Kevin Brown
Sadiqua Hamdan
Debbie Wysocki
Paul Ericson
Maureen Diaz
Janet Demeter
Liz Reitzig
Lauren Snyder Grosz
Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN
let'spoon
Morley Robbins
Janet Stuck, ND, CNC, MH, CNHP, CWE, LE
John Chisholm
Dr. Richard Walicki
Nicole Rice
Margie King
emotionalyoga
truthinthepublicinterest
Beck Anderson, RYT 200
Jimmy Moore
rawmilk95
meljoy96
fromprocessedtopure
Joette Calabrese
.JPG)
FDA Concedes Raw Milk Across State Lines OK for Personal Consumption |
 |
 |
 |
|
FDA CONCEDES RAW MILK ACROSS STATE LINES OK FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION But continues to broadcast misinformation about unpasteurized dairy Washington, DC ( November 17, 2011)—In a statement issued on November 1, concurrent with a raw milk freedom rally held outside FDA headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, the agency conceded that it “has never taken, nor does it intend to take, enforcement action against an individual who purchased and transported raw milk across state lines solely for his or her own pe A caravan of moms brought raw milk across state lines on November 1 and served it to rally participants in front of FDA headquarters. “Unfortunately, FDA’s announcement allowing individuals to transport raw milk across state lines is filled with the same misinformation that the agency has spread in the past,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization that sponsors A Campaign for Real Milk, aimed at universal access to clean raw milk. “FDA continues to insist that raw milk is dangerous, when even the agency’s own exaggerated list of outbreaks shows that raw milk is safer than other foods.” “FDA lists outbreaks associated with raw cheese, produced in less than sanitary conditions, as ‘outbreaks caused by raw milk,’ thereby inflating the number of illnesses associated with raw milk,” says Fallon Morell. “The actual number of illnesses associated (but not necessarily proved) with raw milk is about forty-two per year, which makes raw milk a very safe food given the large number of raw milk consumers. No deaths have been associated with raw milk during the past twelve years, but three people have died from tainted pasteurized milk.” FDA insists that raw milk drinkers constitute less than 1 percent of the population. Yet a 2007 government survey found that about 3 percent of the population consumes raw milk, or about nine million people. This number is likely to be higher today as raw milk consumption is growing rapidly. Even in the state of Maryland, where raw milk sales are illegal, over 3 percent of respondents stated that they drank raw milk. “This milk is coming from Pennsylvania, where raw milk sales are legal,” says Pete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, “to the great detriment of Maryland farmers.” According to Kennedy, hundreds of thousands of dollars of farm sales each year flow from Maryland to Pennsylvania. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is currently representing citizens challenging the interstate ban on raw milk in an Iowa federal district court . According to Fallon Morell, “FDA continues to insist that no science exists to substantiate the nutritional and health benefits of raw milk, yet we now have five European studies, published in peer reviewed journals, showing that raw milk provides powerful protection against asthma and allergies. And there is copious scientific research showing that pasteurization of milk denatures and diminishes the effectiveness of enzymes and vitamins in the milk.” Moreover, raw milk is designed to build the immune system—the components that do this are denatured by the heat process of pasteurization. FDA claims that the elderly, the immune-compromised, children and pregnant women especially should avoid raw milk. “These are the very people who need it the most,” says Fallon Morell. The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nutrition education non-profit with 550 local chapters worldwide, and close to 13,000 members. The organization works to educate the public about the health benefits of unprocessed milk from grass-based dairies through its Campaign for Real Milk, http://realmilk.com. |
rsonal consumption” [
and prone to disease. These observations challenge the simplistic thinking that says calories are calories no matter where they come from. In fact, the body responds to different types of dietary calories in different ways, and the low-fat, high-carb diet upsets the body’s ability to regulate fat tissue properly. Eating fat doesn’t lead to more fat storage in the body; eating high amounts of carbs leads to the insulin resistance that increases fat storage. The high-carb diet also correlates to increased incidence in a multitude of diseases, from heart disease, cancers, diabetes, and 
feathers, eyeballs, offal, hair, hooves, diseased organs and the occasional bits of metal (from animal-ID-tags), plastic, and some restaurant grease. Many rendering factories also accept roadkills and carcasses from animal shelters, and add them to the mix. To replace the mineral and chlorophyll of natural grass, the feeds for cows usually incorporate ground-up corn stalks and corn plant leaves that are left over after the crop of corn has been harvested; they can make up more than half the feed.
animals are healthy because they’ve spent their whole lives feeding on their traditional diet in their natural environment: sunlit pastures where they absorb vitamin-D and the living enzymes and minerals from the grass. As a bonus, grazing in pastures is much better for the environment than force-feeding artificial diets in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The grazing keeps alive the native species of grasses as well as the food chain of animals that dwell there, from insects to small mammals to top predators. Grazing also does not lead to the concentrations of fecal and urine waste that typically pollute the land around the CAFOs.
organisms in the soil, while at the same time wiping out plant defenses against those diseases.
