TO:
Each Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor
SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT IN FAVOR OF RAW MILK
EXPERT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Arlene Binder, Attorney at Law
Roger Noorthoek, Attorney at Law
16161 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
800-695-3763; Fax: 818-883-3484
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
of
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
BY
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.
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
·
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.”
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]