Page

CONTENTS 2

SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

IN FAVOR OF GRADE A RAW MILK…………………………………. 3

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN FAVOR OF GRADE A RAW MILK

1) Health Risks From Drinking Pasteurized Milk ……………………………….. 7

a. Bacterial Risks from Drinking Pasteurized Milk…………………………. 7

b. Infant Death Syndrome and Colic from Feeding Pasteurized Milk……. 9

c. Disease and Disease-Risks from Drinking Pasteurized Milk…………... 11

2) Health Benefits and Risks from Drinking Raw Milk…………………………… 16

a. Bacterial, Viral & Parasitical Resistant and Nutritive Value of Raw Milk 16

b. Medical Milk Therapy - Prevention and

Reversal of Disease from Drinking Raw Milk…………………………… 18

i. Infant Raw Milk Safety and Health Benefits……………………… 18

ii. Raw Milk Safety and Health Benefits In General………………………. 20

iii. Immune Raw Milk Therapy Benefits…………………………………….. 22

3) Raw Milk As a Preservative……………………………………………………… 23

4) Nutritive Value of Raw Milk vs. Pasteurized Milk (Chart)…………………….. 24

5) History of Movement Against Raw Milk;

The Creation of the Assumption That

Pasteurized Milk Is Safer Than Raw Milk………………………………….. 25

a. National Claims Against Raw Milk………………………………………… 25

b. Chronology of Unsubstantiated Claims

Against Raw Milk Produced in California…………………………….. 27

6) How Credible is the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Regarding Raw Milk? 30

7) Bacteriology………………………………………………………………………. 31

8) Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………………… 33

TO: Each Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor

SUMMARY

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN FAVOR OF RAW MILK

EXPERT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The report was compiled and condensed by the International Medical Expert on raw and pasteurized milk, Dr. William Cambell Douglas, Jr. M.D., author of the definitive book analysis of scientific and clinical study on milk, The Milk Book; and the proponent and leading present-day empirical scientist on the positive effects of raw milk products on humans, Aajonus Vonderplanitz, author of We Want To Live, Vol.1 Out of the Grips of Disease and Death, and Vol.2, Healthfully, the Facts.

Addressing the Board’s concerns regarding raw milk was the intent of this Supplemental Report that encompasses: Health Risks From Drinking Pasteurized Milk; Bacterial Risks from Drinking Pasteurized Milk, Infant Death Syndrome and Colic from Feeding Pasteurized Milk, Disease and Disease-Risks from Drinking Pasteurized Milk, Health Benefits and Risks from Drinking Raw Milk, Bacterial, Viral & Parasitical Resistant and Nutritive Value of Raw Milk, Medical Milk Therapy - Prevention and Reversal of Disease from Drinking Raw Milk, Infant Raw Milk Safety and Health Benefits, Raw Milk Safety and Health Benefits In General, Immune Raw Milk Therapy Benefits, Raw Milk As a Preservative, Nutritive Value of Raw Milk vs. Pasteurized Milk, History of Movement Against Raw Milk; The Creation of the Assumption That Pasteurized Milk Is Safer Than Raw Milk, National Unsubstantiated Claims Against Raw Milk, Chronology of Unsubstantiated Claims Against Raw Milk Produced in California, How Credible is the Center for Disease Control regarding Raw Milk?, Bacteriology, and Conclusions and Recommendations.

ANALYSIS of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES REPORT ON RAW MILK, JANUARY 2001, and Director Finucane’s letter of recommendations.

Ø DHS Report, p.4, ¶ 6, cited the UCLA statistical Assessment of the Excess Risk of Salmonella dublin Infection Associated with the Use of Raw Milk, Public Health Reports, Vol. 103, No. 5. DHS Report stated, “37% of reported Salmonella dublin infections were acquired from raw milk. The assessment was a statistical guest-imation based on many unknown variables. Dr. Nancy Mann, PhD Biostatistics, UCLA 1965, Exhibit B, refutes the statistics. She indicates that the conclusion that any milk caused the sporadic 241 cases studied was improbable. She states that if milk had been the cause, there would have been an epidemic. There was no epidemic; only sporadic incidences. Other flaws with the Assessment were: It was not known the reason a case reviewed entered a hospital or saw a doctor; the case histories do not tell cause of death in the 36 who, later, were reported dead in that 3-years period; and at least 3-4 weeks had elapsed when the case histories were taken. People do not remember what they ate yesterday much less a month ago. “It is very difficult, if not impossible to identify, in an individual case, which of the possible risk factors caused the illness,” said Dr. Benson Werner, epidemiologist with the California Department of Health Services. The UCLA Assessment was based on analysis of questionnaires and mathematics, not clinical or empirical science.

Ø DHS Report, p. 4, ¶ 3, lists an epidemic of Listeriosis “linked” to soft cheese that contained raw milk. The court ruled in this case that raw milk was not responsible.

Ø DHS Report, p. 4 ¶ 5, states, “…ten people statewide…were confirmed with Salmonella typhimurium….who stated they had consumed raw milk in the week prior to their illness.” Milk was not all that they ate. Dr. Werner, testified in court about Salmonella typhimurium, the “…most common Salmonella infection in humans in California each year… Salmonella typhimurium is such a large category, it receives probably half of all cases…could be in any food… it could be related to person to person transmission and other sources.” The Report continues, “Molecular fingerprinting determined that the strain from ill persons was the same as found in raw milk.” Dr. Werner said, that strain is every where. If someone drinks out of the bottle, as many milk drinkers do, they place it in the milk. There is no empirical evidence that raw milk has caused S. typhimurium. As Dr. Mann said, if the milk had been the cause, there would have been an epidemic. There was no epidemic. The other cases cited in DHS Report fail on the same grounds.

Ø DHS Director Mark Finucane’s letter of January 24, 2001, p.2,¶ 2, he stated that the LA County inspection system was superior to the State inspection system. Claravale moved from the city in which it had been for nearly 70 years. The move and upgrade is complete and Claravale now functions according to State regulations.

Ø In his letter, p. 2, ¶ 2, Mr. Finucane raised the concern about raw milk being “substantially higher risk of serious infections, and some of which can be transmitted to others.” DHS Report, p.2. expressed concern over bacterial counts in raw milk. The assumption that raw milk is a carrier of disease is unsubstantiated by case history.

I. In nearly 40 years, millions of people drank over 3 billion glasses of Alta Dena Dairy raw milk and there was not one epidemic, not one proved case of foodborne illness because of it.

II. Raw milk produced under gross conditions has not been proved to be the cause of an epidemic. No one been maimed by drinking raw milk. (p. 14-17.) Until 1950, raw milk commonly contained bacterial counts of 3 million ml and 200 ml pathogens, compared to 10,000 ml and 10 ml pathogens now, and there were no epidemics that proved to be caused by raw milk, proving that raw milk is not harmful when containing many pathogens (p. 15, ¶ 2-3) even when used as a preservative for raw meat (p. 21).

III. A review the cases DHS cited in their Report, p. 4, shows a total of 156 cases from 1973 until 1992, but no outbreaks or epidemics attributed to raw milk. Let’s say that that figure was valid, although it is not, as explained above: 156 cases ¸ 19 years = 5.6 cases each year attributed to raw milk. That is the lowest incidence of any animal product produced. However, there is extensive evidence showing that pasteurization is a great health risk to the public, having caused numerous epidemics. One pasteurized-milk epidemic involved 200 people, another 468 people, another 1,492, another 16,284, another 17,000, and another 197,000 people. In each incident the product was from a single source producer. In the years 1978-1997 there were 232,485 people who suffered due to outbreaks from pasteurized milk. (p. 5-7.) If we were to disregard all of the other outbreaks from pasteurized milk and consider only those listed on pages 5-8, we have: 232,485 cases ¸ 19 years = 12,236 people effected each year from bacteria in pasteurized milk. In almost all cases, CDC reported that investigation showed proper pasteurization. CDC’s figures and CDC’s conclusion that “pasteurization provides assurances against infection”, are contradictory and untrustworthy. Considering that CDC attributed only 4% of foodborne illness to milk consumed in the same bulk as other foods, it is the safest product to consume and does not merit the prejudice that it receives. But as the facts state, pasteurized milk has caused 2,185 times more Foodborne illness than was attributed to raw milk.

IV. The decline in raw milk consumption met with a dramatic increase in Salmonella illness, illustrated on p. 32. It could be reasonably argued that the deprivation of raw milk to the public resulted in a loss of natural immunity to bacteria and more people succumbed, and continue to succumb, to bacterial illness. The ill effects to cultural groups from loss of raw milk and allergies to pasteurized milk has been repeatedly studied and confirmed.

(p. 9, ¶ 5.)

Ø Strains of bacteria have become immune to antibacterial agents and humans are becoming more susceptible to bacteria illness. (p. 30, ¶ 6.) Science has proved that humans become immune to bacteria to which they are exposed. Legally and morally, it would be correct to allow people to develop or maintain natural immunity by ingesting them in food-form, especially those who are considered “high risk”. People who buy raw milk are aware that there may be pathogens within it by the Government warning label.

Ø There has been no proof that feeding or contact with raw milk is unsafe or dangerous to infants and children, nor to the “high risk” groups defined by health departments. We are not saying that food-poisoning does not exist. We have no evidence that raw milk has proved to cause any illness in any children and other “at high risk” individuals. Evidence exists that infants and children thrive on raw milk. (p. xx, and Exh. L.) Illnesses in infants have been treated successfully with raw milk for centuries in hospitals and clinics. (p.16-17.) Raw milk reduced infant deaths in hospital by 94%. (p.16, ¶ 6.)

Ø DHS Report (p.5, ¶ 6.) claims, “A review of the literature found no scientific study which demonstrates medical or health benefits of raw milk.” SR presents a portion of the expert data on the benefits of raw milk from: Harvard, Princeton, Cambridge, University of Georgia Dairy Science Department, Dartmouth College, Ohio State University School of Agricultural Chemistry, Washington University School of Medicine, Tufts University, the Mayo Clinic of Minnesota, The Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, medical journals and publications such as Certified Milk Magazine, American Association of Medical Milk Commission, Milk Industry Foundation, The Lancet, JAMA, World Cancer Research Fund, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, Consumer Reports, Consumer’s Union, and St. Vincent’s Hospital, the prestigious Hartford Hospital. (p.16-21.) Dr. J.E. Crewe, M.D., from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, said, “...the treatment of various diseases over a period of eighteen years with a practically exclusive [raw] milk diet has convinced me personally that the most important single factor in the cause of disease and in the resistance to disease is food…” (p.19, ¶ 11)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The barrage of present-day bacterial misinformation thrust upon the public is predominantly unscientific speculation regarding raw milk and not based on empirical examination. (p.23-28.)

Raw milk, if produced with a modicum of cleanliness, is safe because of built-in safeguards (that would be destroyed by pasteurization). (p.14-16, 21.) It is clear that the testing requirements for Grade A raw milk are more than is required to produce safe raw milk. Pasteurized milk has a high rate of disease attributed to it. Codes for pasteurized milk are more lenient.

The LACMMC requirement to “hold and test” for two days is unsafe because holding favors the growth of bacteria, such as Listeria monocytogenes, even at refrigerated storage temperatures. Enzymes produced by these bacteria survive pasteurization. (p.10, ¶ 2.) No “hold and test” recommendations were made for pasteurized milk.

California State Codes are more than necessary to insure safe Grade A and Guaranteed raw milk in Los Angeles County. The vast majority of Californians enjoy the freedom to consume Grade A and Guaranteed raw milks. (DHS Report, p.3, ¶ 4-5.)

Grade A and Guaranteed raw milks should be permitted to be sold in Los Angeles County, especially with its high rate of cultural groups who can drink no other milk because of their allergies to pasteurized milk. (p.9, ¶ 5.)

It is also recommended that possible metabolic or other infectious, and environmental sources of vomiting and diarrhea must be explored where pathogens are found. The questions must be asked: Are pathogens the cause or result of degenerative disease? Are they the cause or the cure? Is pointing the finger at microbes a distraction from the causes of disease? Is the pollution of our food, water and air the predominant cause of disease that fosters bacterial growth? All hypotheses must be open to independent testing and researchers held accountable to the rules of evidence.

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN FAVOR OF GRADE A RAW MILK

EXPERT REPORT AND RECCOMENDATION

DR. WILLIAM CAMBELL DOUGLASS JR., M.D.

Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Scientific Nutritional Researcher

Dr. Douglass Credentials:

I am a fourth generation physician whose family has practiced medicine in the Southern United States since 1850, a graduate of the University of Rochester; the University of Miami School of Medicine; and the United States Naval School of Aviation and Space Medicine. I have taken postgraduate courses at Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, and the Universities of California, Florida, and Pennsylvania. I researched extensively on raw milk and pasteurized milk, and wrote the published book The Milk Book of two editions and several printings.

1) HEALTH RISKS FROM DRINKING PASTEURIZED MILK

a. Bacterial Risks from drinking Pasteurized Milk

In 1945 there were 450 cases of infectious disease attributed to raw milk. There were 1,492 cases attributed to pasteurized milk.[1] There was 1 case of disease for every 12,400,000 quarts of pasteurized milk consumed, and 1 case of disease for every 18,900,000 quarts of raw milk consumed.[2] In other words, a person could drink 6,500,000 more quarts of raw milk than pasteurized without getting sick.

In 1945 there was an epidemic of food-poisoning in Phoenix, Arizona.[3] The official report reads, “Pasteurization charts...show milk was properly pasteurized and leads to the assumption that toxin was produced in milk while it was stored…” There were 300 sick people from this pasteurized-milk food-poisoning.

Great Bend, Kansas, in 1945, had 468 cases of gastroenteritis from pasteurized milk. This was traced to “unsanitary conditions in dairies, unsterilized bottles”. Nine people died.

In October 1978, there was an epidemic of salmonella attributed to food-poisoning by pasteurized milk in Arizona involving 68 people. The bacteria level was 23 times the legal limit. The CDC reported that the milk had been properly pasteurized. Yet the CDC continues to tell us that, “...only with pasteurization is there. . . assurance” against infection.

In June, 1982, 172 people in a three-state area in the Southeast were stricken with an intestinal infection. Over 100 hundred were hospitalized. The infection, which caused severe diarrhea, fever, nausea, abdominal pain, and headache, was caused by pasteurized milk.[4]

In 1983, an outbreak of listeriosis that occurred in Massachusetts 1983, pasteurized whole or 2% milk was implicated as the source of infection. Inspection of the milk-producing plant detected no apparent breach in the pasteurization process.[5]

In August 1984, approximately 200 persons became ill with S. typhimurium from pasteurized milk produced in a plant in Melrose, IL. The regulators kept this outbreak secret. Without evidence they concluded that the milk wasn’t properly pasteurized. But, again, in November 1984, another outbreak of S. typhimurium occurred in persons consuming pasteurized milk bottled in the same plant. Again, they kept it secret and assumed the milk was not properly pasteurized. Then, in March 1985, there were 16,284 confirmed cases of S. typhimurium resulting from pasteurized milk bottled in the same plant. Tests proved the milk had been properly pasteurized. Investigators with preconceived notions, fueled by the efforts of health departments, came to conclusions without an investigation and had first accused raw milk and the media carried it to the people.[6]

Consumer Reports, January 1974,revealed that out of 125 tested samples of pasteurized milk and milk products, 44% proved in violation of state regulations. Consumer Reports concluded, “The quality of a number of the dairy products in this study was little short of deplorable.” Consumer Reports stated that “former objections” to pasteurized milk are valid today:

a) Pasteurization is an excuse for the sale of dirty milk.

b) Pasteurization may be used to mask low quality milk.

c) Pasteurization promotes carelessness and discourages the effort to produce clean milk.

Consumer's Union, reporting in June 1982, stated that coliform were found in many tested samples of pasteurized dairy products. Some had counts as high as 2200 organisms per cubic centimeter.

Some Outbreaks Attributed to Bacterial Food-poisoning from Pasteurized Milk

· 1945¾1,492 cases for the year in the U.S.A.

· 1945¾1 outbreak, 300 cases in Phoenix, Arizona.

· 1945¾Several outbreaks, 468 cases of gastroenteritis, 9 deaths, in Great Bend, Kansas.

· 1978¾1 outbreak, 68 cases in Arizona.

· 1982¾over 17,000 cases of yersinia enterocolitica in Memphis, Tenn.

· 1982¾172 cases, with over 100 hospitalized from a three-Southern-state area.

· 1983¾1 outbreak, 49cases of listeriosis in Massachusetts.

· 1984¾August, 1 outbreak S. typhimurium, approximately 200 cases, at one plant in Melrose

Park, IL.

· 1984¾November, 1 outbreak S. typhimurium, at same plant in Melrose Park, IL.

· 1985¾March, 1 outbreak, 16,284 confirmed cases, at same plant in Melrose Park, IL.

· 1985¾197,000 cases of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella infections from one dairy in

California.[7][8]

· 1985¾1,500+ cases, Salmonella culture confirmed, in Northern Illinois.

· 1993¾2 outbreaks statewide, 28 cases Salmonella infection.

· 1994¾3 outbreaks, 105 cases, E. Coli & Listeria in California.

· 1995¾1 outbreak, 3 cases in California.

· 1996¾2 outbreaks Campylobactor and Salmonella, 48 cases in California.

· 1997¾2 outbreaks, 28 cases Salmonella in California.

Professor Fosgate, Dairy Science Department of the University of Georgia, said, “Pasteurization has been preached as a one-hundred percent safeguard for milk. This simply is not true. If milk gets contaminated today, the chances are that it will be after pasteurization.”

b. INFANT DEATH SYNDROME, COLIC AND OTHER INFANT DISEASES FROM FEEDING PASTEURIZED MILK

The Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SID), crib death, baffled scientists for years. Apparently healthy babies die in their sleep without crying, without struggling. Infants are six months of age or younger with the highest incidence at about three months. Almost every conceivable cause, from Vitamin C deficiency to suffocation in bedding has been hypothesized as cause. Barrett, in 1954, suggested that inhalation of food while sleeping may be the cause. Barrett and co-workers at the University of Cambridge worked from facts that already proved that most infants fed on pasteurized cow’s milk had evidence in their blood that they are potentially allergic to cow’s milk protein. Infants often regurgitate various amounts of milk while asleep that could cause anaphylaxis to a small amount of milk inhaled into the lungs. Subjecting guinea pigs sensitized to milk, they dripped pasteurized milk into the throat and down the windpipe. “Very soon after introducing the [pasteurized] milk into the larynx of an anesthetized guinea pig, the animal stopped breathing without any sign of struggle.”

Colic is a concern with infants who are fed pasteurized milk. One out of every five babies suffers from colic. Pediatricians learned long ago that pasteurized cows’ milk was often the reason. A more recent study also linked pasteurized cow’s milk consumption to chronic constipation in children.[9] These researchers observed that pasteurized milk consumption resulted in perianal sores and severe pain on defecation, leading to constipation.

Dr. Pottenger elaborated on malnourishment caused by pasteurized dairy, “Can human infants be born of mothers who are deficient, and yet attain a fair degree of skeletal development if given a proper raw milk supply? The three infants in figure 4 were born of mothers known to be hypothyroid. Prior to the birth of the infants shown, all three mothers had given birth to children within three years. Each of the previous children was asthmatic, showed infantile rickets, and possessed poor skeletal development. The first child shown in Figure 4 [healthiest-looking] was breast fed from birth, with the mother living under excellent health-promoting conditions. The second child was on powdered milk for four weeks, and on raw certified milk after that without cod-liver oil or orange juice. Both the first and second child began supplemental feedings when they were about five months old and were very healthy babies. The third baby was always sickly and had been on formulae since birth. These formulae included powdered milk, pasteurized milk, boiled milk, boiled certified milk and canned milk. She had suffered from severe gastric distress during her entire infancy and when eight months old she developed asthma. She is very small though her parents are of larger build.[10]

Steinman studied rats.[11] The decay process in rats' teeth is biologically identical to that in human teeth. He divided his rats into several groups. The control group received a standard nutritious rat chow made by the Purina Company. Steinman discovered that these rats would average less than one cavity for their entire lifetime. The second group received a very heavy refined sugar diet. Although they grew faster than the Purina rats, they averaged 5.6 cavities per rat. The third group was fed “homogenized Grade A pasteurized milk” and they had almost twice as many cavities as the sugar-fed group - 9.4 cavities per animal. Dr. Weston Price in Nutrition and Human Degeneration proved fifty years ago what Steinman showed in 1963: Processed milk leads to disease and premature death.[12] Nizel of Tufts University reported that decayed teeth were four times more common in pasteurized milk-fed babies as opposed to breast-fed babies. Dr. Weston Price, D.D.S., proved that processed food, such as pasteurized milk, causes poor development of the facial bones.

Dr. A. F. Hess wrote in his abstracts, “…pasteurized milk…we should realize…is an incomplete food…infants will develop scurvy on this diet. This form of scurvy takes some months to develop and may be termed subacute. It must be considered not only the most common form of this disorder, but the one which passes most often unrecognized…” [13]

“Some have questioned whether pasteurized milk is really involved in the production of scurvy. The fact, however, that when one gives a group of infants this food for a period of about six months, instances of scurvy occur, and that a cure is brought about when raw milk is substituted, taken in conjunction with the fact that if we feed the same number of infants on raw milk, cases of scurvy will not develop--these results seem sufficient to warrant the deduction that pasteurized milk is a causative factor. The experience in Berlin, noted by Newmann (Newmann, H., Deutsch. Klin., 7:341, 1904) and others, is most illuminating and convincing in this connection. In 1901 a large dairy in that city established a pasteurizing plant in which all milk was raised to a temperature of about 60 degrees C. After an interval of some months infantile scurvy, was reported from various sources throughout the city. Neumann writes about the situation as follows: [14]

“Whereas Heubner, Cassel and myself had seen only thirty-two cases of scurvy from 1896 to 1900, the number of cases suddenly rose from the year 1901, so that the same observers--not to mention a great many others--treated eighty-three cases in 1901 and 1902.’ An investigation was made as to the cause, and the pasteurization was discontinued. The result was that the number of cases decreased just as suddenly as they had increased.” [15]

“One of the most striking clinical phenomenon of infantile scurvy is the marked susceptibility to infection which it entails--the frequent attacks of ‘grippe,’ the widespread occurrence of nasal diphtheria, the furunculosis of the skin, the danger of pneumonia in advanced cases...” [16]

“Recently, Minot and his colleagues came to the conclusion that adult scurvy can be precipitated by infectious processes; in other words, that latent scurvy can by this means be changed to manifest scurvy. In general, therefore, investigations in the laboratory as well as clinical observations are in agreement in stressing the interrelationship of scurvy and bacterial infection.”

“This illustrates the futility of pasteurization of milk to prevent infection from diseases the cows may sometimes have, such as undulant fever. The infant is then made subject to the common infectious diseases, and deaths from these common diseases are not attributed, as they should be, to the defective nature of the milk.”[17]

c. Disease AND DISEASE Risks FROM Drinking Pasteurized Milk

Lipase, an enzyme, in milk helps fat digestion but is totally destroyed by pasteurization. Therefore, no galactose for milk-sugar digestion, no catalase, diastase, or Peroxidase. Pasteurized-milk allergy in children and adults, caused by altering the milk proteins through heating, has caused a major health problem in the United States.

Lactose intolerance for pasteurized dairy is common among many populations, affecting approximately 95% of Asian Americans, 74% of Native Americans, 70% of African Americans, 53% of Mexican Americans, and 15% of Caucasians.[18] Symptoms, which include gastrointestinal distress, diarrhea, and flatulence, occur because these individuals do not have the enzymes that digest the milk sugar lactose in pasteurized milk. Often, with these gastrointestinal symptoms bacteria, such as salmonella, will be found active in the blood and stools, indicating that pasteurized dairy incites bacterial activity that is, then, associated with a food. Food-contamination is often not the problem because the bacterial activity originates in the body to help the body decompose the pasteurized milk or heat-treated food.

Studies have shown cholesterol oxidation products to cause atherosclerosis and cancer. Pasteurized milk contains cholesterol oxides and epoxides. Raw milk has none of these.

Phosphatase is essential for the absorption of calcium and is plentifully present in raw milk but completely destroyed by pasteurization. The “decalcification” of pasteurized and formula milks which are fed to children may be a major cause of osteoporosis later in life. We now know low calcium absorption in even healthy women may cause a loss of spinal bone mass as early as age 20. Such women may lose 50% or more of their bony mass by the age of 70. [19]

R.D. Briggs of the Pathology Department of Washington University School of Medicine, read that the British reported a higher incidence of heart attacks among persons with chronic peptic ulcers.[20]^,[21] In 1960, Briggs and his associates undertook a statistical study of ten medical centers in the United States and five in Great Britain. They compared the incidence of heart attacks in ulcer patients taking a Sippy (pasteurized, homogenized milkand cream) diet with those not using milk. Results were startling and unequivocal. In the US, patients taking the Sippy diet had a three-fold higher incidence of heart attacks. In England the heavy pasteurized, homogenized milk drinkers had a six-fold increase in heart attacks as compared to the non-milk users. We know from the work of Pottenger, Wulzen, McCulley, and Oster that the specific constituents creating this type of calcification is heated protein and xanthine oxidase. Natural milk, raw milk, contains no heated protein and no biologically available xanthine oxidase.

One reason pasteurized milk doesn't taste as good as raw milk from the farm is because of “holding over” milk. The milk is placed in large “milk silos” until ready for processing. It may remain for days. This favors the growth of bacteria called psychrotrophic.[22] These bacteria, such as Listeria monocytogenes[23] grow at the refrigeration temperatures of the silos used for storage. The psychrotrophics produce enzymes that survive the pasteurization process, making pasteurized milk sometimes taste bitter, unclean, oily, chalky, metallic or medicinal.

The pituitary hormone, TSH, stimulates the thyroid gland. If minute amounts of this pituitary hormone were absorbed daily from unbalanced pasteurized milk, depression of the thyroid gland could eventually result. Low thyroid function has become extremely common in the USA. Some experts estimate that fifty percent of the people over fifty years of age have some degree of low functioning thyroid.

Another hormone from the pituitary, ADH, absorbed regularly from pasteurized milk causes water retention. ACTH, a powerful adrenal stimulator, absorbed regularly from pasteurized milk contributes to everything from diabetes and hypertension to Addison's Disease (adrenal exhaustion), and acne.

Several cancers, such as ovarian cancer, have been linked to the consumption of pasteurized dairy products. According to a study by Daniel Cramer, M.D., and colleagues at Harvard, pasteurized dairy-product consumption affects a woman’s ovaries.[24] Some women have particularly low levels of certain enzymes, and when they consume processed dairy products on a regular basis, their risk of ovarian cancer can triple that of other women.

J.L. Outwater of Princeton University and Drs. A. Nicholson and N. Barnard of The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine cited more epidemiological studies that show a positive correlation between pasteurized dairy products and breast cancer and prostate cancer, presumably related, at least in part, to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I).[25] IGF-I is found in processed cow’s milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood by individuals consuming processed dairy products on a regular basis.[26] Another recent study showed that men who had the highest levels of IGF-I had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer compared with those who had the lowest levels.[27]

Synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in pasteurized dairy cows to increase the production of milk but results in mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. When these are ingested it increases the levels of cancer-causing and other dangerous chemicals in milk. rBGH-derived milk contains dramatically higher levels of IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor), a risk factor for breast and colon cancer. IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. An article in Cancer Research, June 1995, shows that high levels of IGF-1 are also linked to hypertension, premature growth stimulation in infants, gynecomastia in young children, glucose intolerance and juvenile diabetes.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, M.D. professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and chair of Cancer Prevention Coalition, Inc., reports that IGF-1, which causes cells to divide, induces malignant transformation of normal breast epithelial cells, and is a growth factor for human breast cancer and colon cancer. In reviewing the data, Canadian scientists discovered that Monsanto’s secret studies showed that rBGH was linked to prostate and thyroid cancer in laboratory rats.[28]

Epidemiological studies of various countries show a strong correlation between the use of pasteurized dairy products and the incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes (Type I or childhood-onset).[29] Researchers in 1992 found that a specific protein in pasteurized dairy sparks an auto-immune reaction, which is believed to be what destroys the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.

Wulzen, of Wulzen Calcium Dystrophy Syndrome notoriety, reported that the test animals fed pasteurized milk did not grow well and consistently developed a highly characteristic syndrome, the first sign of which was wrist stiffness, a form of arthritis. But far worse was the effects from pasteurized skim milk. These animals became weak and emaciated and then died. First they developed the characteristic wrist stiffness and then muscular dystrophy. Autopsy revealed severe hardening of the arteries and calcification of other soft tissues. The animals also developed testicular atrophy with complete sterility, severe calcification of most large blood vessels, anemia, decrease in hearing resulting in complete deafness, high blood pressure, and development of calcium deposits around the bone openings in the spine that provide for the exit of nerves. Sciatica and other nerve compression syndromes result from calcification.

No one has offered any well-documented, experimental proof of any other cause for the extensive calcific disease that we see today. Until science conducts tests on humans drinking raw and pasteurized milks, we would be wiser to assume it is probable that the consumption of pasteurized milk causes the same disease-conditions in humans. The Wulzen experiments were repeated and conclusive.

Professor Hugo Kruger of Oregon State University confirmed the Wulzen experiments. He proved that there is a definite connection between pasteurized milk and stiff joints that eventually led, in experimental animals, to muscular dystrophy.

Pasteurizing milk turns the lactose into beta-lactose that is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed into the blood stream. The sudden rise in blood sugar is followed by a fall leading to low blood sugar, hypoglycemia, which induces hunger. If more pasteurized milk is drunk to satisfy the hunger, then the cycle is repeated: hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, hunger, more milk, etc. The end result is obesity. Obesity has become one of the most common diseases of childhood. Pasteurized milk causes obesity even if it is skimmed. Pigs have been and are regularly fattened with skimmed milk.

In an effort to alleviate hunger among a Northeast Brazilian tribe, they were given processed powdered milk. The milk caused rapid growth and irreversible blindness.[30]

Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D. wrote in his abstract, “Milk, an animal product, is the essential food of all infant mammals. Mammals are so classified in the scale of living things because of the common characteristic of the female nursing her young. The infant mammal is accordingly carnivorous in his natural habits irrespective of whether the adult of the species is herbivorous or carnivorous.

“If the adults on a carnivorous diet show conditions of deficiency on cooked meat, is it not reasonable to suppose that growing infants on entirely cooked carnivorous diets will do likewise? Many experimenters, such as Catel, Dutcher, Wilson, and others, have shown such to be the case in animals fed on pasteurized milk...

Pasteurized milk is touted for preventing osteoporosis, yet clinical research shows otherwise. The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, 1997, which followed more than 75,000 women for 12 years, showed no protective effect of increased processed-milk consumption on fracture risk. [31] In fact, increased intake of calcium from pasteurized dairy products was associated with a higher fracture risk. An Australian study showed the same results.[32] Additionally, other studies have found no protective effect of pasteurized dairy calcium on bone.[33]

Krauss, W. E., Erb, J.H., and Washburn, R.G. wrote in their abstract, “Kramer, Latzke and Shaw (Kramer, Martha M., Latzke, F., and Shaw, M.M., A Comparison of Raw, Pasteurized, Evaporated and Dried Milks as Sources of Calcium and Phosphorus for the Human Subject, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 79:283-295, 1928) obtained less favorable calcium balances in adults with pasteurized milk than with ‘fresh milk’ and made the further observation that milk from cows kept in the barn for five months gave less favorable calcium balances than did ‘fresh milk’ (herd milk from a college dairy).”[34]

“According to S. Schmidt-Nielsen and Schmidt-Nielson (Kgl. Norske Videnskab. Selsk. Forhandl., 1:126-128, abstracted in Biological Abstracts, 4:94, 1930), when milk pasteurized at 63 degrees C. (145 degrees F.) was fed to mature rats, early death or diminished vitality resulted in the offspring. This was attributed to the destruction of Vitamin A.” [35]

“Mattick and Golding, “Relative Value of Raw and Heated Milk in Nutrition, in The Lancet (220:662-667) reported some preliminary experiments which indicated that pasteurization destroys some of the dietetic value of milk, including partial destruction of Vit. B1. These same workers found the raw milk to be considerably superior to sterilized milk in nutritive value.” [36]

“Pasteurization was also found to negatively affect the hematogenic and growth-promoting properties of the special milk (raw milk from specially fed cows, whose milk did not produce nutritional anemia--whereas commercially pasteurized milk did)...” [37]

“Guinea pigs fed raw milk with an addition of skim milk powder, copper and iron salts, carotene, and orange juice grew well and showed no abnormalities at autopsy. When pasteurized whole milk was used, deficiency symptoms began to appear, wrist stiffness being the first sign. The substitution of skim milk for whole milk intensified the deficiency that was characterized by great emaciation and weakness before death...At autopsy the muscles were found to be extremely atrophied, and closely packed, fine lines of calcification ran parallel to the fibers. Also calcification occurred in other parts of the body. When cod liver oil replaced carotene in the diet, paralysis developed quickly. The feeding of raw cream cured the wrist stiffness.” [38]

“Pasteurization of milk destroys about 38% of the B complex according to Dutcher and his associates...” [39]

“On the 7.5 cc. level two rats on raw milk developed mild polyneuritis toward the end of the trial; whereas three rats on pasteurized milk developed polyneuritis early, which became severe as the trial drew to a close. On the 10.0 cc. level none of the rats on raw milk developed polyneuritis, but three on pasteurized milk were severely afflicted.” [40]

“Using standard methods for determining vitamins A, B, G and D, it was found that pasteurization destroyed at least 25% of the vitamin B in the original raw milk.” [41]

“The pasteurization of milk has been found to destroy 20-50% (of the Vitamin C), the first month of life.” [42]

Dr. R. M. Overstreet wrote, “The vitamin C of cow’s milk is largely destroyed by pasteurization…” [43]

Woessner, Warren W., Evehjem, C.A., and Schuette, Henry A. wrote in their abstract, “Samples of raw, certified Guernsey and certified vitamin D milks were collected at the different dairies throughout the city of Madison. These milks on the average are only a little below the fresh milks as recorded in Table I, indicating that commercial raw and certified milks as delivered to the consumer lose only a small amount of their antiscorbutic potency. Likewise, samples of commercial pasteurized milks were collected and analyzed. On an average they contained only about one-half as much ascorbic acid as fresh raw milks and significantly less ascorbic acid than the commercial unpasteurized milks.

“It was found that commercial raw milks contained an antiscorbutic potency which was only slightly less than fresh raw milks and that pasteurized milks on the average contained only one-half the latter potency. Mineral modification and homogenization apparently have a destructive effect on ascorbic acid.” [44]

2) HEALTH BENEFITS AND RISKS FROM DRINKING RAW MILK

a. BACTERIAL, VIRAL & PARASITICAL RESISTANCE AND NUTRITIVE VALUES FROM DRINKING RAW MILK

A letter from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Foods and Chemistry left no doubt about their confidence in raw milk, “I can think of no incident in Pennsylvania in the past twenty years in which raw milk was determined to have been the cause of human illness.” [45]

From 1958-1999, there had not been one outbreak caused by raw milk in California, and only speculative sporadic occurrences. In 1958, a Salmonella-outbreak of 11 cases was blamed on certified raw milk but “no Salmonella was ever found in batches of the milk being consumed or in the herds.” [46] Californians enjoyed 50 years of raw milk consumption without a single outbreak.

Raw milk contains enzymes and antibodies that make milk less susceptible to bacterial contamination, such as nisin, and lactoperoxidase that inhibits the growth of Salmonella. Pasteurization destroys or neutralizes these antibacterial properties.

Dold, H., Wizaman, E., and Kleiner, C. wrote in their abstract, “Human or cow milk added to an equal volume of agar did not support the growth or allowed only slight growth of B. diphtheriae Staph. aureus, B. coli, B. prodigiosus, B. pyocyaneus, B. anthracis, streptococci, and unidentified wild yeast.[47] The ‘inhibins’ in cow’s milk are inactivated by heating between 60-70 degrees C. for 30 minutes. Attempts have not been made to identify the natural antiseptics.”

Example Of Protective Qualities Of Raw Milk, Even When It Is Dirty

In the course of my research, I visited dozens of dairies. As you know from cleaning your car, spraying the surface with a hose is ineffective. The surface must be wiped. The same is true of a cow teat. This was demonstrated to me quite dramatically at a dairy with milk destined to be sold raw. The hose was taken and the teats sprayed in the usual manner. A white towel from the stack was used to wipe one of the four teats. Plenty of mud and manure could be seen on the towel. If those teats aren't cleaned properly, and they often were not in those other dairies, that mud and manure went in milk. They pasteurized it, but how many people want feces, mud, and urine in their milk even though it is pasteurized heated?

Jack Mathis, President of Atlanta's Mathis Dairy, was invited to inspect the dairy at the Atlanta City Prison Farm and make suggestions for modernization. He said, “It looked more like an outhouse than a milking parlor.” Manure on the cow's hindquarters was running over the teats, the milking apparatus, and into the milk. From the milking machine, the milk ran into an open ten-gallon can by hose. “You couldn't see the top of the can for the flies,” Mathis said. “It was like a bee hive with flies walking in and out of the can.”

Mr. Mathis assumed that the milk was for the prison farm pigs, but it wasn't. It went directly to a cooler in the prison dining hall, complete with cow and fly manure and fly carcasses. It was simply strained through the cooler and then drunk by the prisoners. No case of pathogenic contamination occurred that was caused by the raw milk in 10 years. If raw milk is such a danger, why didn’t any one get sick?

The British journal The Lancet reported, “Resistance to tuberculosis increased in children fed raw milk instead of pasteurized, to the point that in five years only one case of pulmonary TB had developed, whereas in the previous five years, when children had been given pasteurized milk, 14 cases of pulmonary TB had developed.” [48]