient." Oh. Wlee, that’s obfuscation, and suggests government-industry collusion, or at very least, an overly congenial view of chemical food safety.
Can our business and government systems be trusted to properly label any product?
The Fall 2008 CARE news letter reports that no offical, not Dennis Wolf, not Senator Brubaker, nor any court authority has produce the Constitutional Authority that authorizes the Dept. of Agriculture to raid farms. Can anyone cite the law so we can all clearly understand? Is that to much to ask?
A CNM is a registered nurse with a bachelor’s degree and has post-bachelor, practioner-type training, and is certified by the American College of Nurse Midwives. She practices under the care of a physician in a healthcare setting ONLY. A similar certification can be obtained from the same entity by non-nurses, and is recognized only in 3 states as a CM (Certified Midwife). But they must all practice under a doctor. I went with a CNM, and the doctor tied her hands in helping me with a natural childbirth in many, many ways. She quit practicing about a year after being with this doctor, and I don’t know why.
In 11 states any other kind than the above (registered nurses, under the supervision of a doctor in birthing center or hospital) are prohibited. There are several other certification organizations. A CPM (Certified Professional Midwife) is not required to be a registered nurse, and is educated by a program accredited by the Midwifery Education Accredidation Council, and tested by the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM). These are legal in many states – about half, I think; and some with restrictions (affiliating with a birthing center or doctor, for example).
Many women practice midwifery who have no certification, or who have gone through training programs other than the above. They are called Direct Entry midwives. Some states expressly disallow them; some turn their heads.
Ohio has no laws against midwifery, but they have jailed Freida Miller and harrassed her legally on several occaisions with issues pertaining to her practice. The jailing was for administering a drug she had no authorization to administer, even though it saved her patient’s life, and for refusing to disclose the name of the doctor who gave it to her. She has delivered more babies than many OB doctors. She delivered my sister-in-law’s twins.
The medical establishment likes to quote safety as reasoning to not make home births convenient, but statistics show that home births have about the same track record as hospital births for complications. Even so, midwifery is in a much better position than raw milk. It is legal in more states.
Midwifery may be legal in more states. But I suspect if you take into account herd shares and cow shares that raw milk is more readily available. Could be wrong though.