Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hormones? Do you mean bovine growth hormones (or BST)? Would that be the hormone that doesn't actually pass through into the milk by the dairy herd consuming BST? BST milk and non-BST milk are identical, there is no difference. BST simply affects milk production. Increasing the milk production of a herd produces more milk per cow and increases production efficiencies. BST helps fewer cows produce more milk, and that's a good thing for the environment.
Hormones? Do you mean bovine growth hormones (or BST)? Would that be the hormone that doesn't actually pass through into the milk by the dairy herd consuming BST? BST milk and non-BST milk are identical, there is no difference. BST simply affects milk production. Increasing the milk production of a herd produces more milk per cow and increases production efficiencies. BST helps fewer cows produce more milk, and that's a good thing for the environment.
Sean
Actually, no. Bovine Growth Hormones aren't good for anyone
The bovine growth hormone (rBGH) causes an increase in mastitis infections in the herd - which leads to more antibiotic use & subsequently antibiotic resistance in the herd.
And although rBGH/BST does not pass through the milk, Injections of rBGH increase another powerful hormone, called IGF-1, in the cow and the cow’s milk. Numerous studies indicate that IGF-1 survives digestion. Too much IGF-1 in humans is linked with increased rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancer. “Definitive studies demonstrating the lack of absorption of rBST or IGF-1 upon oral administration were neither conducted nor requested” Health Canada concluded. “Simply not enough is known about how IGF-1 functions to properly evaluate the potential health impacts.”
The hormone is banned in the EU, Japan, Canada and Australia.
Hormone-free milk is the lowest level of milk that I would serve to my family.
To the OP: Hope you got a hold of a cow-share or a milk source.
The bovine growth hormone (rBGH) causes an increase in mastitis infections in the herd - which leads to more antibiotic use & subsequently antibiotic resistance in the herd.
This is incorrect in its characterization. rBGH treatment does NOT directly increase mastitis in the herd. Rather, the increased mastitis rate is linked directly to increased milk yields within a herd. Untreated herds with a similar milk yield as herds treated with rBGH show the same frequency of mastitis. These findings were established by The EU Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP). Furthermore the same findings from the EU Committee established that rBGH treated herds actually had a slight decrease in mastitis incidence when milk volume was used as a measure.
Quote:
Injections of rBGH increase another powerful hormone, called IGF-1, in the cow and the cow’s milk. Numerous studies indicate that IGF-1 survives digestion. Too much IGF-1 in humans is linked with increased rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancer. “Definitive studies demonstrating the lack of absorption of rBST or IGF-1 upon oral administration were neither conducted nor requested” Health Canada concluded. “Simply not enough is known about how IGF-1 functions to properly evaluate the potential health impacts.”
Bovine IGF-1 and Human IGF-1 are identical. Identical. And our bodies produce vast quantities of IGF-1 naturally. In fact, the concentration in our blood can be over 100 times greater than found in cows' milk! For example, the amount of IGF-1 in 1.5 litres of milk is less than 1% of the IGF-1 present in human daily gastrointestinal secretions. The increase in IGF-1 in your body from any form of dairy is negligible and lastly it is completely broken down in your digestive system. Yes, more research is needed and is ongoing. But let's be objective here. IGF-1 in dairy milk comprises one-tenth of one millionth of the total milk proteins. Do we also need to study the effects of all these other milk proteins? So far over 30 countries including the United States have approved milk from rBST treated herds. Of those who have rejected it, they simply cite lack of research, despite the evidence gathered from over 2,000 studies to date. Milk produced from rBST treated cows has been approved as safe by the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, and the European Economic Community.
I'm a strong proponent of organic farming. But I'm not an all-or-nothing proponent. I believe science has a place in modern agriculture. I believe more research is needed for everything we choose to consume, be it rBST milk, active cultures, organic cheetos or Twinkies. And I don't want to offend anyone, I just feel compelled to defend objective science in this regard. Particularly when so much is at stake. My position is that if U.S. milk producers were forced to stop the use of rBST then milk and dairy prices would increase by up to 20%. But even more importantly, we'd have a 20% increase in our dairy herds, resulting in substantial harm to our environment due to increased manure fertilization application (20% more manure!), increased pressure on dairy farmers to remove untold hundreds of thousands of acres from the federal CRP riparian buffer conservation program to handle the increased herd, and increased soil erosion, and increased nitrogren runoffs resulting in fish kills, and so on.
The operative word is Clean, and it is impossible to guarantee that raw milk is clean. Furthermore Vitamin D is added to store-bought pasteurized and homogenized milk, so a child drinking raw milk could become severely Vitamin-D deficient without proper nutritional counseling.
There is so much well-intended but factually challenged propaganda on the Web in favor of raw milk that it is difficult to get a balanced appraisal of its risks and benefits. The easiest way around this is to google search for (without quotes) "site:.edu raw milk". That will remove all of the anecdotal and self congratulating texts from various publications that have positions on raw milk based almost purely on ideology rather than good science.
Excerpts from http://www.ext.colostate.edu/safefood/newsltr/v11n2s03.html: (broken link)
Quote:
Raw milk and other milk-based products naturally contain both beneficial and pathogenic bacteria. The harmless bacteria, such as Lactobacillus, help produce yogurt and other dairy foods and have a role in promoting gastrointestinal health. Unfortunately, milk also may contain pathogenic or harmful bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni, E. coli O157:H7, and Salmonella. These bacteria can be shed by animals into milk at the farm, and since milk is a nutritionally complete substance, it becomes an ideal environment for bacterial growth. Infections from these pathogenic bacteria, especially in persons with compromised immune systems, can cause severe diarrhea, cramps, fever, nausea, vomiting, headache, and dehydration. Infections in children, the elderly, and others with compromised immunity can be particularly severe and can lead to complications such as hemolytic uremic syndrome.
...
In a 2002-2003 outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium, 62 people in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee became ill after consuming raw milk sold in Ohio. The milk producer linked to the outbreak later relinquished its license for raw milk sales following a recommendation from the Ohio Department of Agriculture. In Washington state, an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infection in late 2005 was linked to raw milk and caused serious illness in eight people, several of whom were hospitalized. Washington State health authorities linked the outbreak to locally sold raw milk and ordered the unlicensed provider of the milk to close. In another case, five people became ill with Campylobacter infection in early 2005 after drinking raw milk linked to a dairy in Larimer County, Colorado. The direct sale of raw milk is illegal in Colorado, but consumers may still buy shares in dairy cows. Raw milk from a shared cow likely caused the 2005 outbreak, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Despite the possible health benefits touted by raw milk advocates, the FDA and other public health officials advise consumers to avoid drinking beverages or eating foods made with unpasteurized milk, including raw milk soft cheeses from any source. It is especially important for persons with reduced immunity - the young and elderly, pregnant women, or those with diseases that compromise immune function - to avoid raw milk products and to have the best information available regarding the risks of raw milk.
Simply by saying "More people get sick from other food sources than raw milk..." is by my definition propaganda because it's flat out wrong. We have to look at risks vs benefits from an incidence rate relative to the population. Prior to the introduction of pasteurization up to 40% of food borne illnesses were caused by raw milk. If everyone drank raw milk today you'd see hundreds of thousands of cases annually and a sizable mortality rate in the very young, the elderly and the immuno-suppressed. That's just a fact.
The link you refer to is discussing raw chicken products. Nobody except wild carnivores and stupid humans eat raw chicken. If chicken with salmonella is cooked properly, the bacteria is destroyed. In summary, properly cooked chicken is completely safe, while raw milk is not. Raw milk is not 100% safe. No empirical scientific research exists that claims that Raw Milk is healthier than Pasteurized Milk. Sure, there are a bazillion articles out there touting Raw Milk. There are also a bazillion articles claiming that if I rub myself with magnets, eat flax seed and drink gallons of fish oil, my body will be relieved of all gross humors. It doesn't mean it's true. If you want to put yourself at risk by drinking it, fine, but don't put the public at risk by implying that pasteurized milk is unhealthy. It's perfectly healthy. And according to the latest research, it's much, much safer than raw milk. Even the cleanest of dairy farms will have bacterial breaches. All it takes is one improperly cleaned udder and we all know that farming is not an exact science. It is a statistical probability that you will get sick from raw milk if you drink it daily, even if your source is a clean and well run dairy operation.
This is incorrect in its characterization. rBGH treatment does NOT directly increase mastitis in the herd. Rather, the increased mastitis rate is linked directly to increased milk yields within a herd. Untreated herds with a similar milk yield as herds treated with rBGH show the same frequency of mastitis. These findings were established by The EU Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP). Furthermore the same findings from the EU Committee established that rBGH treated herds actually had a slight decrease in mastitis incidence when milk volume was used as a measure.
Bovine IGF-1 and Human IGF-1 are identical. Identical. And our bodies produce vast quantities of IGF-1 naturally. In fact, the concentration in our blood can be over 100 times greater than found in cows' milk! For example, the amount of IGF-1 in 1.5 litres of milk is less than 1% of the IGF-1 present in human daily gastrointestinal secretions. The increase in IGF-1 in your body from any form of dairy is negligible and lastly it is completely broken down in your digestive system. Yes, more research is needed and is ongoing. But let's be objective here. IGF-1 in dairy milk comprises one-tenth of one millionth of the total milk proteins. Do we also need to study the effects of all these other milk proteins? So far over 30 countries including the United States have approved milk from rBST treated herds. Of those who have rejected it, they simply cite lack of research, despite the evidence gathered from over 2,000 studies to date. Milk produced from rBST treated cows has been approved as safe by the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, and the European Economic Community.
I'm a strong proponent of organic farming. But I'm not an all-or-nothing proponent. I believe science has a place in modern agriculture. I believe more research is needed for everything we choose to consume, be it rBST milk, active cultures, organic cheetos or Twinkies. And I don't want to offend anyone, I just feel compelled to defend objective science in this regard. Particularly when so much is at stake. My position is that if U.S. milk producers were forced to stop the use of rBST then milk and dairy prices would increase by up to 20%. But even more importantly, we'd have a 20% increase in our dairy herds, resulting in substantial harm to our environment due to increased manure fertilization application (20% more manure!), increased pressure on dairy farmers to remove untold hundreds of thousands of acres from the federal CRP riparian buffer conservation program to handle the increased herd, and increased soil erosion, and increased nitrogren runoffs resulting in fish kills, and so on.
Sean
Wow, this is pretty impressive information are you an expert on bovine milk production? I tried raw milk 2 years ago and it was great but I did worry about the bacteria. Tell me, what are the actual occurances of bacterial infections in the US and or Erope?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Raw milk isnt the problem.... its poor choices
