Chasm.jpg

“If you wanna complain….I’m not the complaint department.”

From song, “Complaint Department” by Likki Li

 

Maybe I am the complaint department, since I run this blog. Certainly the complaints keep coming. 


There was Mark McAfee’s comment, that, “During our weekly RAWMI conference call…the subject of this blog came up. It was shared by one of our board members that productive dialogue is not possible when toxic personalities cannibalize the conversation.” 

 

Then there were complaints growing out of his comment, as to whom he was referring to about “toxic personalities.” 

 

There have been several comments made privately to me, in just the last few days, from people who felt insulted by the caustic nature of the debate that sometimes evolves here. 

 

This isn’t a new phenomenon. It rears its head from time to time, sometimes with negative consequences.   I have lost friends over the tenor of my posts and the discussion here. I have seen people I highly respect become so frustrated with this blog that they have left in a huff. I have seen public health professionals participate for a time, and then throw up their hands in disbelief at the tone of the back-and-forth.

 

What’s going on? Certainly I have responsibility,, since I provoke. I poke fun at the authorities. I was guilty early on of personalizing some of my attacks at people in positions of power. I found that some of those created more negativity than positive results, and gradually, I have avoided personalizing my criticism. Even that little speaking skit I did recently, I intentionally avoided assuming the name of a real bureaucrat. 

 

But beyond that, I think that raw milk and food rights are by their nature highly volatile political issues, which generate volatile reactions in people. That’s not just here. It’s difficult to have any kind of rational discussion about raw milk, even among supporters. I’ve seen the phenomenon on other web sites, when they publish an article of some kind about raw milk, and then there are 200 comments lambasting the author and each other.

 

Part of what makes raw milk so emotional, in my view, is that milk is our first food, and remains an important food through much of childhood. We have primal feelings about milk. 

 

Another part has to do with the fact that our government has long tried to prevent access to raw milk, and continues to do so, even  as it has become ever more popular and desired. If you look even casually at world history, you quickly realize that food riots and food shortages have been the sparks for huge political upheaval. Politically, it’s almost never a good idea to be messing with people’s food. 

 

Before I go on, I want to say (again) that none of the controversy about raw milk and food rights is an excuse for personal attacks. It is possible to debate the issues, without questioning the personal motives or sincerity of others. 

 

Back to complaints…. I guess it wasn’t a big surprise when the matter of this blog’s tone came up in that podcast interview I finally did last week (Jan. 29) with the two professors I discussed a few weeks back, Don Schaffner of Rutgers University and Ben Chapman of North Carolina State.  They, too, told me they don’t like the blog’s tone. They told me they thought my previous post about them was insensitive, and inaccurately represented some of their views. They thought that a number of comments from readers as well represented a “negative tone and hyperbole.”

 

Why bring all this business about debate and tone up now? Because it seems as if we may be at an important new phase in the long war over raw milk: We may well be in early negotiations about raw milk safety standards—in effect, official acceptance of raw milk and a raw milk marketplace. All the state proposals to broaden raw milk availability,  the growing public support for those proposals, together with the assemblage of university and regulatory people at the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) that Mark McAfee describes, are part of an important sorting out. More on that later….

 

There are most certainly huge obstacles to overcome—the corporate dairy producers, together with their puppets at the FDA, haven’t given up by a long shot. Nor has much of the regulatory and health community had a change of heart. But in terms of the debate, there has actually been progress over the last few years, and the coming together of various constituencies at RAWMI is the clearest indication. 

 

All this has taken a long time to jell for good reason. I got more of a sense of the chasm that  exists between the pro and anti-raw-milk camps during that podcast last week with the two representatives of the academic community. I felt at times like I was in the Twilight Zone, in a land of double talk, where we were literally speaking different languages. And believe me, we were all trying very hard to be polite (and I believe for the most part, we were polite). 

 

First, I tried to pin the two professors down on what they think about legalizing raw milk availability, and I just couldn’t do it. They talked like academics, about “a continuum,” “risk management.” I believe Schaffner even said he was “a libertarian on raw milk,” presumably in favor on some theoretical level. 

 

I pursued the matter: Were there any state situations allowing raw milk that they liked, that might serve as a model for states like their own, New Jersey and North Carolina, that prohibit its sale? Nope. Nothing doing. No way they were going to be caught endorsing raw milk in any kind of specific substantive way. 

 

I only lost it once, when they spoke about that recent CDC-sponsored Minnesota study being “good science.” (They challenged me on whether the study was truly CDC-sponsored, as I have repeatedly referred to it; it turns out the language at the end of the study says the study was financed “in part through cooperative agreements” with the CDC–it doesn’t say where any other “part” of the financing came from, and the study is posted on the CDC web site. Don’t think I was inaccurate on that one.)

 

I think they were insulted when I started laughing hysterically at their suggestion that the Minnesota study was started as a serious scientific endeavor designed to learn more about raw milk, and not to slam it. Really?  Just important new knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Uh-huh. 

 

They did kind of get me when I protested that I had been to Minnesota a number of times, met many dozens of raw milk drinkers, and never met anyone who spoke about getting sick, or knew anyone who became ill. Ah, but I couldn’t possibly know all the many thousands of raw milk drinkers, they argued. Correct, I couldn’t. 

 

From there, we moved on to the question of whether the feds really have it in for raw milk. They said, quite sincerely, that they didn’t think so. As if food club members and farmers who have been hit by raids are all paranoid. 

 

I don’t want to suggest the discussion was nonproductive. Simply viewing the chasm so starkly was informative, at least for me. There was even an important point of agreement, I’d say: that pushing the U.S. toward more of a black-market system is not desirable. That producing the safest possible raw milk is desirable. 

 

All of which brings me back to the matter of negotiations toward broader acceptance of raw milk, as illustrated by the activity at RAWMI.  Mark McAfee, the founder of RAWMI (and owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co.), said RAWMI “has been approached by the best researchers, the best universities, and a consortium of regulators to…navigate a better future for raw milk.” 

 

Miguel astutely pointed out that “producers and consumers will have to produce and consume a product that is designed by universities, government agencies, researchers and regulators, giving those groups tremendous power…” What he was suggesting is that the legitimization of raw milk could well have important repercussions, beginning with involvement by extension services that Shawna Barr referred to. 


As I said, we are at the early stages of this negotiation process. The simple fact that negotiations seem to have begun is a huge development. It’s just important to appreciate that the chasm between the public health professionals and those of us who feel we should make the decisions about the foods we ingest is quite wide. That begins to explain why so much frustration bubbles up here on this blog, and why the complaints keep coming. 

  • O
    Transporting socially damaging psychological, unscientific testimony across state lines should be a bigger crime than transporting actual food, I’m sure Mark would agree.

    “generational amnesia” is a great term (is that your own original saying or were you coached?) I’m pretty sure that’s what you and most other sheeples are suffering from. We have been drinking raw milk for THOUSANDS of years but now it’s dangerous? How soon we forget how soon is.

    Look up the differences between allow, prevent, marginalize and criminalize. Look, I’m not trying to convince you or going to court to force you to drink coconut juice or raw milk. I’m a hands-off guy, why can’t you be? What’s in it for you? Please explain so we can understand and be convinced by your anti argument and maybe even switch camps.

    “loving the cow will somehow magically prevent cow feces from getting into the milk”

    ah, did you ever kill and process a chicken, a pig, or beef? there’s shit inside, and outside. How did we ever survive? It’s hard enough dealing with those plastic wrap styro foam packages with the chemical pads in them to last longer.

    .

    “McGonigle-Martin was brought to Iowa by public-health groups and commercial dairy interests.”

    How noble of you to do it out-of-pocket and strictly due to your strong beliefs in doing the right thing..

    Pardon the rant and tone, but there’s other things going on that influence the perspective such as my keyboard acting up.

    OK back to my cave… where did I put my jaccuzi?

    Reply
  • Ken Conrad
    Shawna
    Understanding the factors that lead to food born illness, or all illness for that matter, is important. Unfortunately it will not be possible to acquire a “comprehensive” understanding of such illnesses by focusing our attention on pathogens alone, while virtually ignoring and failing to address all the other factors that contribute to those illnesses. This leads to my question for Mr. John. What happens when “the best you can do” is not good enough? Because that is, where we are heading if we continue to focus solely on perceived harmful microbes and fail to address the root of the problem, namely the relentless drug and chemical assault and adulteration of food, water, soil bacteria, gut bacteria, and the immune systems of all mammals and pollinating insects etc.
    The pathogens that you and others keep harping on are merely responding and trying to clean up this toxic mess. It’s what they are hardwired to do, they are not about to stop, and they will continue to adapt at our expense.
    “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

    I sense a growing frustration on this blog with all the repetition. Unfortunately this is what happens when dealing with entrenched, contradictory core beliefs.
    I am trying to approach this issue from a natural, all-inclusive perspective rather then from an unnatural, narrow focus on segregation and manipulation of specific microbes. My persistent response is prompted by your persistent focus.

    Many including myself have voiced the need for education in order inform the public, however education based on whose knowledge? The process of acquired knowledge is clearly relative. Who on this blog can claim that their knowledge is sufficiently developed and accurate enough to use it as a benchmark for truth and therefore impose it on others and sue the pants off of farmers?

    Ken

    Reply
  • D
    Iowa doesn’t need much convincing. They are the HOME of pasteurized, homogenized, CAFO’ed bigfood. That State is poisoning all the States surrounding it because they just LOVE Monsanto’s messed up seeds. Iowa is a prostitute State.
    Reply
  • D
    Ken – you are absolutely correct & very much in alignment with my way of thinking as well. Many of us that have been in medicine have realized that there really is not just one factor that is contributing to a illness, condition or situation. There are those of us that have been in the standard medical tract that have realized there was more to true health than what we have been taught. This has prompted the move for many of us to study & implement holistic, homeopathic methods in an increasing complicity. Many of us have also realized the impact that the unhealthy environment, food systems, water supplies, etc have on people’s health & well-being, and while we cannot physically do anything to avert them for our patients, many of us have joined groups who target these problems & assist in bringing about awareness & change, whether locally or politically. A person can not be fully well when being compromised by unhealthy foods, air, water, environment, etc. It is not just only about microbes and/or pathogens….it is about everything! But, unfortunately, most of the players involved are plagued with tunnel vision & will not even attempt to look beyond that tunnel, so it becomes frustrating when trying to point out that there are many more factors involved beyond the one within that tunnel. It will take lots of diligent work, Ken, to encourage everyone to broaden their way of thinking & to encourage them to ‘re-educate’ themselves.
    Reply
  • M
    Ken and Shawna
    Thankyou for replying. Since I think Shawna and I are close to being on the same page, I’ll reply just to Ken.
    I think you are suggesting 2 forms of the current human condition. I’ll call these ‘modern mainstream’ and ‘natural’. The way I see it, a conversion to raw milk is a tiny bridge between these, in that it permits passage of microbes from perhaps a more ‘natural’ condition into the mainsteam (where these microbes are normally absent). And yes, understanding and containing these bugs likely is the best anyone can hope to do. All bugs aside, however, I think all I argued for was impeccable on-farm hygiene and disease-free cows.

    The cornerstone of this blog is ‘choice’. I suspect that only when the mainstream chooses a more natural way will your ideal be approachable.

    Also. I’m not certain I agree with you. Despite the error of our ways, ‘mainstream’ lives in NA can be very long and healthy (and these lives continue to lengthen, largely since the control of most infectious disease…..lifestyle issues are now the bigger problem, I think). Historic (more natural) lifespans were often quite short, often ending because of simple infections. Modern agriculture has been around for at least 6 decades and productivity continues to increase (so we are doing something right, I think). It’s not perfect, but all these hard-working farm families are likely doing their best (for the rest).

    The pathogens that I keep ‘harping on about’ just happen to find some of their best living conditions on and around cows (especially milk-fed calves actually)…..but, most humans work for them too, and sometimes the pathogen’s toxic messes can be a problem in human bodies.

    John

    Reply
  • m
    Mean while back at the dinner plate…Kraft cheese has decided to remove artificial preservatives in some of their cheeses…great news !! That is if you like Costco, Food MAX, Big Chain Store cheap Shelf Life Stable food.

    The bad news is they are adding an anti-biotic instead.

    http://www.drugs.com/cdi/natamycin.html

    http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2014/02/kraft-remove-artificial-preservatives-individual-cheese-slices

    People this ain’t right!!

    Reply
  • m
    Mr. John,

    A look at modern health will also show that lives are not healthier but to the contrary much sicker. Quality is life matters. Stanford did a study some years ago that said, life expectancy was about 77-78 years, but quality of life span was only about 47 years. That means that most people live very expensive and not so happy 30 years with the support of medicines, surgeries and etc. Not a good thing. Not a good thing for our country and the expense of this low quality of life.

    During the first World War. It was discovered that people in the Balkans lived to be very old with very good health. The area was called the Centuriun Area…because of all the 100 year olds. The work done by Dr. Price found the same nutrition based long lived lives all over the world.

    I do agree that losses to birth and infection shortened lives….that is no question.

    What we fail to appreciate is this. If we were to join the wisdom of nutrition and strong immune systems with modern miracles of medicine into a complimentary alliance and stopped allianating both from each other: health care would be cheaper, disease would be prevented, quality of life would dramatically improve, our brains would function better, autism rates would drop, farms would be saved ( they would be a high priority !!! ) teenage boy shootings would drop etc….nutrition is the missing part of America.

    Food is the basis of prevention and solid health…not how frequently you go the doctor!!

    There is a serious problem. The legislature is seduced by sexy lobbyist short skirts and payola and the medical rules follow the money. The people of our great land suffer as a result.

    A much grander plan for the future must emerge. One where peoples health matters and whole unprocessed gut friendly immune system supporting food is at the basis of this vision.

    Reply
  • Ken Conrad
    MrJohn
    There were many factors that decreased the mortality rate and yes improved hygiene indeed played a substantial role.
    In the early part of the Industrial Revolution living conditions in factory cities were crowded and dirty. Homes were unheated, and poorly constructed with many people living in basement apartments with dirt floors that were often wet and muddy. Food supplies were unreliable, impure, and limited to such a degree that nutrition was an ongoing problem. Some of the treatments used in medicine were barbaric to say the least and no doubt attributed to many deaths. “Antimony compounds were frequently used in the 19th century according to the preparations mentioned in the 11th United States Dispensatory of 1858 and the respected Remington’s Practice of Pharmacy (1885)”. http://academic.depauw.edu/hanson_web/Hutchings/HutchingsAntimony.pdf
    “Antimony became popular as a medicine in the 1700s, especially as a laxative, able to blast through the most compacted bowels. It was so good the chronically constipated would root through their excrement to retrieve the pill and reuse it later. Some lucky families passed down antimony laxatives from generation to generation.” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/elements/features/2010/blogging_the_periodic_table/antimonyit_might_have_killed_mozart.html

    By the early 1900s, a wide range of improvements began to drive the mortality rate down. Central heating meant that people especially infants were no longer exposed to icy drafts for hours. Clean drinking water eliminated a common path of infection. More and a greater variety of food meant improved nutrition. Sewers were being installed in the cities and refrigeration was becoming more widely available.

    Considering living conditions at the time and the widespread changes that were occurring, milk pasteurization and vaccinations were given much more publicity then they deserved in my opinion.

    The effect of cleanliness and balanced living on mortality rates throughout the course of history has had its ups and downs.
    http://www.sphtc.org/timeline/timeline.html

    “Hippocrates (460 BC-380 BC) the founder of Western medicine states, “Whoever wishes to investigate medicine properly, should proceed thus: in the first place to consider the seasons of the year, and what effects each of them produces. We must also consider the qualities of the waters and the mode in which the inhabitants live, and what are their pursuits, whether they are fond of drinking and eating to excess, and given to indolence, or are fond of exercise and labor, and not given to excess in eating and drinking.”

    “…Greeks engaged in community sanitation. Romans improved upon it by building aqueducts to protect water supplies and sewer systems to improve overall hygiene.”

    “With the fall of the Roman Empire and Roman ideology the value of cleanliness and fresh drinking water were again to be ignored. The Black plague also known as the bubonic plague reappeared in Europe in 1348 after nearly a 1000 year absence.”

    Welcome to my brief biased understanding of the history of disease.

    Ken

    Reply
  • i
    Comical.
    Par for the course.
    Bankrupt nutrition.
    Reply
  • Ken Conrad
    Thanks for the info Mark.
    And this supposed to be an improvement!!!
    What a bunch of shitheads.
    Reply
  • D
    Fresh drinking water has always been a problem. Still is. Remember a couple of years ago when the medical industry was trying to scare people away from using neti pots? Their claim was that the neti pots were causing brain issues. Now, remember how fast you quit hearing about such a ridiculous claim? That’s because it wasn’t the neti pots causing the problem – it was the bacteria-laden tap water. A neti pot requires filtered or distilled water and sea salt, not standard bleached table salt. What comes out of a faucet today isn’t water, it’s a chemical soup.
    Reply
  • Ken Conrad
    I’ve enclosed below a link to, as the first paragraph of the article states, “a summary of a report by Grain (grain.org), a small international non-profit organization that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems. They are based in Barcelona, Spain. The full title of the report is The Great Milk Robbery: How corporations are stealing livelihoods and a vital source of nutrition from the poor”.

    With respect to raw milk movement the article states, “As can be expected, this “informal sector” is treated with disdain by the elites, who call it “unhygienic” or “of poor quality.” Bankers and large-scale processors call the system “inefficient.” The truth is that this “unorganized sector” has been successful in getting large quantities of healthful dairy products to market as long as they are not undercut by dumped surplus milk from elsewhere or persecuted by unfair regulations”.

    “Unfortunately, the movement for people’s milk runs head first into the ambitions of corporations that seek to control the global dairy industry. With dairy markets in the northern hemisphere already saturated—even declining—Big Dairy is targeting for its growth the very markets served by people’s milk. As these dairy corporations invade the developing world, they are flanked by a number of other companies and wealthy elites who, together, are trying to reorganize the entire supply chain, from farms to markets.”

    “Fortunately, the influx of industrial milk has met popular resistance. In Colombia in 2006, a government decree prohibiting the consumption, sale and transport of unpasteurized milk triggered huge protests across the country, forcing the government to postpone adoption of the regulation. Popular opposition did not die down and two years later, with over fifteen thousand people marching in the streets of Bogota, the government was yet again forced to push things back another two years. The people also mobilized to protest trade agreements that would have left the people’s milk sector vulnerable to imports of cheap powdered milk. Finally, in 2011, Decree 1880 was passed, which recognizes leche popular as both legal and essential. The battles are not over, but the dairy sector is now at the heart of the popular resistance to these deals.”

    Ken

    Reply
  • D
    Looks like South Dakota is gonna get another run at this thing called raw milk freedom! Thank you Phil Jensen. I’ve visited with him while standing in line to get raw milk last year. Sure glad he’s been working on this issue, too.

    http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news_wp/?p=14251

    We might have lost the battle but we could still win the war.

    Reply
  • D
    @ Ken: You forgot the link, but I read the article because I, too, follow grain.org articles.

    BUT – – I was shocked to find this article at Grains.org web site yesterday. Here’s Grain.org’s mission statement: “GRAIN is a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.”

    Does this article really sound like it supports small farmers or community based food systems?? This is all about money and nothing more.

    http://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/4883-india-s-new-milky-way

    It doesn’t sound to me as though they understand UHT either. They seem to think it’s simply the “packing” (or packaging?). They don’t seem to equate it with “processing the milk at very high degree temperatures”. They also don’t seem to have been educated on the idea that heating milk (especially to ultra high temperatures) is harmful to the milk itself, not to mention what it does to the people who are drinking it “for their health”. Good grief. What are they thinking by printing this??

    That article (at the above link) sounds specifically egregious when compared with this article at their site just a few days prior: http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4873-defending-people-s-milk-in-india

    Reply
  • m
    MrJohn,
    I agree that modern agriculture has increased productivity ,but according to USDA research on mineral content of food ,the result of increased productivity has been a very significant decline in nutrients in the food. This is the reason many of us are seeking out nutrient dense food. For farmers who sell food by the lb. all of the incentive has been to produce more lbs/acre which they have done. For consumers ,however, it makes much more sense to buy and eat smaller amounts of more nutrient dense food.

    Those microbes that you call “pathogens” are toxic waste cleanup specialists. They thrive in environments that are so toxic that the microbes which are the usual janitors in our bodies can not function. The toxins are not created by the microbes they are in the food because they contaminate the soil the food is grown in or because they contaminate the food as a result of processing the food. Some microbes which are involved in the first stages of decontamination do break the original toxin down into smaller but still toxic pieces. You could say that these microbes are producing toxins but they are performing a necessary task in the chain of decomposition and elimination of toxic substances.

    Reply
  • M
    Miguel I have to admit that I do not understand your ideas about microbial ecology at all. Sorry, it just doesn’t fit with what I have learned elsewhere.
    But, I believe there is a good example of a bacterium that is a pathogen and doesn’t fit well with your ideas above. E coli 0157 produces a rather specific toxin, the Shiga toxin. Cows are a suitable host for many E coli species, but a somewhat marginal host for 0157 because the pH of the cow’s GI tract is a bit high for them. Cows aren’t susceptible to the Shiga toxin (so for them, it is not particularly toxic and E coli 0157 is not considered a pathogen for cows). The normal acid digestion in the stomach of humans, however, suits the growth conditions required by 0157 and sometimes if ingested it can proliferate rapidly (no dietary toxins involved, just a lower, more optimum pH environment plus substrates from the digesta). Humans are quite sensitive to the Shiga toxin, occasionally with disastrous outcomes (renal damage etc). Now, 0157 is most definitely a human pathogen.
    Since this organism is one of the keys to the human safety debate v/v unpasteurized milk, I think it’s potential for pathogenicity in humans should not be discounted.
    On a lighter note. Given the tendency for many North Americans to overeat, having nutient-diluted food might actually be a good thing. I hate to imagine the outcome if there was a wholesale substitution of whole Jersey milk (5+% fat) for partly skimmed (1% or 2%) milk in the NA diet.
    But seriously, what you eat should still be about personal choice, yes ( because I do like to indulge myself with a small packet of cheese puffs and a pasteurized Coors Light on occasion)? You just have to warn your liver……….. 🙂
    Reply
  • D
    @ MrJohn: You think nutrient diluted food might be a good thing because people tend to overeat?? And you also believe that drinking whole fat Jersey raw milk would cause obesity?

    Yeah, I guess you could say you don’t understand nutrition!

    Reply
  • L
    Miguel,
    Where exactly in that nature article did you find a reference to E. coli O157:H7? I couldn’t find it.
    Reply
  • t
    Ora Moose, if you can figure out a way to get me your email I can send you a word document I’m typing that summarizes my findings re ancient musical tunings. Your guitarist friend might find it of interest also. (btw last time I posted my email address on the internet it ruined my account with spam).

    (Sorry folks to interrupt the “debate” here on whether it’s ok to eat natural foods and if the government and media cartel are trustworthy. )

    Reply
  • O
    David, could you please pass along my email to Tom? Refresher, it’s firstinitiallastname@comcast. Let me know if you can’t find it. And many thanks, Tom, looking forward to it.
    Reply
  • O
    Mr John, not to tee off on you since I like most of what you say, but I cringe when I hear anyone argue that

    “the tendency for many North Americans to overeat, having nutient-diluted food might actually be a good thing. I hate to imagine the outcome if there was a wholesale substitution of whole Jersey milk (5+% fat) for partly skimmed (1% or 2%) milk in the NA diet,”

    and your credibility suffers. Coors light? Go for the full mother-nature yeasty version beer, and out-of-the-cow fat milk it’s way much healthier than the 2% versions are not real beer same as milk.

    The reality is that people would eat way less and NOT be fat because there’s real nutrition in that food so they don’t need as much. And then there’s idle idol TV pushing it advertising etc.

    #1 – People overeat because the formulation of modern foods is intended to make you crave more even when you’re full. HFCS, artificial sweeteners, (sposedly lo-fat foods) Look it up.

    #2 – Obesity was historically never a problem in previous generations when people actually ate and drank the real thing instead of “cheese puffs,” or any “light” beverage, nor did they have liver problems.

    #3 – Most important of all, is that it is indeed about personal choice as long as you educate yourself and know the personal consequences lest you go blaming someone else. You want to be fat and sick? Your choice.

    Repeat after me: Pathogens are good, bacteria is good, perfect dead clean is not. Got it?

    Reply
  • Ken Conrad
    Ora
    Touché!
    “Nutrient diluted” “food” has resulted in an epidemic of malnutrition which in turn encourages North Americans to consume even more of their highly addictive processed crap.

    Here again we have them blaming nutrient dense living foods for what ails society in subconscious or conscious attempt to detract attention from the true cause of obesity and disease; namely their unnatural toxic meddling with food and microbes alike.

    Ken

    Reply
  • S
    “On a lighter note. Given the tendency for many North Americans to overeat, having nutient-diluted food might actually be a good thing. I hate to imagine the outcome if there was a wholesale substitution of whole Jersey milk (5+% fat) for partly skimmed (1% or 2%) milk in the NA diet.”

    Mr John, do you eat a diet of nutrient-dense foods? I do. The fact is that when you eat them, you eat far less, because your brain signals “satiety” sooner. Your body does not need to eat lots of nutrient-deficient, empty-carbohydrate-filled foods in order to obtain what you need in the way of proteins, vitamins, minerals, fats, etc. We see the results of eating too much sugar and starch): an obesity, heart disease, and diabetes epidemic. Yes, the body needs some carbohydrates, but not as many as in the Standard American Diet (SAD). I do not restrict healthy fats; I eat pastured meats, dairy, and eggs; I avoid processed foods, grains, sugars, and pasteurized dairy, etc. — and at an age that’s closer to 100 than 0, my doctor says that my blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure, weight, cardiovascular health, etc. are “outstanding.”

    Nutrient-deficient food causes people to over-eat, because the food does not provide what they need and their bodies try to fill them with more of it to get the same nutrition. Nutrient-deficient foods lead to larger “inputs” of energy, land, and chemicals (and hence pollution) to produce the same amount of nutrition as a nutrient-dense product. I think that this is an issue worth looking at, as a possible solution to our obesity epidemic..

    Reply
  • rawmilkmike
    Don, as you so often say, Please tell me where I said you said “we want small producers out of business.”

    What I did say was “They almost seem to be admitting they want them out of business.”
    Reply
  • t
    Sorry to go off topic again, but if anyone wants to hear the ancient musical keys played with violin sounds, skip to about 2 minutes into this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXBEK8l4Slc

    I play chords and notes here in all the 12 ancient keys of music. This has all been lost with “modern tuning”, where all the keys have the same sound and are blurry. It’s similar to how people today don’t know what curds and whey are, since raw milk has been written out of the story for most people who rely on book learning.

    So there it is, the biggest musical discovery in “recorded history” (although it is part of unrecorded history I am sure). ok, back to the debate on if it’s ok to eat real food…

    Reply
  • Submit a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.