How You Can Benefit from REAL Milk
by Dr. Gary Farr on 19 September 2001

---

What is Real Milk?

Buy milk from old fashioned cows, like Jerseys and Guernseys.
Real Milk Comes from Real cows that eat Real feed.	Real feed for cows is green grass in Spring, Summer and Fall; silage, hay and root vegetables in Winter. It is not soy meal, cottonseed meal or other commercial feeds. Vital nutrients like vitamins A and D, and the "Price Factor" or "Activator X"-- a fat soluble catalyst than encourages optimum assimilation of vitamins and minerals -- are greatest in milk from cows eating green grass, especially rapidly growing green grass. Vitamin A and D are greatly diminished, and the Price Factor disappears, when milk cows are fed soy or cottonseed meal. Soy meal has the wrong protein profile for the dairy cow resulting in a shortened life span, and making her milk less well tolerated by allergic individuals.

Buy only organic milk products from herds allowed to graze on green pasture.
Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, alters vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid and processors must remove slime and pus from pasteurized milk by a process of centrifugal clarification. Inspection of dairy herds for disease is not required for pasteurized milk. The practice of heating milk to kill germs was instituted in the 1920s to combat TB, infant diarrhea, undulant fever and other diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. Proponents of pasteurization used lies and blatant propaganda to achieve consumer acceptance. But times have changed and modern stainless steel tanks, milking machines, refrigerated trucks and inspection methods make pasteurization absolutely unnecessary for public protection. Clean raw milk from certified healthy cows is available commercially in several states and may be bought directly from the farm in many more. (Sources are listed on here). By executive order, former President Reagan forbade the transportation of raw milk across state lines. Pasteurization laws favor large, industrialized dairy operations and squeeze out small farmers.	Real Milk is not pasteurized.

Demand access to clean, certified raw milk in all states.
Real Milk is not homogenized.	Homogenization is a process that breaks down butterfat globules so they do not rise to the top. Homogenized milk has been linked to heart disease.

Use only milk with "Cream on the Top."
Average butterfat content at the turn of the century, when American dairy farmers used Jersey and Guernsey cows, was over 4% (more than 50% of calories). Today butterfat comprises less than 3% (under 35% of calories). Worse, the consumer has been duped into believing that low fat and skim milk products are good for them. Only by marketing low fat and skim milk as a health food can the modern dairy industry get rid of its excess poor quality, low fat milk from Holstein herds. Butterfat contains vitamins A and D needed for the assimilation of calcium and protein in the water fraction of the milk. Without them, protein and calcium are more difficult to utilize and possibly toxic. Butterfat is rich in short and medium chain fatty acids which protect against disease and stimulate the immune system. It contains glycospingolipids that prevent intestinal distress, and conjugated linoleic acid that has strong anticancer properties.	Real Milk contains butterfat, and lots of it!.

Buy only full-fat milk products. Avoid butter substitutes.
Real Milk contains no additives.	Powdered skim milk, a source of dangerous oxidized cholesterol and neurotoxic proteins, is added to 1% and 2% milk. Some producers are now adding vegetable oils to skim milk! Low-fat yogurts and sour creams contain mucopolysaccharide slime to give them body. Pale butter from hay-fed cows contains colorings to make it look like vitamin-rich butter from grass-fed cows. Bioengineered enzymes are used in large-scale cheese production. Many mass-produced cheeses contain additives and imitation cheese products made from vegetable oils are passed off as the real thing.
Boycott Counterfeits.

More About Real Milk by Sally Fallon

We have been taught that pasteurization is a good thing, a method of protecting ourselves against infectious diseases, but closer examination reveals that its merits have been highly exaggerated. The modern milking machine and stainless steel tank, along with efficient packaging and distribution, make pasteurization totally unnecessary for the purposes of sanitation. And pasteurization is no guarantee of cleanliness. All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades -- and there have been many -- have occurred in pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in Illinois that struck 14,316 people causing at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.

But that’s not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk’s amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk’s mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.

Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk -- in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer, nevertheless, from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added -- the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization which has also been linked to heart disease.

Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk -- one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens.

Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body’s digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can clog the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.

All the healthy milk-drinking populations studied by Dr. Price subsisted on raw milk, raw cultured milk or raw cheese from normal animals eating fresh grass or fodder. It is very difficult to find this kind of milk in America. In California and Georgia, raw milk was formerly available in health food stores. Intense harassment by state sanitation authorities has all but driven raw milk from the market in these states, in spite of the fact that it is technically legal. Even when available, this milk suffers from the same drawbacks as most supermarket milk -- it comes from freak-pituitary cows, often raised in crowded barns on inappropriate feed. In some states you can buy raw milk at the farm. If you can find a farmer who will sell you raw milk from old fashioned Jersey or Guernsey cows, allowed to feed on fresh pasturage, then by all means avail yourself of this source. Some stores now carry pasteurized, but not homogenized, milk from cows raised on natural feed. Such milk may be used to make cultured milk products such as kefir, yoghurt, cultured buttermilk and cultured cream. Traditionally cultured buttermilk, which is low in casein but high in lactic acid, is often well tolerated by those with milk allergies, and gives excellent results when used to soak whole grain flours for baking. If you cannot find good quality raw milk, you should limit your consumption of milk products to cultured milk, cultured buttermilk, whole milk yoghurt, butter, cream and raw cheeses. Raw cheese ia available in all states. Much imported cheese is raw -- look for the words "milk" or "fresh milk" on the label -- and of very high quality.

Reprinted from Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats

Purchase this book here.

Raw vs. Pasteurized Milk - The Lies

Raw Milk versus Pasteurization From Armchair Science, London (April 1938)

There is no substitute for clean, raw milk as a food, so far as children are concerned. Science has not yet succeeded in providing, in the pasteurized variety, those essential qualities that are the only real foundation for a healthy child.

Unfortunately, many grossly distorted statements are current regarding our milk supply. If we are to believe the protagonists of the Pasteurization-of-all-milk-at-all costs Party, raw milk is as good, or rather as bad, as rat poison-although as the Minister of Agriculture recently stated, "the human race existed long before Pasteur was heard of."

The process of pasteurization was debated in the House of Commons and the suggestion made that no raw milk should be sold for human consumption. This would mean installation of expensive machinery by every supplier, and if it should become compulsory there is little doubt that many small firms would shut down and the business pass in the hands of a few big dealers.

If we are to be compelled to drink pasteurized milk, we should at least understand what pasteurization means. It set out to accomplish two things: Destruction of certain disease-carrying germs and the prevention of souring milk. These results are obtained by keeping the milk at a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F. for half an hour, at least, and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F.

It is undoubtedly beneficial to destroy dangerous germs, but pasteurization does more than this-it kills off harmless and useful germs alike, and by subjecting the milk to high temperatures, destroys some nutritious constituents.

With regards to the prevention of souring; sour raw milk is very widely used. It is given to invalids, being easily digested, laxative in its properties, and not unpleasant to take. But, after pasteurization, the lactic acid bacilli are killed. The milk, in consequence, cannot become sour and quickly decomposes, while undesirable germs multiply very quickly.

Pasteurization's great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food-a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy-farmer's answer to the pasturization zealots.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose-which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization's worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and breain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities.

In face of these facts-which are undeniable-what has the Pasteurization Party to say? Instead of compelling dealers to set up expensive machinery for turning raw milk into something that is definitely not what it sets out to be-a nutritious, health giving food-let them pass legislation making the dairy-farmers produce clean, raw milk-that is milk pure to drink with all its constituents unaltered.

The above was published in Magazine Digest - June 1938
Armchair Science is a British Medical Journal

Accoding to Adelle Davis: "There are many reasons why heated milk is inferior to unheated milk."

1. Heating causes minerals to remain partially undisolved, therfore making it impossible for them to be deposited in the pipes through which pasteurized milk must pass.
2. A number of valuable enzymes, especially phosphotases, which help tomineralize bones, are destroyed by heat.
3. Heat cause unsaturated fatty acids that are healthy in milk to change their composition.
4. Hormones present in raw milk, particularly the steroid hormones from the adrenal glands which help to prevent allergies are made useless by heat.
5. The essential amino acid lysine is harmed.

Taken from: LET'S HAVE HEALTHY CHILDREN, by Adelle Davis

Vitamin A Vagary

VITAMIN A VAGARY by Sally Fallon

"Eat carrots for vitamin A." Such statements, found in many popular diet and nutrition books, create the impression that the body’s requirements for this essential nutrient can be exclusively met with plant foods like carrots, squash, green leafy vegetables and orange colored fruits. The low fat school of nutrition benefits greatly from the fact that the public has only vague notions about vitamin A; for the family of water-soluble nutrients called carotenes are not true vitamin A, but are more accurately termed provitamin A. True vitamin A, or retinol, is found only in animal products like cod liver oil, liver and other organ meats, fish, shell fish and butterfat from cows eating green grass.

Under optimal conditions, humans convert carotenes to vitamin A in the upper intestinal tract by the action of bile salts and fat-splitting enzymes. Of the entire family of carotenes, beta-carotene is most easily converted to vitamin A. Early studies indicated an equivalency of 4:1 of beta-carotene to retinol. In other words, four units of beta-carotene were needed to produce one unit of vitamin A. This ratio was later revised to 6:1 and recent research suggests an even higher ratio.1 This means that you have to eat an awful lot of vegetables and fruits to obtain even the daily minimal requirements of vitamin A, assuming optimal conversion.

But the transformation of carotene to retinol is rarely optimal. Diabetics and those with poor thyroid function, a group that includes at least half the adult US population, cannot make the conversion. Children make the conversion very poorly and infants not at all -- they must obtain their precious stores of vitamin A from animal fats -- yet the low-fat diet is often recommended for children.2 Strenuous physical exercise, excessive consumption of alcohol, excessive consumption of iron (especially from "fortified" white flour and breakfast cereal), use of a number of popular drugs, excessive consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids, zinc deficiency and even cold weather can hinder the conversion of carotenes to vitamin A3, as does the low-fat diet.

Carotenes are converted by the action of bile salts, and very little bile reaches the intestine when a meal is low in fat. The epicure who puts butter on his vegetables and adds cream to his vegetable soup is wiser than he knows. Butterfat stimulates the secretion of bile needed to convert carotenes from vegetables into vitamin A and at the same time, supplies very easily absorbed true vitamin A. Polyunsaturated oils also stimulate the secretion of bile salts but can cause rapid destruction of carotene unless antioxidants are present.

It is very unwise, therefore, to depend on plant sources for vitamin A. This vital nutrient is needed for the growth and repair of body tissues; it helps protect mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, throat and lungs; it prompts the secretion of gastric juices necessary for proper digestion of protein; it helps to build strong bones and teeth and rich blood; it is essential for good eyesight; it aids in the production of RNA; and contributes to the health of the {immune_system} immune system. Vitamin A deficiency in pregnant mothers results in offspring with eye defects, displaced kidneys, harelip, cleft palate and abnormalities of the heart and larger blood vessels.

Nutrition pioneer Weston Price considered the fat soluble vitamins, especially vitamin A, to be the catalysts on which all other biological processes depend. Efficient mineral uptake and utilization of water-soluble vitamins require sufficient vitamin A in the diet. His research demonstrated that generous amounts of vitamin A insure healthy reproduction and offspring with attractive wide faces, straight teeth and strong sturdy bodies. He discovered that healthy primitives especially value vitamin-A-rich foods for growing children and pregnant mothers. Working in the 1930’s, he found that their diets contained ten times more vitamin A than the typical American diet of the time. This disparity is almost certainly greater today as Americans have forsworn butter and cod liver oil for foods based on polyunsaturated oils.

In third world communities that have come into contact with the West, vitamin A deficiencies are widespread and contribute to high infant mortality, blindness, stunting, bone deformities and susceptibility to infection.4 These occur even in communities that have access to plentiful carotenes in vegetables and fruits. Scarcity of good quality dairy products, a rejection of organ meats as old fashioned or unhealthful, and a substitution of vegetable oil for animal fat in cooking all contribute to the physical degeneration and suffering of third world peoples.

Supplies of vitamin A are so vital to human health that we are able to store large quantities of it in the liver and other organs. Thus it is possible to subsist on a diet low in animal fatfor a considerable period of time before overt symptoms of deficiency appear. But during times of stress, vitamin A stores are rapidly depleted. Strenuous physical exercise, periods of physical growth, pregnancy, lactation and infection are stresses that quickly deplete vitamin A stores. Children with measles rapidly use up vitamin A, often resulting in irreversible blindness. An interval of three years between pregnancies allows mothers to rebuild vitamin A stores so that subsequent children will not suffer diminished vitality.

One aspect of vitamin A that deserves more emphasis is its role in protein utilization. Kwashiorkor is as much a disease of vitamin A deficiency, leading to impaired protein absorption, as it is a result of absence of protein in the diet. High protein, lowfat diets in children induce rapid growth along with depletion of vitamin A supplies. The results -- tall, myopic, lanky individuals with crowded teeth, and poor bone structure -- are a fixture in America. Growing children actually benefit from a diet that contains more calories as fat than as protein.5 Such a diet, rich in vitamin A, will result in steady, even growth, a sturdy physique and high immunity to disease.

So it’s a bit embarrassing to the low-fat people, especially as the truth is beginning to come out, even in orthodox publications. A recent New York Times article noted that vitamin-A-rich foods like liver, egg yolk, cream and shellfish confer resistance to infectious diseases in children and prevent cancer in adults.6 A Washington Post article hailed vitamin A as "cheap and effective, with wonders still being (re)discovered," noting that recent studies have found that vitamin A supplements help prevent infant mortality in third world counties, protect measles victims from severe complications and prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV virus.7 The article lists butter, egg yolk and liver as important sources of vitamin A but claims, unfortunately, that carotenes from vegetables are "equally important." So vagueness about vitamin A continues, even among science writers.

Those familiar with the work of nutrition pioneer Weston Price are not so easily fooled. They know that vitamin-A-rich foods like liver, eggs, and cod liver oil are vital to good health. If you--or your children--don’t like liver, eggs and cod liver oil, don’t despair. Studies show that the best and most easily absorbed source of vitamin A is butterfat,8 a food relished by young and old alike. So use plenty of butter and cream from pasture-fed cows for good taste and wise nutritional practice.

Vitamin A Vagary was first published in the Price-Pottenger Health Journal. 619 574-7763.

The Benefits of Key Enzymes

An important branch of twentieth century nutritional research, running parallel to and equal in significance to the discovery of vitamins and minerals, has been the discovery of enzymes and their function. Enzymes are complex proteins that act as catalysts in almost every biochemical process that takes place in the body. Their activity depends on the presence of adequate vitamins and minerals. Many enzymes incorporate a single molecule of a {trace_minerals} trace mineral -- such as copper, iron or zinc -- without which the enzyme cannot function. In the 1930's, when enzymes first came to the attention of biochemists, some 80 were identified; today over 5,000 have been discovered.

Enzymes fall into one of three major classifications. The largest is the metabolic enzymes which play a role in all bodily processes including breathing, talking, moving, thinking, behavior and maintenance of the {immune_system} immune system. A subset of these metabolic enzymes acts to neutralize poisons and carcinogens such as pollutants, DDT and tobacco smoke, changing them into less toxic forms that the body can eliminate. The second category is the digestive enzymes, of which there are about 22 in number. Most of these are manufactured by the {pancreas} pancreas. They are secreted by glands in the {stomach} duodenum (a valve that separates the stomach from the small intestine) and work to break down the bulk of partially digested food leaving the stomach.

The enzymes we need to consider when planning our diets are the third category, the food enzymes. These are present in raw foods and they initiate the process of digestion in the mouth and upper stomach. Food enzymes include proteases for digesting protein, lipases for digesting fats and amylases for digesting carbohydrates. Amylases in saliva contribute to the digestion of carbohydrates while they are being chewed, and all enzymes found in food continue this process while it rests in the upper or cardiac portion of the stomach. The upper stomach secretes no digestive juices whatsoever, but acts much like the crop of a bird or the first stomach of ruminant animals. It can be described as a holding tank where the enzymes present in raw foods do their work on what we have eaten before this more or less partially digested mass passes on to the lower stomach, about 30 minutes after food is ingested. Hydrochloric acid secretion occurs only in the lower stomach and is stimulated by the passage of food from the upper to lower stomach. (This hydrochloric acid does not digest meat, as is commonly believed, but activates the enzyme pepsinogen to its active form pepsin that digests protein.)

Enzyme research has revealed the importance of raw foods in the diet. The enzymes in raw food help start the process of digestion and reduce the body’s need to produce digestive enzymes. All enzymes are deactivated at a wet-heat temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit, and a dry-heat temperature of about 150 degrees. It is one of those happy designs of nature that foods and liquid at 117 degrees can be touched without pain, but liquids over 118 degrees will burn. Thus we have a built-in mechanism for determining whether or not the food we are eating still contains its enzyme content.

A diet composed exclusively of cooked food puts a severe strain on the {pancreas} pancreas, drawing down its reserves, so to speak. If the pancreas is constantly overstimulated to produce the enzymes that ought to be in foods, the result over time will be inhibited function. Humans eating an enzyme-poor diet, comprised primarily of cooked food, use up a tremendous amount of their enzyme potential in the outpouring of secretions from the pancreas and other digestive organs. The result, according to the late Dr. Edward Howell, a noted pioneer in the field of enzyme research, is a shortened life-span, illness, and lowered resistance to stress of all types. He points out that humans and animals on a diet comprised largely of cooked food have enlarged pancreas organs while other glands and organs, notably the  brain, actually shrink in size. His research also uncovered the fact that the body recycles enzymes by absorbing them through the intestine and colon and transporting them in the blood back to the upper intestine to be used again. The body is thus designed to conserve its precious enzyme stores.

Dr. Howell formulated the following Enzyme Nutrition Axiom: The length of life is inversely proportional to the rate of exhaustion of the enzyme potential of an organism. The increased use of food enzymes promotes a decreased rate of exhaustion of the enzyme potential. Another rule can be expressed as follows: Whole foods give good health; enzyme-rich foods provide limitless energy.

Almost all traditional societies incorporate raw, enzyme-rich foods into their cuisines -- not only vegetable foods but also raw animal proteins and fats in the form of raw dairy foods, raw muscle and organ meats, and raw fish. These diets also traditionally include a certain amount of cultured or fermented foods, which have an enzyme content that is actually enhanced by the fermenting and culturing process. The Eskimo diet, for example, is composed in large portion of raw fish that has been allowed to "autolate" or "predigest," that is, become putrefied or semi-rancid; to this predigested food they ascribe their stamina. The culturing of dairy products, found almost universally among pre-industrialized peoples, enhances the enzyme content of milk, cream, butter and cheese.

From Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook That Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats by Sally Fallon and Mary G Enig, Ph D. Available from NewTrends Publishing (877) 707-1776

Enzyme Nutrion and Food Enzymes for Health and Longevity
by Edward Howell are available from
Radiant Life (888)593-8333

ENZYME	SOURCE	FUNCTION
Papain	From papaya	Reduces inflammation and stimulates the Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF), which destroys tumors. Also, it destroys bacteria associated with stomach disorders like gastritis and ulcers
Bromelain	Pineapple stem	Helps reduce swelling and inflammation of joints. Aids in treatment of burns, thrombosis, cellulitis, and skin infections, plus it accelerates the healing of bruises, abrasions and contusions
Trypsin	Ox pancreas	Accelerates healing of injuries, assists your immune system, reduces blood stickiness from phlebitis, emboli and thrombosis. Also, it can dissolve the fibrin covering of abnormal cells.
Lipase	Aspergillus	Works with pancreatin in improving the function of the pancreas and improves digestion.
Chymotrypsin	Animal organs	Helps the immune system identify abnormal growths and can dissolve the fibrin covering growths. Also, it reduces blood stickiness that helps growths spread.
Rutin (aflavonoid)	Several plants	It is a free radical scavenger that also destroys some viruses and numerous bacteria. Rutin is a repairman of varicose veins and capillaries.
Pancreatin	Animal organs	The most important enzyme in the digestion process. Improves digestion in older people
Amylase	Aspergillus	Works with other enzymes to digest food and improve the absorption of nutrients from food.

What is Raw Milk?

Raw Milk - by Thomas Cowan, MD

As I’m sure most of you know by now, there are very few subjects as emotionally charged as the choice of one’s diet. Sexual relations, marriage and finances come to mind as similarly charged subjects and, like diet, we are all sure we know all we need to know about each of these subjects. The subject of milk, as I have discovered during the past four years, when properly viewed will challenge every notion you currently have about what is good food and what isn’t. The story of milk is complex and goes something like this.

Back in the preprocessed food era (that is before about 1930 in this country) milk was considered an important food, especially for children. Not only was there an entire segment of our economy built up around milk but, as I remember, each house had its own milk chute for the delivery of fresh milk directly to the house. It was unquestioned that milk was good for us and that a safe, plentiful milk supply was actually vital to our national health and well-being. It was also a time (now I’m referring to the early part of the century) when many of the illnesses which we currently suffer from were rare. As an example, family doctors would often go their whole careers without ever seeing a patient with significant coronary artery disease, breast or prostate cancer, whereas current doctors can hardly go one month without encountering a patient with such an illness. Furthermore, as scientists such as Weston Price, DDS discovered, there were pockets of extremely healthy, long-lived people scattered about the earth who used dairy products in various forms as the staple of their diets -- further evidence that milk and its by-products were amongst the most healthful foods man has ever encountered.

If we fast forward to the 1980’s, we now find an entirely different picture. For one thing, there have been numerous books written in the past decade about the dangers of dairy products -- the most influential being a book by Frank Oski, MD, the current chairman of pediatrics of Johns Hopkins University and perhaps the most influential pediatrician in this country. It’s called Don’t Drink Your Milk. In it Oski pins just about every health problem in children to the consumption of milk, everything from acute and chronic ear infections, constipation, asthma, eczema, and so on. Secondly, just about all patients I have now in their initial visit proudly announce that they have a good diet and that, specifically, they don’t eat dairy (which they pronounce with such disdain).

One might well ask where the truth in this picture. Perhaps the experiments of Dr. Francis Pottenger in the 1940’s can help to solve this mystery. In these experiments Dr. Pottenger fed one group of cats a diet consisting of raw milk, raw meat and cod liver oil. Other groups were given pasteurized milk, evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk instead of raw milk. The results were conclusive and astounding. Those that ate raw milk and raw meat did well and lived long, happy, active lives free of any signs of degenerative disease. Those cats on pasteurized milk suffered from acute illnesses (vomiting, diarrhea) and succumbed to every degenerative disease now flourishing in our population, even though they were also getting raw meat and cod liver oil. By the 3rd generation a vast majority of the cats were infertile and exhibited "anti-social" behavior -- in short, they were like modern Americans.

Since the 40’s the "qualities" of milk have been extensively studied to try to find an explanation for these dramatic changes. Studies have shown that before heating, milk is a living food rich in colloidal minerals and enzymes necessary for the absorption and utilization of the sugars, fats and minerals in the milk. For example, milk has an enzyme called phosphatase that allows the body to absorb the calcium from the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that allows for the digestion of lactose.

Butterfat has a cortisone-like factor which is heat sensitive (destroyed by heat) that prevents stiffness in the joints. Raw Milk conyain beneficial bacteria as well as lactic acids that allow these beneficial bacteria to implant in the intestines. All of these qualities are with during pasteurization. Once heated, milk becomes rotten, with precipitated minerals that can’t be absorbed (hence osteoporosis), with sugars that can’t be digested (hence allergies), and with fats that are toxic.

Raw milk has been used as a therapy in folk medicine -- and even in the Mayo Clinic for centuries. It has been used in the pre-insulin days to treat diabetes (I’ve tried it -- it works), as well as eczema, intestinal worms, allergies, and arthritis, all for reasons which can be understood when we realize just what is in milk -- such as the cortisone - like factor for allergies and eczema.

Another way we ruin milk is by feeding cows high protein feed made from soybeans and other inappropriate foodstuffs. Rarely is anyone truly allergic to grass-fed cow’s milk.

Fresh raw milk, from cows eating well-manured green grass is a living unprocessed whole food. Compare this to the supposedly "healthy" soy milk which has been washed in acids and alkalis, ultrapasteurized, then allowed to sit in a box for many months.

The Pottenger cat studies provide a simple but profound lesson for all Americans: Processed, dead foods don’t support life or a happy well- functioning society. We must return to eating pure, wholesome, unprocessed foods, including whole raw milk from pasture fed cows.

In my practice I ALWAYS start there -- I encourage, insist, even beg people to eat real foods -- no matter what the problem. Often with just this intervention the results are gratifying. SO, find a cow, find a farmer, make sure the cow (or goat, llama, or whatever) is healthy and start your return to good health!

Reprinted from the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation Health Journal Vol 21, No 2 (619) 574 7763

More About Real Milk - by Sally Fallon

We have been taught that pasteurization is a good thing, a method of protecting ourselves against infectious diseases, but closer examination reveals that its merits have been highly exaggerated. The modern milking machine and stainless steel tank, along with efficient packaging and distribution, make pasteurization totally unnecessary for the purposes of sanitation. And pasteurization is no guarantee of cleanliness. All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades -- and there have been many -- have occurred in pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in Illinois that struck 14,316 people causing at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.

But that’s not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk’s amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti- stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk’s mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.

Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk -- in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer, nevertheless, from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added -- the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization which has also been linked to heart disease.

Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk -- one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens.

Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body’s digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can clog the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.

All the healthy milk-drinking populations studied by Dr. Price subsisted on raw milk, raw cultured milk or raw cheese from normal animals eating fresh grass or fodder. It is very difficult to find this kind of milk in America. In California and Georgia, raw milk was formerly available in health food stores. Intense harassment by state sanitation authorities has all but driven raw milk from the market in these states, in spite of the fact that it is technically legal. Even when available, this milk suffers from the same drawbacks as most supermarket milk -- it comes from freak-pituitary cows, often raised in crowded barns on inappropriate feed. In some states you can buy raw milk at the farm. If you can find a farmer who will sell you raw milk from old fashioned Jersey or Guernsey cows, allowed to feed on fresh pasturage, then by all means avail yourself of this source. Some stores now carry pasteurized, but not homogenized, milk from cows raised on natural feed. Such milk may be used to make cultured milk products such as kefir, yoghurt, cultured buttermilk and cultured cream. Traditionally cultured buttermilk, which is low in casein but high in lactic acid, is often well tolerated by those with milk allergies, and gives excellent results when used to soak whole grain flours for baking. If you cannot find good quality raw milk, you should limit your consumption of milk products to cultured milk, cultured buttermilk, whole milk yoghurt, butter, cream and raw cheeses. Raw cheese ia available in all states. Much imported cheese is raw -- look for the words "milk" or "fresh milk" on the label -- and of very high quality.


Reprinted from Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats. Purchase this book here.

Why Milk Pasteurization? - Sowing the Seeds of Fear

Back in the 1970s, a couple of blokes were sitting in an English pub, bemoaning the consolidation of the brewing industry in England and the decline of British beer and ale. A commodity that represented the soul of Britain carefully brewed lagers from countless small-scale manufacturers, each with a distinctive color and taste had been edged out by the insipid canned beers of a few large monopolistic breweries. What was needed, they decided, was a return to traditional brewing methods. They launched A Campaign for Real Ale, which soon became the force that turned back the mega-brewers and reinstated varied and delicious ales to English tables and pubs. Back in the 20s, Americans could buy fresh raw whole milk, real clabber and buttermilk, luscious naturally yellow butter, fresh farm cheeses and cream in various colors and thicknesses. Today’s milk is accused of causing everything from allergies to heart disease heart disease to cancer, but when Americans could buy Real Milk, these diseases were rare. In fact, a supply of high quality dairy products was considered vital to American security and the economic well being of the nation.

Read how the lies have got perpetrated below.

Sowing the Seeds of Fea by Jean Bullitt Darington

Reprinted by Permission from
The Rural New-Yorker
THE BUSINESS FARMER'S PAPER
Established in 1850

March 15, 1947
Reprint No. 28
Lee Foundation for Nutrional Research
Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin

Contrary to current popular belief, pasteurization of milk is not a step forward in nutrition and health. It is a step backward. Certain important nutritional elements such as vitamins, enzymes and minerals are lost; low standards of milk production are encouraged; incentive for high grade milk production is discouraged; competition in distribution is narrowed; monopoly control of producers is made possible; and the dietary value of milk is lowered, while the cost to the consumer is increased.

These are not statements based on hearsay or guesswork, but upon more than ten years of patient inquiry and diligent study of the evidence, including unbiased scientific research, for the purpose of determining the importance of milk, in relation both to health and economics.
That pasteurization of milk is not in the public interest can hardly be denied after a study of the subject. Nevertheless, the propagandists would have us believe that disease from unpasteurized milk is so widespread and inevitable that pasteurization should be compulsory. The fallacy of this contention can best be demonstrated by assaying the facts upon which it has been based. Examination of a few samples of the propaganda campaign to which our press and popular monthly magazines have recently lent themselves will serve to show, to some extent, how the American public has been duped into an acceptance of pasteurization as a cure-all.

Selected for examination are: “How Safe Is Your Town’s Milk?”, by Holman Harvey, The Reader’s Digest, August, 1946; which in turn was condensed from Mr. Harvey’s article in The Progressive (Madison, Wisconsin), July 15, 1946; “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” by Harold J. Harris, M.D., in Coronet, May, 1945; and “Undulant Fever,” by Milton Mackaye, in Ladies’ Home Journal, December, 1944.

If the credibility of a lie is enhanced by its size, it is immeasurably more enhanced when, under our tradition of freedom of the press, it is repeated again and again and remains unchallenged.1 The public is therefore usually justified in relying on the fantastic “facts” presented in articles of milk pasteurization promotion, because of the popular belief that where the press is free, opportunity for the other side of a controversy to present its case, in the same publication reaching the same circulation, is a foregone conclusion. Lack of any such presentation is a tacit admission by the other side that there is no evidence with which to refute the propaganda charges made against it. In the controversy of raw versus pasteurized milk, however, this belief on the part of the public is not justified because the press never gives an equal opportunity to the proponents of raw milk; it seldom gives any opportunity at all.

For example, Ladies’ Home Journal and Coronet have refused, in spite of requests, to present the other side of this claim: that raw milk caused an outbreak of undulant fever in school children. The Progressive offered to print a “Letter to the Editor,” but insisted that the letter be limited to not more than 600 words. This offer was refused because it was not considered adequate to offset the mischief done, particularly in view of The Progressive’s responsibility for the much wider circulation of Mr. Harvey’s article in The Reader’s Digest.

The Reader’s Digest, which publishes few original articles, admitted the controversial nature of the whole subject, and stated that it would be willing to consider any information written on behalf of the other side (presumably in the nature of condensation and re-publication).
Let us therefore have a full and complete look at the case for pasteurization, and the evidence that has been offered in its support.

The Montreal Typhoid Fever Epidemic

The False Propaganda

“Ten years ago Montreal, a favorite American vacation spot, had an epidemic of 4,000 cases of typhoid--400 persons died--all from a single Montreal dairy which sold raw milk.” (Coronet, May, 1945.) “In Montreal a few years ago, virulent typhoid fever from unclean raw milk attacked 5,100 persons, killing 500. “ (The Reader’s Digest, August, 1946, saw fit to omit this claim in its condensed version of Mr. Harvey’s article.)

The Truth

The great typhoid epidemic in Montreal was in 1927, not ten years prior to 1945. It was traced to pasteurized milk from the Montreal Dairy Company, which sold pasteurized milk, exclusively.2 According to an official investigation authorized by the Ministry of Health of the Province of Quebec: “The Montreal epidemic of typhoid fever showed a total of 5,353 cases during a period from the first of March to July 1, 1927. Observations of the early cases indicated clearly that the spread of the disease could be attributed to the consumption of milk and other dairy products from the Montreal Dairy and its associated National Dairy Company. The latter company distributed milk pasteurized at the plant of the Montreal Dairy.

“Later findings, based on a study of data covering the entire epidemic, confirmed the earlier indications and definitely showed the connection between pasteurized milk from the Montreal Dairy and the epidemic...An extensive study of the possibility of infected raw milk causing the epidemic, failed to reveal any such opportunity...The survey clearly shows that the epidemic was largely caused by the consumption of pasteurized milk from the Montreal Dairy Company. There is a probability that a minor portion of the cases were caused by the consumption of cream and ice cream from the same company.

“The pasteurized milk undoubtedly became infected with typhoid bacilli largely through the medium of a typhoid carrier who was the foreman of the pasteurizing room and his sucessor, who was at the time an incipent case of typhoid, continued the infection...In conclusion it may be said that an unfortunate chain of circumstances caused an infection of pasteurized milk in a plant containing, for the most part, excellent and modern equipment.”

From this report it is quite clear that the milk was contaminated during and after pasteurization. The statements made by Dr. Harris and by Mr. Harvey are therefore absolutely not true.

Kansas City Survey

The False Propaganda

Surveys indicate that about 10 percent of the population may be infected by undulant fever. Of more than 7,000 school children tested in one group, nine percent were found to have the disease. Among children who came from families owning their own cows, the rate jumped to 18 percent.” (The Progressive, July 15, 1946.) The Reader’s Digest repeated that version. “A Kansas City survey proved that nine percent of 7,122 school children entertained the [undulant fever] infection.” (Ladies’ Home Journal, December, 1944.)

Mr. Mackaye was more cautious than Mr. Harvey. He gave the impression that nine percent had the disease, but refrained from categorically saying so. There being two cities called “Kansas City,” the Director of Health of each was queried as to when, where, and by whom this now nationally advertised survey was made. The replies give an idea of the difficulties that continually beset any inquiry for truth concerning milk.
The Commissioner of Health of Kansas City, Missouri, by letter dated August 20, 1946 replied: “Replying to your inquiry of August 17, I may say that the study on undulant fever among school children was made a number of years ago in Kansas City, Kansas. I note that you have addressed a similar request to both cities and I trust you will have a reply from Kansas.”

The reply received from the Chief Milk Sanitarian, Kansas City, Kansas, dated August 19,1946, read as follows: “So far as I know, no extensive tests have been made on Kansas City, Kansas, children for undulant fever, and I am sure that the articles you have read regarding ‘Kansas City School Children’ must have originated in our sister city, Kansas City, Missouri.”

Consultation of the Index Medicus at the College of Physicians Library in Philadelphia, revealed a report on this elusive survey and several unexpected facts concerning it. The survey was actually made in Kansas City, Kansas in April and May 1937 by four physicians, one of whom was “W.F. Lunsford, M.D., Director of Health of Kansas City, Kansas.”3 Yet, only nine years after it was made, the Kansas City, Kansas, Department of Health was unaware of this otherwise now nationally famous survey which has been so widely exploited (except apparently in Kansas City, Kansas) and so grossly misinterpreted in recent magazine articles.

A careful reading of the reports of this Kansas City survey reveals that, while skin sensitivity to brucellergin was found in nine percent of the children tested, not a single child was diagnosed as “having the disease.” In his article in Ladies’ Home Journal, Mr. Mackaye reported that “nine percent entertained the infection,” which to the layman would imply that nine percent had the disease. Such an implication is completely unwarranted. The authors of the survey state: “We wish to make it clear that evidence of infection does not mean disease.”4

As to the “nine percent” of those tested who showed skin sensitivity to brucellergin, and which percentage “increased to 18 percent” among children who came from families owning their own cows, it should be noted what I. F. Huddleson, an authority on bacteriology, has to say: “When human beings are exposed to brucella, a large percentage of those exposed fail to show any clinical evidence of the disease, but do develop specific serum antibodies and skin sensitivity, and in some instances to the same degree as those clinically infected...When antibodies or skin sensitivity are found present in healthy persons a state of active immunity is indicated.”5

In other words, not only was there no disease (Mr. Harvey reported there was), but, according to Dr. Huddleson, even the implication that nine percent entertained the infection, was wrong since skin sensitivity in well persons indicates active immunity.

Another observation: Pasteurization proponents go much too far (their usual failing) in interpreting this kind of survey, when they attempt to generate a fear complex among parents. According to one well recognized authority: “It has become more or less tacit opinion of writers on undulant fever that the disease is relatively uncommon in children. In fact, some authors have gone so far as to argue that brucella infection is not caused by drinking milk, because children seem to contract the disease so infrequently in spite of drinking large quantities or raw milk.”6

(Italics mine). And still one further observation: “It must be remembered that a major source of the disease is contact with infected animals. To a degree undulant fever may be considered an occupational disease...farmers and workers in food processing plants suffer from undulant fever far more than any other group.” 7

Crossroads, U.S.A. Epidemic

The False Propaganda

A lurid account is given of a frightful epidemic of undulant fever which “...spread rapidly...it struck one out of every four persons in Crossroads. Despite the efforts of the two doctors and the State health department, one out of every four patients died.” (Coronet, May 1945.)

From an article by J. Howard Brown of Johns Hopkins University, it has been ascertained that Dr. Harris has acknowledged to him that this epidemic, so realistically described with names and places, was fictitious. Dr. Brown says: “The pubic has been bombarded with sensational articles in popular magazines* creating the impression that anyone who drinks a glass of raw milk is in imminent danger of contracting undulant fever and that if all milk were pasteurized there would be no human brucellosis. Neither propositions is true.” (See “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” Coronet, May 1945. Correspondence with the author of this article reveals that the outbreak at ‘Crossroads, U.S.A., in one of those States in the Midwest,’ was fictitious, representing no actual occurrence, and, presumably was described merely to illustrate what the author thought might happen.” )8

Not only does Dr. Harris now admit that what he stated in his Coronet article was complete fiction, but according to his own public statements made both before and after the article was written, he knew that such a thing could not possibly happen. His belated explanation, as reported to Dr. Brown, that he thought it might happen is, for the same reason, not entitled to the slightest credibility.
In an article written by Dr. Harris in March, 1941, he stated: “Mortality in acute cases (of undulant fever) was formerly about two percent, but this has been greatly lowered by modern methods.” 9 Again, Dr. Harris, in a paper read before the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, Portland, Maine, on April 17, 1946, had this to say: “The small proportion of deaths from acute illness (varying from two to three percent--rarely higher in epidemic form) can be made almost, if not quite zero.” 10
In spite of Dr. Harris’ knowledge, as above recorded in 1941 and 1946, he pictures for Coronet readers in 1945 his imaginary epidemic of “Crossroads,” with a death rate of 25 percent,“ one out of every four persons in Crossroads,” had the disease.
Concerning milk-borne undulant fever “epidemics,” the official statistics of the U.S. Public Health Service, which compiles such information on a nation-wide basis, show that from 1923 through 1944 (1945 figures not yet available) there have been recorded in the entire United States, Alaska and Hawaii, 32 outbreaks of milk-borne undulant fever, with 256 cases and three deaths.11,12 There are “outbreaks” reported consisting of as few as one, two or three cases. The average number of cases per “outbreak” of undulant fever was eight. There was one death in 85 cases.
It is clear, then, that Dr. Harris’ synthetic epidemic has no counterpart in reality, and that his claim in Coronet that “What happened to Crossroads might happen to your town--to your city--might happen almost anywhere in America,” can be dismissed as completely false, and to some extent even malicious.

Death Of A New York Physician

The False Propaganda

“About five years ago there was a curious incident in New York City. A physician fell ill with brucellosis. His colleagues did what they could, but within a few days he died. Tests showed he had a rather rare variety of the disease transmitted by goats. One of his doctors proved to be an amateur Sherlock Holmes. Acting on a hunch, he inspected the doctor’s kitchen. He checked the refrigerator’s contents. Pasteurized milk. No goat’s milk. Finally he spotted a freshly cut head of imported Italian cheese, which he took to the laboratory. The cheese was made from goat’s milk; a culture showed it was dripping with the germs of the goat brand of undulant fever.” (Coronet, May, 1945.)

The Truth

The circumstances of this “death” of a doctor was investigated through the New York City Department of Health. The Department’s letter, confirming an interview, follows: “This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of July 8, 1945, in which you ask whether any further data have been found on a case of brucellosis which presumably occurred in New York City as a result of eating cheese, about which you spoke to Dr. Greenberg of this Department several weeks ago. No further data have been found. As Dr. Greenberg told you, there is no record in the files of this Department of any such case.”13

Fortunately, New York, unlike Crossroads, is not a fictitious place, and records are available. It was therefore relatively easy to ferret out this additional piece of “scare” fiction and dismiss it as another typical example of the false pasteurization propaganda.

Pasteurization In Ontario

The False Propaganda

“Startling improvements in public health invariably ensue when a community moves from raw to pasteurized milk. The Province of Ontario, Canada, had been overrun with undulant fever, typhoid and other infectious diseases when, in 1938, the provincial legislature made pasteurization compulsory in all communities. Deaths from typhoid were cut in half.” (The Progressive, July 15, 1946. The Reader’s Digest, August 1946, condensation reported the same.)

The Truth

A special milk issue of the Canadian Public Health Journal, which contained a “Survey of Milk-Borne Diseases in Canada,” compiled by the Milk Committee of the Canadian Public Health Association, covering the years from 1912-1940 inclusive,” shows that the last recorded deaths in Ontario from milk-borne typhoid were in 1930, when there were 18 cases and three deaths. So the claim that passage of the pasteurization law in 1938 cut deaths from typhoid in half was not true.14

Thinking that more authentic information might be obtained, the Ontario Department of Health was asked for the official records of typhoid fever in the Province of Ontario for the years preceding and following the date of the compulsory pasteurization law of 1938. Here is that authentic information compiled from three letters received from the Health Department:

Typhoid Fever, All Cases

Milk-Borne Typhoid

Year 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938* 1939 1940 1941 Total:

Cases 547 310 251 241 235 119 159 133 1,995

Mortality Rate 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 .7 .4 .6 .2

Deaths** 52 45 45 37 26 15 22 7 245

Cases 11 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 16

Deaths*** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

 

* Year compulsory pasteurization law was passed. ** Total deaths figured from mortality rate applied to the population figure furnished by the Ontario Department of Health, 3,756,632. 15 ***Figures for milk-borne deaths furnished by Ontario Department of Health. 15 Note inconsistency between survey of Canadian Public Health Assn. that there were no deaths since 1930, and statement from Ontario Dept. of Health that there was one death in 1934, another in 1937. No reason or explanation given for obvious inconsistency. Let us suppose for the moment that we are studying highway safety. The first three columns represent injuries, mortality rate and deaths from automobile accidents. The last two columns represent injuries and deaths from a grade crossing. The x indicates the year that the grade crossing was abolished. Would this record justify the claim that the elimination of grade crossings was responsible for cutting the death rate in half? It would take a somewhat flighty, perverted imagination to draw any such conclusion. Yet, in the case of the 1938 Ontario pasteurization law, Mr. Harvey pictured the results as “startling improvements.”

Randall's Island Incident

For another illustration to support his contention that “Startling improvements in public health invariably ensue,” Mr. Harvey states: “At a children’s institution on Randall’s Island, NY a mortality of 44 per 100,000 from all causes was immediately reduced to 20 by pasteurizing all milk served the children.” (The Reader’s Digest, August, 1946. The Progressive, July 15, 1946.)

If Mr. Harvey had consulted an original source, he would not have given the absurd figures, “44” and “20” per 100,000. He would have said that in a certain year 41.81 percent of the sick children died in an institution that cared for the waifs of New York City, and that this death rate was reduced to 21.75 percent in the next year by pasteurization of the institution’s milk supply. 16

The Truth

Such figures would be impressive if they could be shown to have any application to the present day. But Mr. Harvey, in reporting the Randall’s Island incident, neglects to tell his readers that it happened fifty years ago, in 1897, when conditions affecting the production and distribution of New York City’s milk were so vastly different that no valid comparison could possibly be made.

Predictions

The False Propaganda

Deploring the fact that “only one American community in three of 1,000 population has any kind of ordinance to insure safe milk,” Mr. Harvey goes on to say: “As a result, an estimated 45,000 persons will be stricken this year with one or another of an assortment of lethal diseases brought to them by infected raw milk, most of which will be deposited on their doorsteps by their regular milk man. Many more thousands will suffer debilitating gastric and intestinal disturbances which are likely to be put down to “food poisoning.” Thousands of infants will contract diarrhea, more or less serious. (The Progressive, July 15, 1946.)

The condensed version: “As a result, an estimated 45,000 persons will be stricken this year with one or another of the lethal diseases carried by infected raw milk--diseases such as diphtheria, streptococcus infections of the throat and tonsils, dysentery; scarlet, typhoid, paratyphoid and undulant fevers. Still more thousands will suffer debilitating gastric and intestinal disturbances which are likely to be put down to “food poisoning.” Thousands of infants will contract diarrhea, more or less serious.” (The Reader’s Digest, August, 1946.)

The Truth

As the writer gave no clue to the source of these extraordinary predictions, their validity can be tested only by comparing them with the records available of milk-borne disease, compiled on a nationwide basis. The official U.S. Public Health Service reports that in 22 years, 1923-44 inclusive, there have been a total of 37,965 cases of all kinds of diseases traced to all varieties of milk and milk products. These reported outbreaks include all cases from pasteurized milk as well as raw, and all of the products thereof. The 22 years show a yearly average of 1,726 cases traced to all kinds of milk and milk products. 11, 12

For comparison with the quoted magazines’ predictions, this is what is found from the latest available figures (1944):12

Kind of Milk Raw Milk Pasteurized Milk Pasteurized and Raw Ice Cream made from Raw Milk Ice Cream made from Pasteurized Milk Ice Cream unknown if Raw or Pasteurized Hospital Formulas Evaporated Milk Cheeses Total from all kinds milk and milk products in 1944

Number of Cases All kinds of Diseases 430 224 3 24 145 65 43 10 505 1,449

Deaths 1 typhoid 2 diarrhea 17 typhoid 20 total Deaths

In studying these figures for 1944, it is clear that a number of cases of disease outbreaks were traced to pasteurized milk; also, that only one death was attributable to raw milk. In 1944, raw milk “on the doorstep: accounted for less than 30 percent of the total cases from milk and milk products, and only five percent of the deaths reported.12

To understand how relatively unimportant is the problem of raw milk-borne disease, against which such fantastic claims have been made, the following figures on milk-borne disease, water-borne diseases and diseases traced to foods other than milk, are presented for comparison:17

Year 1944

Milk and Milk Products 1,449

Water 2,686

Foods Other Than Milk 14,558

Total: All Sources 18,693

In 1944, therefore, raw milk accounted for only a little over two per cent of this total, and all milk and milk products for less than eight per cent.

It is clear that the case for pasteurization presented by some magazines has been built upon false and fictitious facts, and that there is in reality little danger of contracting disease from the consumption of raw milk; that instead of the 45,0000 cases of raw milk-borne lethal diseases (lethal means “deadly”) as prophesied, it can be estimated, not by guess but by the latest available statistics, that the number of such cases will be exactly 0.95 percent (less than one percent) of Mr. Harvey’s guess; and 0.0022 percent of the number of deaths he suggests will occur. If evidence to support the promotion of pasteurization is so difficult to find that it must needs be distorted and in some cases even invented, which is clear from the most recent publicity on the subject, an honest mind cannot fail to grasp that the case for pasteurization is a very weak case indeed.

It is clear that the case for pasteurization presented by some magazines has been built upon false and fictitious facts, and that there is in reality little danger of contracting disease from the consumption of raw milk; that instead of the 45,0000 cases of raw milk-borne lethal diseases (lethal means “deadly”) as prophesied, it can be estimated, not by guess but by the latest available statistics, that the number of such cases will be exactly 0.95 percent (less than one percent) of Mr. Harvey’s guess; and 0.0022 percent of the number of deaths he suggests will occur. If evidence to support the promotion of pasteurization is so difficult to find that it must needs be distorted and in some cases even invented, which is clear from the most recent publicity on the subject, an honest mind cannot fail to grasp that the case for pasteurization is a very weak case indeed.

Why Milk Pasteurization? - The Harvest is a Barren One

The Harvest is a Barren One by Jean Bullitt Darington

In the first article in this series, “Sowing the Seeds of Fear” (The Rural New Yorker, March 15, 1947), the false and misleading propaganda against raw mil was analyzed and shown to be without any foundation in fact. The analysis was directed particularly to the articles published in Ladies Home Journal (December 1944), Coronet (May 1945), The Progressive (July 15, 1946) and The Reader’s Digest (August 1946). The second article, “Plowing Under the Truth: (The Rural New Yorker, May 3, 1947), revealed some of the startling omissions, innocent and otherwise, indulged in by these writers, as a result of which they attempted to distort or conceal the nutritional superiority of raw milk.

Having disposed of both this positive and negative propaganda, we now come to an analysis of the final objective urged by these propagandists-- universal milk pasteurization, and the adoption of the U.S. Public Health Service Milk Ordinance and Code as a means to that end. Both these goals are enthusiastically urged by Milton Mackaye (Ladies Home Journal) and Holman Harvey (The Progressive and The Reader’s Digest), but Dr. Harold J. Harris (Coronet), a member of the American Medical Association, while favoring universal pasteurization, makes no mention of this Ordinance. Mr. Mackaye says: “The U.S. Public Health Service has a Model Ordinance on milk sanitation which any community can get by writing for it but the situation all over the country [presumably by the absence of the ordinance] is still dangerously spotty.” (Brackets mine).

Mr. Harvey’s support of the Ordinance is a little more direct than Mr. Mackaye’s. He says: “Back in 1923 the U.S. Public Health Service drew up a reasonably liberal standard Milk Ordinance which communities might voluntarily adopt to protect their milk supplies. The ordinance established basic sanitary procedures and set up and defined various standard grades...It would be a big step forward if every state adopted the standard Milk Ordinance.”

Of course, the reader inference desired by both these men is that in those communities where this Ordinance is in effect, there can be no danger of people contracting milk-borne disease, a conclusion which, as will presently be shown, is not true. Mr. Harvey does, however, admit the present discouraging status of the Ordinance in these words: “Today, despite the unremitting efforts by the Public Health Service to induce municipal authorities to adopt this fundamental ordinance, it has been accepted by only 1,172 communities, fewer than one in five. They have, however, a population of 26,770,000....Even in those communities that have protected their citizens by adopting this ordinance, the record of enforcement is shockingly low. In no year have more than 164 of them--14 percent--had better than 90 percent enforcement. In many cases the (The Reader’s Digest, Aug. 1946, condensed this quotation) ordinance, once adopted, has lapsed with time and is today a dead letter.”

He then attempts to explain this failure as the result of “changes in local administrations, pressure from farmer’s groups, and simple inertia.” The actual fact is that the U.S. Public Health Model Ordinance is a poor regulation that tends to encourage inferior milk production. An examination of the Ordinance itself demonstrates this very clearly. 53

This Ordinance makes provision, not for one, but for three grades of raw milk: Grade A raw, requiring, among other things, the tuberculin and Bang’s tests for cattle, which insure the protection of farm workers as well as milk drinkers from tuberculosis and undulant fever; Grade B raw, with no requirement for Bang’s testing of cattle, and therefore no protection for either of these groups; and finally, Grade C raw milk, which has no sanitary requirements whatsoever not even to Bang’s testing nor bacteria count.

(The test of clean milk and careful, sanitary milk production is the number of bacteria the milk contains. In all milk regulations, there is a bacteria count limit set which will confirm the apparent compliance with the regulations as prescribed. The allowance for Grade A raw set by the Model Ordinance is 50,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. Grade B raw is permitted to have a count as high as 1,000,000 bacteria per c.c.; a disgraceful score for any farm producing milk.)

In view of the tremendous effort that has been made by the U.S. Public Health Service to totally eliminate the sale of all raw milk, what explanation is there for this unbelievable inconsistency of making provision for these inferior raw grades? It is to be found in the Ordinance (page 96) in the following words: “Pasteurization is the only measure which if properly applied to all milk will prevent all milk-borne disease....It may be asked, if the above is true, why the Public Health Service Milk Ordinance does not require the pasteurization of all milk. The answer is simply that if the ordinance were so worded only a small percentage of cities could be induced to adopt it. It was considered wiser to frame the ordinance so as to make it adaptable not only to cities which were ready for pasteurization of all milk but also to the many other communities in which there still persists a strong sentiment against pasteurization.”53

This is a typical example of a cowardly lack of conviction on the part of the U.S. Public Health Service, and the evidence shows it has reaped its own rewards. Certainly there can be no defense, logical or ethical, for encouraging something that it is desired to eliminate, and the fact that “fewer than one in five communities:”have adopted the Ordinance after it has been urged for the past 23 years, should have long ago convinced its sponsors of the fallacy of their own position. So much then for the raw milk provisions of the Ordinance.

As to the regulations in the same Ordinance affecting pasteurized milk, we find severe condemnation from no less an authority than Dr. C.E. North. Dr. North was a member of the National Commission on Milk Standards which pioneered from 1910 to 1921 in the field of milk grading. This is what Dr. North has to say of the Ordinance in relation to pasteurized milk:

“The Commission on Milk Standards, and the cities and States following its recommendations, make the test for bacteria on the dealer’s raw milk before pasteurization the critical test on which the grading of milk is based. The character of the mixed raw milk in the dealer’s possession decides its grade. In the U.S. Public Health Service ‘Milk Ordinance and Code’ no standard for the dealer’s raw milk is required...The most cardinal of all principles agreed upon by the authorities who originated Grade A milk was that the determination of the grade into which any milk is classed must be based on the bacterial plate count of the raw milk before pasteurization. It was recognized that pasteurizers often make very dirty milk look like clean milk. All bacteriologists on the Commission agreed that tests of the milk after pasteurization were a most unreliable indicator of the bacteria in milk before pasteurization, since many species are easily killed by heat. On the other hand, the test of raw milk before pasteurization, is the most certain of all indicators of the contamination of milk in the production and handling and of its age and the temperature at which it has been kept. To substitute inspections of dealers’ machinery and score cards for this test only dodges the real issue. If sanitation means anything, it means technique. If sanitary technique has been practiced, it should result in sanitary milk. Therefore the test of the milk is the test for sanitation. A standard for the raw milk before it is pasteurized is a standard for sanitation.”54 (Italics Mine.).

With such a full and complete statement from so eminent an authority as Dr. North on the woeful lack of adequate supervision of milk produced for pasteurization, there is nothing further that need be said, other than to point out that the U.S. Public Health Service has done nothing to meet criticism, nothing to follow the constructive suggestions, made by Dr. North. It is evident, therefore that this Ordinance does little, if anything, to insure clean milk production or, as a matter of fact, to insure the very objective for which it has been so widely advocated, namely, universal pasteurization.

Frankly, however, it matters very little whether or not the Ordinance is a step in the direction os pasteurization, because pasteurization is not, from the standpoint of national health, a proper goal anyway. This is readily ascertainable from the Public Health Service’s own annual reports.12 These reports, compiled and published annually, consist of a column table, giving the kind of disease, the number of cases in, and deaths from each outbreak and other pertinent data, including the kind of milk or milk product to which such disease has been attributed, and a column designating whether such milk was raw or pasteurized.

The designation “Raw” appearing in the column headed “Raw or Pasteurized” indicates that the reported outbreak was attributed to the consumption of milk from:

(a) Any raw milk produced for sale by a licensed milk producer, complying with regulations and inspections which vary from city to city and from state to state, from the lax to the stringent
(b) Any raw milk from privately owned cows and goats, which are under no inspection or control whatsoever, with the single exception of tuberculin testing, made compulsory by Federal statute;
(c) Any raw milk which may have been consumed on farms which are producing milk for pasteurization, with few or no standards for clean production; or
(d) Any raw milk of still lower grade, suitable only for manufacture.

The designation “Pasteurized” indicates that the reported outbreak was attributed to milk all of which is under inspection and control; for pasteurization is rarely, if ever, done unless official action requires it.

The cases reported are shown to have come from contamination not only in the milking, but in the processing, bottling, distribution and manufacture of over 50 billion quarts of milk a year, the product of over 25 million cows, and many goats, produced on four and a half million farms and distributed by thousands of dealers to 140 million people in the United States, Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico. In addition, disease is reported which may have been caused through contamination by handlers in all of the nation’s 25 million homes and in its many institutions.

It will be a rewarding experience and a valuable antidote for any frightened reader of milk propaganda to examine these Public Health reports carefully. If the scare technique employed by Messrs. Mackaye, Harris and Harvey has led some to the belief that pasteurization is the only way to insure a disease- free milk supply, he may be surprised to learn that many milk-borne diseases are traced to improper handling and “under pasteurization,” and others to milk which was contaminated prior to pasteurization, so that even proper pasteurization did not prevent them.

According to the latest of these annual reports, there were 1,492 cases and nine deaths from pasteurized milk in 1945, while from raw milk there were 450 cases and six deaths. Here are the figures taken from the 1945 report for comparison with the 1944 figures previously published in The Rural New Yorker (March 15, 1947, p. 223):

Kind of Milk	Cases in 1945	Cases in 1944	Deaths in 1945	Deaths in 1944
Raw Milk	450	430	2 diptheria 4 typhoid	1 typhoid
Pasteurized Milk	1492	224	9 food poisoning
Past. and Raw	0	3
Ice Cream Raw	0	24
Ice Cream Pasteurized	0	145
Ice Cream Unknown	0	65
Hospital Formula	9	43
Evaporated Milk	0	10	1 gastroenteritis	2 diarrhea
Cheeses	315	505	1 food poisoning
Total	2275	1449	17	20

Is not this latest report of the U.S. Public Health Service itself a more than sufficient answer to the oft repeated propagandist refrain that pasteurization will prevent all milk-borne disease? If the further argument be advanced that pasteurization, if properly applied, will always be a cure-all, attention is called to one of a number of cases which clearly refute this claim, and which is also included in the 1945 report. Concerning an epidemic of 300 cases of food poisoning in Phoenix, Arizona, the report reads: “Pasteurization charts for July 26 show milk was properly pasteurized and leads to assumption that toxin was produced in milk while it was stored without proper refrigeration and was not completely destroyed by pasteurization.” Also included in the same 1945 report is a single epidemic of gastroenteritis in Great Bend, Kansas, in which there were 468 cases and nine deaths traced to the drinking of pasteurized milk due to “insanitary conditions in dairies, unsterilized bottles, improper pasteurization.” That single epidemic in which more cases and deaths occurred than were attributed to raw milk in the entire year, serves to point out the utter stupidity of current milk ordinances which provide lower sanitary requirements for the production of milk which is to be pasteurized than for milk which is to be consumed raw.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture milk statistics for 194555, there were over 27 billion quarts of milk consumed in fluid form, of which approximately 18½ billion quarts were pasteurized and 8½ billion were consumed raw (this includes fluid milk consumed on farms where produced.).

On the basis of these figures, the relative frequency of milk-borne disease can be easily determined by dividing the number of raw and pasteurized quarts consumed by the number of diseases traced to raw and pasteurized milk respectively. We find that there was one case of disease for every 12,400,000 quarts of pasteurized milk consumed and one case of disease for every 18,900,000 quarts of raw milk consumed. Not only is it comforting to learn that the danger of contracting any milk-borne disease, which has been made to appear so great, is, in reality, so infinitesimally slight in spite of the manifold opportunities for contamination, but what is so particularly reassuring is the discovery that in 1945 one could have drunk 6,500,000 more quarts of raw milk than pasteurized without any fear of being “stricken.”

It is indeed a sobering thought that, by constant and continual repetition of such false and misleading information as has been put forward by the pasteurization propagandists in the articles examined and in hundreds more like them, not only the public, but the medical profession as well, has been duped into endorsing pasteurization so that it is now applied to 85 percent of the total fluid milk supply. In the face of the stupendous nutritional loss which is inflicted thereby, the result, while a temporary victory for the synthetic or compensatory school of nutrition, is truly a national tragedy, because the percentage of pasteurization is the inevitable measure of the inferiority of a milk supply.

This loss is terribly serious because it occurs, not once in 19 million quarts, not sometimes, or infrequently, or just now and then, but in every quart of milk that is pasteurized. Each one of the 181/2 billion quarts sold as pasteurized milk in 1945 was nutritionally deficient. It was robbed of a long list of valuable nutrients. (

The Rural New Yorker, May 3, 1947, p. 319). The calcium loss alone amounted to 2,819,346 pounds in one year! What, too, of the 50 percent loss of vitamin C and of all the other elements -- vitamins, minerals, enzymes --known and unknown? All are squandered with like profligacy. And for what?

So much space was devoted to misinformation about undulant fever (medically known as brucellosis), in the propaganda articles under discussion, that it is advisable and necessary at this point to have some authentic information on the subject.

The fact that undulant fever is a serious disease is succinctly stated by a California State Department of Health publication: “Brucellosis in California (Undulant Fever)” by Harlin L. Synns, M.D., Chief, Bureau of Epidemiology....While few people die of this disease, nevertheless it is a serious disease because of the fact that it has a tendency to be chronic, of long duration, and convalescence often extends into months and even years.” 56

As to the extent of the disease, let us turn to Iowa, the leading hog producing State, which has the unenviable record for the most cases of undulant fever. Dr. Carl F. Jordan, Iowa State Department of Health, states that from 1930 through 1941 a total of 20,594 cases of undulant fever were reported in the entire United States, an annual average of 1,716 cases, and that during the same period there were 1,887 reported cases in Iowa, an annual average of 157 cases.57 Iowa, therefore, with barely two percent of the national population, had almost 10 percent of the cases of undulant fever reported.

Next, and by far the most important, is the method by which brucellosis is transmitted from animals to man. There are several well known authorities who have spoken clearly on this point. A.V. Hardy, also of Iowa, has stated: “It is still evident that in the United States the incidence of recognized brucellosis in man tends to vary directly with the extent of the hog-raising industry...It was previously assumed, as a result of the studies of the Mediterranean Fever commission, that brucellosis was acquired through the ingestion of infected raw dairy products. It has since been established through experimental study and the interpretation of epidemiological observations that the infection may readily be acquired through cutaneous contact with infective secretions, excretions, or tissues. This appears to explain the ease of infection of bacteriologists, who are generally able to avoid the ingestion of those organisms with which they work but can scarcely hope to prevent entirely the contamination of fingers and hands. The high incidence of infection in packing-plant employees is readily understood when it is known that Brucella may penetrate the normal or minutely abraded skin. Likewise the high rate of infection in men on the farm, as compared with the women, can be explained only as a result of the more common skin contamination by infective discharges of cattle or hogs.” 58

Dr. J. Howard Brown of Johns Hopkins, has recently written: “Although hogs are resistant to Brucella Abortus, cattle in close association with hogs occasionally become infected with Brucella suis. In the two milk-borne outbreaks reported by the U.S. Public Health Service (1941 and 1942) as due to Brucella suis, the incriminated cows had been allowed to run with infected hogs in the same lot.”8

Dr. E.G. Hastings of the Department of Bacteriology, Wisconsin College of Agriculture, says: “It is necessary to keep in mind that the organism causing practically all the cases of contagious abortion [Bang’s Disease] in cattle is a member of a family which has two other branches, one of which is found in the goat and sheep and the third in swine...the number of cases of undulant fever in man due to the bovine [cow] form of the organism is less than the number due to either of the other forms...If the bovine form of Brucella has a great ability to cause disease in man, the greater number of cases of undulant fever should occur in the dairy regions. The data gathered shows that the incidence of the infection in man has little if any relation to the intensity of dairying, but it does have a relation to the swine industry.”59 (Brackets mine).

In a recent article in the Holstein- Friesian World, Dr. George H. Conn, quotes Dr. B. A. Beach, Professor of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, as to the percentage of cases of undulant fever that could be proven to be caused by milk infection from the cow. In answer to the query, Dr. Beach’s reply, as quoted, was: “I do not believe the answer to that question is definitely known. We do know, however, that a percentage of the cases of undulant fever are due to Brucella abortus. Whether any of them came through the milk has as far as I know, never been demonstrated. Considerable work has been done by the Iowa Department of Health. The majority of their cases are due to the suis [hog] type.” 60 (Brackets mine).

It is therefore the opinion of these competent, scientific authorities that few cases of undulant fever are known to have been caused by drinking raw milk; that most cases are caused by direct contact with animals; and that undulant fever is an occupational disease and therefore primarily a problem of the livestock industry, not a milk problem.

How, then, can undulant fever be prevented? The small number of bovine cases contracted through contact with cows and the still smaller number possibly contracted through drinking raw milk would naturally be eliminated if the cows were disease-free. The Bureau of Animal Industry of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has for many years been developing methods calculated to conquer Bang’s disease in cows, and with a fair measure of success. Herds under its “test and slaughter” method are tested over a period of time and when determined to be Bang’s free are known as “approved,” the test being given annually thereafter or as deemed necessary. Any reactors found through the Bang’s test are removed from the herd and slaughtered, and the government indemnifies the owner for the loss to a certain extent. This is somewhat similar to the method used for the tuberculin testing of cattle which is now universal and compulsory.

The drastic “test and slaughter” method has latterly been supplemented by the ‘calfhood vaccination” plan, by which it is hoped to establish immunity to the disease in the cow’s early life, just as human beings are protected against smallpox or diphtheria. Time will test the ultimate success of the current vaccination plan which presently is producing good results. If it does not measure up to its initial promise, other and improved methods of immunization will undoubtedly replace the ones advocated today. At any rate one thing is certain-- total eradication of the disease in cows will automatically protect human beings from undulant fever.

Why Milk Pasteurization? - The Harvest is a Barren One - Part 2

The Harvest is a Barren One - by Jean Builitt Darlington - Part 2

The pasteurization of milk, on the contrary, will not prevent any of the cases of undulant fever contracted by occupational workers which, as already shown, make up the great majority of cases. Milk regulations which advocate pasteurization as the cure-all and neglect to require the much needed Bang’s testing, therefore serve only to promote the disease by removing one incentive to Bang’s testing and making the dairymen feel that such a safeguard is unnecessary, hence unimportant.

From the health standpoint, as in the case of tuberculin testing, insistence on Bang’s testing of all herds producing milk, whether or not it is to be pasteurized, would solve the problem of bovine undulant fever. It is quite evident that the propaganda which is put forth to emphasize the danger of disease to the few (milk drinkers), while ignoring the danger to the many (occupational workers), is motivated by considerations other than health.

If the pasteurization of milk causes so much nutritional loss and at the same time offers no greater security from milk- borne disease than is shown by the 1945 report of the U.S. Public Health Service, has it then no merit? Is there no place for the pasteurization of milk in the scheme of things? In one of the ablest books yet written about the milk industry, Dr. Roland W. Bartlett, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Illinois, cites the study made on milk ordinances by Dr. M. J. Prucha, Professor Emeritus in Dairy Bacteriology, University of Illinois. (61) Dr. Prucha, recalling the early days of pasteurization, has this to say:

“There was much opposition to pasteurization of milk and at best, it was looked upon as a temporary expedient to obtain a safe milk supply until the time when the dairy industry would learn to produce clean and safe milk.”

Thus pasteurization was originally adopted as a means to a proper end, and then defended only as a temporary expedient. It was naturally assumed that the dairy industry would discontinue the destructive process of pasteurization when it had leaned how to produce a clean and safe milk supply and as its acquired knowledge was put into effect. It did not take the industry very long to learn how to produce a clean and safe milk supply, and the knowledge has been on hand and available for many years. Dr. North (54, p. 128) recalls the discovery of the principles involved, and the illuminating fact that the technique of sanitary milk production can be transferred to any dairy farm, together with the even more encouraging fact that it will be practiced by any dairyman in return for a bonus. Looking back, Dr. North describes these findings in the following words: “Here was a perfect mechanism for control of milk sanitation that could be expanded indefinitely. The simple sanitary technique, the bonus, and the laboratory test, each played their part in a perfect system of control.”

Much of the credit for the successful application of these principles to milk production on a large scale can be given to Dr. North for his untiring efforts to promote it under the title of Grade A. Further, he confirms this fact that the technique can be applied on a large scale and expanded indefinitely, when he cites the case of New York City where “politics ignorant of the meaning of Grade A destroyed this clean milk supply.” A few years ago, there were one million quarts of clean milk of Grade A quality coming into New York City from 6,000 dairy farms.

Clean and safe milk is vital to health. Opposed to this obvious fact, the propagandists for pasteurization have made it appear that it is not important to produce clean and safe milk. This is not true. Nor is it true, as they would also have the public believe, that it is economically impossible. Immunity from Bang’s disease and sanitary milk handling constitute the simple answer to the pasteurization fanatics. When pasteurization was first put into effect, every possible effort was exerted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the dairy industry to determine just what was necessary for clean and safe milk production. After extensive experiments it was discovered what those requirements should be, the four most essential factors being:

1. Sterilized utensils.

2. Clean cows with clean udders and tests.

3. The small-topped milk pail (the newer milking machines have the pail completely covered).

4. Refrigeration at 50 degrees after milking.

Other important factors were found to be clean and healthy milk handlers and an unpolluted water supply. Wherever these recommendations have been observed, the results have been excellent. In fact, through these experiments it was learned that any farm and any farmer can, with proper incentive, produce clean milk.

The same ideas underlay the original development of Certified milk under the Medical Milk Commissions, and numerous local examples of a successful application of these principles of clean and safe milk production can be found all over the country, whether it be called Grade A, Certified, Inspected, Approved or Guaranteed. Care must be taken, however, to distinguish Dr. North’s principles of safe milk production from those in the U.S. Public Health Service Ordinance, and others like it, which are designed primarily to promote pasteurization.

Pasteurization has been amply demonstrated to be a retrograde process. It may be useful when adopted only as a temporary means to a worthy end, but it can never be justified as an end in itself.

This is precisely the dilemma which faces its promoters. Because their position cannot be defended by logic or reason and thus appeal to man’s higher faculties, these promoters have been obliged to resort to the scare technique, appealing to man’s more primitive instinct of self-preservation. Since the truth about raw milk and pasteurization, when brought into the open (as it never is but as has been in these articles), does not even provide sufficient evidence to warrant exploitation through fear, the evidence has to be either manufactured, made up out of whole cloth, misrepresented, or so distorted that the real truth will go unrecognized.

Very properly, it may here in conclusion be asked; “Why Milk Pasteurization?” Pasteurization is destructive of many of the essential nutritional values in milk. Nor can it be defended as a preventive of undulant fever because it does not even pretend to meet the danger of that disease where its incidence is greatest. The only possible defense that could ever have been offered for pasteurization is that it did act as a temporary expedient pending the acquisition of more knowledge of methods insuring a safe and clean supply. That defense cannot, however, be availed of today when the requisite knowledge is at hand but for some reason has been prevented, or at least delayed, from being properly and adequately applied to the benefit and for the health of the entire nation.

When, as in the case of milk, the truth is plowed under and only seeds of fear are sown, the harvest is a barren one for those who are most dependent upon it. On the other hand, the harvest is rich indeed for the monopoly interests, whether they be engaged in business for a profit or fanatically devoted to the cause of government control.

The X-Factor of Dr. Weston A. Price

Dr. Weston A. Price, a Cleveland dentist, has been called the "Charles Darwin of Nutrition." In his search for the causes of dental decay and physical degeneration that he observed in his dental practice, he turned from test tubes and microscopes to the evidence supplied by human beings. Dr. Price sought the factors responsible for fine teeth among the people who had them -- the isolated "primitives." The world became his laboratory. As he traveled, his findings led him to the belief that dental caries and deformed dental arches resulting in crowded, crooked teeth and unattractive appearance were a sign of physical degeneration, resulting from what he had suspected -- nutritional deficiencies.

Price travelled the world over in order to study isolated human groups, including sequestered villages in Switzerland, Gaelic communities in the Outer Hebrides, Eskimos and Indians of North America, Melanesian and Polynesian South Sea Islanders, African tribes, Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maori and the Indians of South America. Wherever he went, Dr. Price found that beautiful straight teeth, freedom from decay, stalwart bodies, resistance to disease and fine characters were typical of primitives on their traditional diets, rich in essential food factors.

When Dr. Price analyzed the foods used by isolated primitive peoples he found that they provided at least four times the water soluble vitamins, calcium and other minerals, and at least TEN times the fat soluble vitamins -- vitamin A and vitamin D -- from animal foods such as fish eggs, shellfish, organ meats and butter from cows eating green grass.

Dr. Price discovered an additional fat soluble vitamin which is now called the Price Factor or Activator X. It is a powerful catalyst which, like vitamins A and D, helps the body absorb and utilize minerals. It was present in the diets of all the healthy population groups he studied but unfortunately has almost completely disappeared from the modern western diet. Sources include organ meats from cows eating green grass, fish eggs and shellfish. Butter can be an especially rich source of Activator X when it comes from cows eating rapidly growing grass in the Spring and Fall seasons. It disappears in cows fed cottonseed meal or high protein soy-based feeds. Fortunately, Activator X is not destroyed by pasteurization.

The importance of good nutrition for mothers during pregnancy has long been recognized, but Dr. Price’s investigation showed that primitives understood and practiced preconception nutritional programs for BOTH parents. Many tribes required a period of premarital nutrition, and children were spaced to permit the mother to maintain her full health and strength, thus assuring physical excellence to subsequent offspring. Special foods were often given to pregnant and lactating women, as well as to the maturing boys and girls, in preparation for future parenthood. Dr. Price found these foods to be very rich in fat soluble vitamins A, vitamin D and Activator X -- nutrients found only in animal fats.

These primitives with their fine bodies, homogeneous reproduction, emotional stability and freedom from degenerative ills stand forth in sharp contrast to those subsisting on the impoverished foods of civilization -- sugar, white flour, pasteurized lowfat milk and convenience foods filled with extenders and additives.

The discoveries and conclusion of Dr. Price are presented in his classic volume Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. The book contains striking photographs of handsome, healthy primitives and illustrates in an unforgettable way the physical degeneration that occurs when human groups abandon nourishing traditional diets in favor of modern convenience foods.

Review this book: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price.

The Case for Butter

by Trauger Groh Biodynamic Farmer, Author & Lecturer

Butter and Honey shall He eat that
He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good
Isaiah 7:15

The use of butter for human nutrition and the processing of milk into cream and then butter is as old as the keeping of cattle as domestic animals. It goes back to prehistoric times. The process is simple and has been in use for thousands of years. Raw milk is put into vats and placed in a cool place. After twenty-four hours, most of the cream rises to the surface and can be skimmed off with a flat spoon, owing to the fact that the fat globules are the lighter part of the milk. Traditionally the cream is then fermented by acid-producing germs. This process takes about 24 to 36 hours in the summer and when it is completed the sour cream is mechanically beaten with wooden tools until the butterfat globules stick together and the protein-carrying liquid -- the buttermilk -- is released. Then the butter is washed thoroughly to get out all remaining protein particles. Finally, the butter is kneaded to remove as much water as possible, then salted and formed.

Since man began to make and use butter, he made it from ripened matured cream -- sour cream. A change to unsoured or sweet cream butter came only during the 1940's. The reasons for the change were purely technical. Machines work most economically and profitably when they run permanently. Buttering machines were constructed that transformed sweet cream endlessly into butter. Sour cream at this time resisted this process. You had to fill the churn with one batch of sour cream, finish buttering, clean the churn and start again. Thus for purely technical reasons, people became used to sweet cream butter.

The standard book about butter making from 1915, Principles and Practise of Butter Making by McKay and Larson, does not even mention sweet cream butter. Here is what the authors say about making butter:

"To Produce Flavor and Aroma: The chief object of cream-ripening is to secure the desirable and delicate flavor and aroma which are so characteristic of good butter. These flavoring substances, so far as known, can only be produced by a process of fermentation. It is a well known fact that the best flavor in butter is obtained when the cream assumes a clean, pure, acid taste during the ripening. For this reason, it is essential to have the acid-producing germs predominate during the cream ripening; all other germs should, if possible, be excluded or suppressed. . . . When cream has been properly ripened, it is practically a pure culture of lactic-acid-producing germs, while sweet unpasteurized cream contains a bacterial flora, consisting of a great many types of desirable and undesirable germs."

Here a very important point is touched on: Lactic-acid-producing germs -- very helpful for our digestion -- are able to suppress all other unwanted, even pathogenic, germs. Lactic-acid fermentation is far superior to the heating of milk (pasteurization) in suppressing pathogenic germs. The pasteurization of the milk dramatically changes the fine composition of the raw milk. Even warming to 120 degrees Fahrenheit alters this fine composition that includes various proteins, vitamins, sugars and enzymes. Homogenization destroys the butterfat globules so much that the cream can no longer rise in the milk. The milk is denaturalized.

Buttering cream is, as we have seen, a purely mechanical process. The quality of the cream is the deciding factor, and this means that the cream should be properly ripened and contain a preponderance of lactic-acid producing germs. The cream ripening is usually achieved with the help of a starter. Besides a pure culture obtained by a laboratory, we can use as a natural starter a great many dairy products which are supposed to contain a preponderance of those germs involved in producing the desirable flavor in butter: buttermilk, sour cream, whey, sour whole or skimmed milk. A great advantage of sour cream buttering is that it produces, besides the butter, the refreshing and highly digestible buttermilk. The buttermilk coming out of modern sweet cream buttering tastes flat and cannot be used for human consumption. True buttermilk is no longer on the market. What is on the market under this name is not the result of the buttering process of sour cream. It is usually pasteurized skimmed milk, fermented with a laboratory culture.

At the beginning of this century we still had experienced, old country medical doctors. When they were called to a baby that had an intolerance of cow’s milk, they often gave the farmers the advice to separate a cow from the herd and to feed her only good hay -- no grain, no silage (which was not in use anyway), no mangels or rutabagas -- and feed the child with the milk of this cow. Most babies then could digest this milk. If in some cases the child could not take this milk, then doctors recommended feeding buttermilk from farm-produced butter. I have myself experienced such a case in my youth where a starving child could be helped that way.

The point I want to make here is that the quality of the butter depends on the quality of the cream and its proper fermentation. The quality of our cream depends on the quality of the milk and the quality of the milk depends on the way the animals are fed on the farm. Cows that are fed as it is usual in this country with concentrates containing grain and soy, in addition to large amounts of corn silage and with only a little hay produce large amounts of milk -- 20,000 pounds and more per year -- but have constant light diarrhea and often have diseased livers, a fact that shows up only in the slaughterhouse. Their milk is of a totally different quality than the milk of a cow fed with grass and hay. Their lives are on the average ended within five or six years instead of twelve to fifteen years that a properly fed cow can reach. After the suffering of the cow comes the suffering of the milk. The milk has to be deep cooled on the farm because the milk truck comes only two or three times a week (energy use). In the factory it has to be warmed up for the separator that separates the cream (energy use). Then the cream and the de-creamed milk have to be pasteurized with another high use of energy. Then cream and skimmed milk have to be united again into "whole milk." Part of the cream goes into butter. Everything then has to be deep cooled, transported and deep cooled again before it comes into the hands of the consumer (more energy use). In the whole process, many vitamins are lost. No problem, synthetic vitamin A is added. Who expects this white liquid or this whitish, tasteless butterfat to have any life-giving properties? In addition to all that is mentioned, the milk has to be pushed and sucked through miles of pipes that have to be chemically cleaned. Here -- more often than you think -- a late new germ infection is happening in the pasteurized matter.

Farm to close-to-farm processing saves huge amounts of energy and leaves the life forces of the milk intact. The consumers have to fight for the right to choose raw milk and raw milk products from farms they know and trust. They have to fight for their rights against the close cooperation of dairy industry and state veterinarians.

This country was based on a concept of freedom. We have to fight to reestablish the freedom of choice on all levels! The right to choose the medication I trust; the right to choose the school I trust for my children; and the right to choose the food I trust from the sources I know and can trust.

Raw vs. Pasteurized Milk - Which Do You Choose?

Which Do You Choose?

 

RAW CERTIFIED MILK			PASTEURIZED MILK
A. Cleanliness Regulations			A. Cleanliness, CA State & County Law
1. Tested daily at an independent laboratory for the Certified Milk Commission.			1. Tested once a month by the Health Department
a) Bacteria count for standard plate count: 10,000 per ml maximum for Certified Milk or Cream. b) Coliform bacteria count may not exceed10 per ml. (Coliform bacteris is normally foreign to the cow’s udder.)			a) Bacteria count for the standard plate count: 50,000 per ml maximum before pasteurization; 15,000 per ml maximum after pasteurization for milk, 25,000 per ml maximum focream. b) May not exceed 750 Coliform per ml in raw milk before pasteurization, taken at farm pick-up.
2. Streptococci test once a month.			2. No regulation requires test for Streptococci.
B. Herd tests in Los Angeles County, CA			B. Herd tests in Los Angeles County, CA
1. All dairy cows in a certified milking are vaccinated for brucellosis between the ages of 2-6months. 2. Each certified cow is blood tested for brucellosis before entering the milking herd and receives a blood test at least once a year; thereafter reactors are removed. 3. All raw certified milk is ring tested at least 4 times a year for brucella. If the ring test is positive, then entire herd is blood tested for brucellosis and any positive reactors are removed. 4. TB skin test is performed annually on all cows in the certified milking herd by a state veterinarian. If reactors were found they would be removed from the certified herd. All certified milk dairy herds are free and are maintained free of TB because of constant vigilance and testing. 5. Herd sanitarian from the County Medical Milk Commission visits the dairy weekly or more often. A health inspector from the county visits the dairy at least monthly.			1. All diary cows are vaccinated for brucellosis between the ages of 2-6 months. All dairy cattle moving within the state must bear evidence of official calfhood vaccination. 2. All diary cattle must be blood tested for brucellosis if imported into California reactors are removed. 3. The milk from all dairy herds is ring tested at least 4 times a year for brucella. If the ring test is positive then the entire dairy herd is blood tested for brucellosis and any positive reactors are removed. 4. TB Skin Test is performed on all cows by a state veterinarian at intervals longer than one year. If reactors are found, additional tests may be required. Reactor cows are removed. 5. Health inspector visits dairy monthly.
C. Employee Health Examinations			C. Employee Health Examinations
1. Once a month examination of each employee at certified farm. All new employees have a complete physical examination and tests when starting to work on a certified farm. 2. Once a month throat culture and examination for streptococcus. 3. During the year other tests are made at regular intervals. Another step to insure disease-free milk. 4. Stool specimen is required from each employee bi-annually. 5. Chest x-ray or skin test for TB required annually.			1. Examination required at time of employment. 2. None required. 3. None required. 4. None required. 5. None required.
D. Nutritional Values			D. Nutritional Values
1. Enzymes, catalase, peroxidase and phosphatase are present.			1. Pasteurization destroys the enzyme phosphatase.
a. Phosphates is needed to split and assimilate the mineral salts in foods that are in the form of phytates. b. Wulzen Factor (anti-stiffness) available. c. X Factor in tissue repair available.			a. Absence of phosphatase indicate that milk has been pasteurized. b. Wulzen Factor destroyed (anti-stiffness nutrition factor lost). c. No evidence of alternation by pasteurization.
2. Protein--100% metabolically available; all 22 amino acids, including the 8 that are essential for the complete metabolism and function of protein.			2. Digestibility reduced by 4%, biological value reduced by 17%. From the digestibility and metabolic data it is concluded that the heat damage to lysine and possibly to histidine and perhaps other amino acids destroys the identity of these amino acids and partly decreases the absorbability of their nitrogen.
3. Vitamins--all 100% available			3. Vitamins
a) Vitamin A--fat soluble b) Vitamin D--fat soluble c) Vitamin E--fat soluble d) Vitamin K--fat soluble e) Vitamin B--Complex Vitamin Bw--Biotin Vitamin B --Choline Vitamin Bc --Folic Acid Vitamin B1 --Thiamine Vitamin B2 --Inositol Vitamin B2 --Nicotinic Acid Vitamin B2 --Riboflavin Vitamin B2 --Pantothenic Acid Vitamin B3 --Niacin Vitamin B6 --Pyridoxine Vitamin B12--Cyanocobalamin f) Vitamin C g) Antineuritic vitamin			3. Vitamins a) Vitamin A--destroyed b) Not altered c) Not altered d) Not altered e) Vitamin B complex--pasteurization of milk destroys about 38% of the vitamin B com-plex. f) Vitamin C is weakened or destroyed by pasteurization. Infants fed pasteurized milk exclusively will develop scurvy. g) Testing of pasteurized milk indicates destruction of this vitamin.
4. Minerals--all 100% metabolically available.			4. After pasteurization the total of soluble calcium is very much diminished. The loss of soluble calcium in regards to infants and growing children must be a very important factor in growth and development, not only in the formation of bone and teeth, but also in the calcium content of the blood, the importance of which is now being raised.
5. Carbohydrates--easily utilized in metabolism. Still associated naturally with elements (instable).			5. Carbohydrates -- no evidence of change by pasteurization.
6. Fats--all 18 fatty acids metabolically available, both saturated and unsaturated.			6. Pasteurization harms the fat content of milk.
E. Possible Damage to the Health of Consumers from Drinking Pasteurized Milk 1. Dr. J. C. Annand has written a series of articles in which he has advanced the theory that the increase in the incidence of heart disease was proximately related to the on set of pasteurization of milk. Different population groups were studied in various parts of the world. His theory is that the heat process of pasteurization alters the protein found in milk and as a result heated protein is responsible for the large increase in the incidence of heart trouble in citizens of western civilization, during the course of the past generation. 2. Dr. Kurt A. Oster has advanced the theory that homogenization of milk is proximately related to the atherosclerosis which is so prevalent in citizens in developed countries of the western world. The reduction in the size of the fat particles caused by homogenization permits them to be assimilated into the stomach lining in a manner that was not contemplated by nature. When these fat particles along with xanthine oxidase get into the bloodstream the human system sets up a defense mechanism which results in the scarring of arteries.

Where to Buy Real Milk

Where Can I find REAL MILK Products?

It’s not easy! Here’s the lowdown on Real Milk and Almost Real Milk products.

Cheese: Naturally fermented raw milk cheeses from whole milk given by pasture-fed cows are still made in France, England, Switzerland and Greece. Look for the word "milk" or "fresh milk" rather than "pasteurized milk" on the label which means they are made from raw milk. Such cheeses have contributed to the good health of dairying populations for millennia. Real Milk cheeses are now being produced by a number of small independent manufacturers in America. In general, these producers own their own herd of cows, sheep or goats, and the milk is not pasteurized. For a listing of Real Milk cheeses see Cheese Primer by Steven Jenkins (Workman Publishing, 1996) or contact the American Cheese Society (414) 728-4458. Real Milk cheeses may be ordered from Zingerman’s in Ann Arbor, MI (888) 636-8162.

Yoghurt: Naturally made whole milk yoghurt from pasture-fed cows is now being produced for the commercial market by several biodynamic farms. Unfortunately it is made with pasteurized milk, but at least the enzymes are restored through the culturing process. Look for Brown Cow or Seven Stars Farm brands, among others.

Cream: Cream from pasture fed Jersey cows is now available in some gourmet markets, under the Butterworks and Organic Cow of Vermont labels. Unfortunately these creams are pasteurized, but at least they are not ultrapasteurized. Traditionally soured cream (called creme fraiche), produced by the Vermont Butter and Cheese Company, will have some of the enzyme content restored. It is becoming more widely available. Raw cream is available in California, but it does not necessarily come from pasture-fed cows.

Butter: Raw butter is available in California, under the Steuve’s label, but it is not organic, nor from pasture-fed cows. Organic butter from pasture-fed cows is available in some markets, produced by the Organic Cow of Vermont. It is made with pasteurized cream, but cultured to restore enzymes. New Zealand butter comes from pasture-fed cows. It is made from pasteurized cream, but is especially rich in fat soluble vitamins. It can be obtained in California from Stone and Associates (818) 716-0968 in Bell Gardens, or from Mangal’s (510) 352-3337 in San Leandro.

Liquid Milk: Real Milk is not commercially available in the United States--and won’t be until consumer demand increases. Raw milk can be purchased in California, but it is not organic, and not from pasture fed cows. However, in many states raw milk can be purchased at the farm and many concerned consumers are forming cooperatives designed to support conscientious dairy farmers and obtain Real Milk directly from the farm. The solution to restrictive state laws is a cow-share program in which farmers keep and milk cows owned by individuals. These are being set up in many states. For further information, including technical and legal help, contact tim Wightman (715) 462-3076.

Sources of Real and Almost Real Milk Products

ALABAMA

Raw cheese available from Sweet Home Farm, Elberta, AL

CALIFORNIA

Claravale Dairy (Raw milk from Jersey cows, but not pasture fed) Raw cream can be purchased from the farm. (408-939-2892)

CONNECTICUT

Local Farm, Cornwall Bridge (860 572-0229)

Shepard Farm, Wodbridge CT (203 393-0174)

INDIANA

Cheese (and maybe butter) from pasture-fed cows from The Swiss Connection (812-939-2813) Ayeger@ccrtc.com. Will ship anywhere in the US.

MASSACHUSETTS

Brookside Farm, Westminster (978-874-2695)

Hardwick: Gina Robinson is selling legal grassfed bottled raw milk. She is building a customer list of interested people. Sales will be on-farm, but she can help organize drive-sharing buying clubs for those who live far away. Contact her at mootopian@yahoo.com, or (413)477-0011.

Warwick: Chase Hill Farm, Mark and Jeanette Fellows, 74 Chase Hill Road, Warwick, MA 01378, (978) 544-6327, is a certified organic farm with cows fed grass as much as weather allows. They produce milk from March to November. Real Milk correspondent Chris says, "They charge $4.00 per gallon for whole milk in plastic. They also sell wonderful cheeses (camembert, cheddar, farmstead, garlic & chive). I also peeked at the dairy processing room, and it was spotless. They are certified to sell raw milk by the state, and offer great testing results from the last bunch of years."

MARYLAND

Spiritual Food for the New Milenium (Milk from pasture-fed cows) (301-654-4899)

MAINE

Hart-to-Hart Farm, Albion (207-437-2441)
Nexinscot Farm, Turner (207-225-3231)
White Orchard Farm, Frankfort (Their milk is also sold in several stores in the area) (207-223-5525)

MISSOURI

Brian Johnston, near Kansas City (785-937-2440)
Morningland Dairy Cheese, Mountain View (417-469-3817)

MONTANNA

Lifeline Farms Cheese, Victor (800-679-8735)

NEBRASKA

Jubilee Farms, Friend (402-947-6221) jubileefarm.homestead.com

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Susanne Lupien, Cornish Flat (Raw milk cheese by mail order) (604-542-8635)

NEW MEXICO

Rancho Las Lagunas, near Santa Fe (Retail and on farm sales of raw milk and cream.)

NEW YORK

Butternut Farms, Gilbertsville (607-783-2392)
Hawthrone Valley Farm, Ghent (518-672-7500)
Meadowsweet Farm, Ithaca (Sells raw milk from pasture-fed Jersey cows)
Natural by Nature, Brooklyn (Retail sales of pasteurized milk products from grass-fed cows.) (718-257-7600)

OHIO

Young’s Dairy, Yellow Springs
Minerva Maid Products Minerva, OH 44657 (330) 868-4196 Natural Cheeses, old fashion, fine quality, Amish butter. Can also be purchased at Krieger's Health Foods Market 615 Graham Road, Cuyahoga, Falls OH (330) 929-2929

OREGON

Daily Blessing Organic Farms, Nyssa (541-753-7331)
Echo Spring Dairy, Eugene (541-753-7331)

PENNSYLVANIA

Kimberton Hills Farm, Kimberton (610-935-0314)
Mark Nolt Farm, Newville (717-776-3417)
Springwood Farm, Kinzers (610-593-2415)

VIRGINIA

Majesty Farms, North Garden (804-293-5514)
Lexington, VA: Briar Patch Farm, Jersey Cow Shares from pastured, chemical, antibiotic and hormone free cows. www.Briarpatchfarm.weebly.com (540)570-0542

VERMONT

Butterworks Farm, Westfield (Sells wonderful thick yellow cream, low-temperature pasteurized, from pasture-fed cows both on farm and in stores) (802-744-6855)
Green Mountain Organic, Hardwick (802-472-5763)
Organic Cow of Vermont, Chelsea (Retail sales of pasteurized milk, cream and butter from grass-fed cows.) (802-685-3123)
Young’s Dairy, Mansfield (802-426-3234)

WASHINGTON

Greenbanks Farms Cheese, Preston (425-222-5500)
Raw milk can be purchased at a Benedictine Nunnery located on Shaw Island (360-468-2321)

WISCONSIN

Cedar Grove Organic Cheese, Plain (608-546-5284)
Raw Milk Swiss Aged Cheese is distributed by North Farm Cooperative of Madison
Clearview Acres, Hayward, WI 54843 (715) 462-3076. Raw milk from pasture-fed cows is available in a cow-share program.
East Troy, Zinniker Dairy, (262) 642-5923 Biodynamic farm with cow sharing arrangements.
Organic Valley, La Farge (Retail sales of pasteurized milk products from grass-fed cows.) (608-652-2602)
Ranovael Organic Dairy, DePere (920-336-2820)

WEST VIRGINIA

Walsh Dairy, Spencer (On farms sales of raw milk products from pasture-fed cows "for pets and livestock")

CANADA

Fromagerie L’Ancetre, Saint-Gregoire, Quebec (819-233-9157)
Pinehedge Farms, St. Eugene, Ontario (613-674-5739)
Information on raw milk is available through Consumer Health of Canada. (416-490-0986)

UNITED KINGDOM

Sainsbury's and Tesco sell Roquefort made frm raw sheeps milk and Camembert made from raw cows milk.

GENERAL EMAIL ORDERING

www.WorldOfCheese.com
Fromages.com (Raw artisanal cheeses)
Raw goat milk shipped frozen anywhere in the US. White Egrit Farm (512) 276-7408 egretfarm@aol.com

---

© Copyright 2000-2005, BecomeHealthyNow.com, Inc. All rights reserved.