Milk Money

[UPDATED] Sen. Bernie Sanders cries “monopoly” in a collapsing milk market 47

dairyGot milk monopoly?

UPDATE: Ask and ye shall receive. In a NYT article last Saturday, describing the considerable  resistance anti-trust chief Christine Varney is already experiencing in her attempt to toughen enforcement, came this nugget:

At the request of some lawmakers, notably Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, Ms. Varney is examining whether small agricultural operations are being hampered unfairly by large food processors, particularly in the milk industry, congressional aides said.

Not much to go on, but at least they’re looking at the problem—and possibly looking beyond dairy, which would be interesting indeed. The article doesn’t provide any more details—most of it describes the split within the administration itself over anti-trust issues involving the transportation and communication industries. It’s worth watching to see what happens when Big Food’s administration allies mobilize over anything Ms. Varney cooks up. Still, at least she’s paying attention.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Earlier this year, the Obama adiministration’s top antitrust enforcer, Christine Varney, announced a new effort to crack down on monopolist practices in industry. Some of us were particularly interested to observe that Varney’s first speech specifically mentioned agribusiness as a top target. This is understandable since, from fertilizer to meatpacking to seeds, four companies or fewer control up to 80% of each of these markets.

But right now nowhere are the oligolopolists doing more damage than in the dairy industry, where prices have fallen faster and deeper than any time since the Great Depression. And now, joining ranks with tens of thousands of desperately struggling dairy farmers, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has had enough—he has called on the Justice Department to investigate the dairy giant Dean Foods as a monopolist.

It’s about time someone in government used that word to describe Dean Foods. They control 40% of the fluid milk supply nationwide and, to Sen. Sanders’ great dismay, almost 70% of fluid milk in New England. But surely, with milk prices scraping the bottom, they must be suffering as well. Nope.

At the end of 2008, Dean Foods reported adjusted quarterly operating income of $184m, the highest in its history.

...While Dean Foods continues to increase its profits, milk prices have taken a tumble. At a press conference in his offices, Sanders said: “Farmers have seen the price for their milk drop from $19.50 per hundred pounds a year ago to less than $11 in June. Meanwhile, Dean Foods’ profits climbed from $30m in the first quarter of 2008 to $76.2m for the first quarter of 2009.”

Dean Foods, of course, denies the accusations of monopoly and points out that milk prices are regulated by the government. This is true. What Dean Foods doesn’t mention is that a relatively recent reform allowed the “government-set” milk price to be determined by the price of milk on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. So really, the government punted to the commodities market—and it’s been a fun ride, hasn’t it?

Markets, after all, are always right and never subject to manipulation. That was why everyone was so shocked when the Dairy Farmers of America—another effective monopolist that controls 40% of the nation’s dairy production—was fined $12 million dollars and was barred from the exchange by the government for price fixing. And they weren’t, mind you, trying to fix a higher price for milk. In essence, wholesale milk pricing has been privatized, while the store price for milk remains regulated by state and regional compacts—with companies like Dean Foods profiting lavishly on the spread.

That, my friends, is capitalism at work.

So, when Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack visits rural areas he is often met, as he was the other day in Wisconsin, by protesting dairy farmers. Meanwhile his response, and the response of the administration generally, continues to be anemic. Some emergency money has been distributed—but suffice it to say that these efforts amount to no more than sticking fingers in a crumbling dike.

The government inertia over the dairy crisis is due, in large part, because the administration agrees with Big Ag that consolidation in agriculture is inevitable—even a benefit to society. Consolidation leads to lower prices—which appears to be the only wholeheartedly embraced goal of the USDA. But the flip side to that embrace is that lower prices lead to more consolidation—and eventually there will be only a handful of corporations producing (or importing) most of our milk. To be honest, Vilsack, and even Obama, verge on hypocrisy when they decry rural depopulation and economic collapse while they endorse—tacitly or not—this continued consolidation in agriculture.

With the administration unwilling to use existing authority under the law to step in and adjust the price of milk or to look into the mass importation of dried milk products from overseas—as many have called on it to do—the very least it could do would be to support Sen. Sanders call for anti-trust action against Dean Foods. Doing so would finally put a bit of real muscle behind Obama’s “rural agenda.” Ms. Varney—it’s your move.

h/t GastroNomolies

Tom is a media and technology professional who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters madly and blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Tasermons Partner Posted 4:25 pm
    18 Jul 2009

    Okay, I'm apparently alittle slow on the uptake for this one.  This is one of several articles Grist has posted on milk price collapse.But what I apparently am failing to understand is how exactly this relates to environmental concerns?Monopoly concerns maybe.  Bad for some dairy farmers maybe.  But how is it bad for the environment?I don't think it's like a big mega-corporation is shuckin' all the organic eco-friendly dairy farms or anything, so what's the premise here?

    Permalink

    1. Catmoves Posted 9:18 am
      21 Jul 2009

      Tasermans Partner, the unhappy relationship here is that government paid for milk is dumped willy nilly down storm drains, in irrigation ditches and on perfectly good crop lands. No, it doesn't "sweeten" that land, either.You bet it has to do with ecology.And it behooves all of us to be aware of the dangers involved in mega corporations controlling any of our foods.

      Permalink

  2. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 9:55 pm
    18 Jul 2009

    Speaking of ethics...most adults have zero need for milk.   Our digestive systems are not set to metabolize it and it does a lot of harm to our system.In that sense, Sanders is just another 'pusher' like a tobacco company or corn syrup proselytizer (aka, Obama). 

    Permalink

  3. Naturally Posted 3:15 pm
    19 Jul 2009

    Actually, Tasermons Partner, it's exactly like "a big mega-corporation is shuckin' all the organic eco-friendly dairy farms . . ." Dean Foods is trying to Walmartize the industry by lowering prices and driving the little dairy farmers -- and the little organic diary farmers in particular -- out of business. That will leave the market all to themselves. This article doesn't go into everything, but that's what is happening. Dean Foods is a criminal corporation, in my opinion. They make Horizon "organic" dairy products, which are fake organic products and have only achieved the USDA certification through lawyering and lobbying. If you want all of your dairy products to come from two or three mega factory-farm operations, then you can ignore the plight of dairy farmers today. And, by the way, similar attacks are currently being waged on other organic farmers . . . it's not just the dairy farmers.

    Permalink

    1. Tasermons Partner Posted 12:16 pm
      20 Jul 2009

      I'd think that the real eco-friendly organic dairy farmers would sell to a niche market...generally, niche markets aren't as threatened by changes in their larger generic counterparts.Maybe it's just the way the article is written, but it seems like just the regular smaller dairy farmers seem to be the ones most up in arms over this.Can someone cite an example of an eco-friendly dairy (i.e., no outside feed, proper range, no chemicals, etc.) that's suffering as a result of this?

      Permalink

      1. Nom-Nom-Om-Nom Posted 12:43 pm
        20 Jul 2009

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/29dairy.html?scp=6&sq=organic dairy&st=cse

        Permalink

      2. Jim Goodman Posted 7:55 pm
        28 Jul 2009

        I think my dairy meets all of your requirements for being eco-freindly. In July my average milk price (about half of my organic milk had to be sold as conventional milk due to a glut of organic milk on the market) was just over $19/cwt. In March I was gettting just over $30/cwt. I lost $100 per day in July.
        ALL organic dairies are supposed to be eco-freindly, thats the whole idea of organic. There aren't all that many niche markets out there are there? Where are they, who are they, what products do they want? 

        Permalink

  4. markboyer Posted 1:44 pm
    20 Jul 2009

    As Tom mentioned, organic dairy farmers rallied in La Crosse last week. Here's what they had to say to Secretary Vilsack:http://www.vimeo.com/5666189

    Permalink

  5. Tasermons Partner Posted 10:28 am
    21 Jul 2009

    I still don't think this is right, though.  According to the NYT article, most of them have endured additional costs because of the organic feed they had to transport from the midwest. Would a truly sustainable dairy farm haveta import feed?  'Specially in the summer and spring?Then again, just 'cause they're organic doesn't mean they're sustainable, I suppose.Also, The chart on the NYT article shows that the demand for organic milk, while lowered, is still higher than it was at the start of 2008.  That doesn't seem like a huge drop overall (long-term).The article also says that many of cuts are coming from Horiozon Organic, who Natrually thinks is fake organic anyway.

    Permalink

  6. mmaisto Posted 2:12 pm
    21 Jul 2009

    Dean also owns several soy milk labels, including Silk. Which, under Dean's ownership, now gets its soybeans from China.

    Permalink

  7. lilcheese Posted 5:05 pm
    21 Jul 2009

    I read Christine Varney's speech on the Department of Justice website and didn't see any mention of agribusiness. I read it several times. 

    Permalink

  8. Chris Pratt Posted 7:03 pm
    21 Jul 2009

    Monopolies in the food industry are bad for the environment because they turn farms into factories.  Low milk prices means smaller local dairy farms are run out of business.  How can we eat more locally if the price of milk is so artificially low that no one but big business with all their government subsidies can afford to produce it.  There will be less diversity in the diary industry and that will make it less stable.  If you want to understand the connection better read Micheal Pollens book's on food or see the movie  "Food Inc.

    Permalink

    1. magicdave Posted 3:52 pm
      22 Jul 2009

      I find it interesting that the article mentions a few dairy farmers that switched their operations from conventional techniques to organic and their costs went up.  This is contrary to everything I understand about running a sustainable dairying operation.  The spring and summer months the costs go DOWN unless of course these farmers are running "mini" factory farns and do not pasture their cows.  If this is so then their milk is only marginally better than factory farm milk.  Pasture fed cows produce milk that is far superior to any other milk, period!  Pasture grazing also help to develop better stronger grasses in the pasture as the grazed grasses regrow they develop deeper root systems and sequester more and more carbon into the soil where it belongs and not in the air warming our planet.  For me, learning that organic dairy farmers costs are rising is to believe that they made bad choices in setting up their operations if it is so dependant upon feed costs.  I grew up in dairy country and most of the farms there are still family run operations and while some have "modernized" by setting up grain fed operations most still pasture their cows except during the winter where some use silage and hay with a small amount of grain and some use just hay and a small amount of grain.  These farmers spend the entire spring and summer working their butts off to bale enough hay to last throughout the winter months.  I spent part of my childhood helping to bale the hay so my friends could get their daily chores done and we could go fishing or exploring or whatever.  The point is that food monopolies will continue to slowly poison the unsuspecting public with tainted foods if they are not stopped.  Do something!  Join the OCA  http://www.organicconsumers.org/ and make your voice heard.  The only way we can stop the coming catastrophy of servere climate change is to join in the movement to end the monopolistic march of a few huge corporations which control most of the poisoned food that you eat.  I for one have adjusted my priorities and added enough to my food budget to support organic farmers by purchasing organic food.  By the way the earlier post that stated Dairy products are not digestible by humans is completely incorrect.  For more nutritional information about dairy products you can visit westonaprice.org and read real honest nutritional research regarding dairy foods and a whole host of other valid nutritional information.  Have a nutritious day."MagicDave"

      Permalink

      1. Tasermons Partner Posted 4:18 pm
        23 Jul 2009

        The reason why their costs went up, as I only recently realized from the linked articles, is that they just went organic...NOT sustainable.They apparently had to pay more to import "organic" feed for the cows from off-site, as opposed to non-organic feed.A truly sustainable dairy wouldn't need to regularly import feed from off-site, 'specially in the spring and summer.  That's just bad grazing practices to do otherwise.  It means they have too many cows for too little natural on-site feed.

        Permalink

  9. Alida Antonia Cornelius's avatar

    Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:48 am
    24 Jul 2009

    Sen. Sanders is correct.

    Permalink

  10. Username's avatar

    Username Posted 10:41 am
    28 Jul 2009

    I agree with above commenter.

    Permalink

  11. magicdave Posted 8:27 pm
    28 Jul 2009

    To tasermons partner:  The whole point I was making and perhaps you missed is this; Having to import organic grain is counterproductive to the notion of running an organic dairy.  Organic dairy farming is sustainable if it is dome correctly.  There must be some thought given to the set up.  I believe that the farmers that converted to organics may have been running a feedlot style dairy and decided to jump on the bandwagon so to speak.  I am in partnership with a woman that set up her farm with my advice last year and will not begin to see any productive figures for a year or more but the potential is there because she hasn't put all of her eggs in one basket, no pun intended. The operation is not solely dependent on the sale of milk and we set up the farm to take advantage of several symbiotic relationships in order to keep feed costs down.  How an organic dairy can lose money because of feed costs is not understandable.  If a dairy set up their operation to be dependent on importing feed then as I stated earlier they did not do their homework and apply good use of pasture.  If you only have enough land to keep your herd in a barn you aren't farming.  I know that is pretty arrogant for me to say and I do realize that if someone were to try to start a farm from scratch there are mortgage costs to figure into the equation however, because there are so many farms going out of business there is a glut of farmland available for many different types of what can only be described as "creative leasing arrangements.  The problem with the price of milk is still an issue that needs to be dealt with because big agra=business is doing it's absolute best to squash the family farmer.  Help is needed by Congress and The Obama Administration to stop the onslaught of companies such as Dean Foods from selling supposedly organic dairy products that are not.  They are also involved in other areas of the organic food business selling soy products that are not organic even though the original company was. People associate the brand as a quality product and are oblivious to the fact that Dean Foods now owns the label.

    Permalink

  12. amazingdrx Posted 8:51 pm
    28 Jul 2009

    Only direct marketing from farm to consumer can stop this.  An organic movement in all types of food would benefit from this fix.  Coops are the answer, real coops, not the bastardized versions that exist in most places now.Farm market/coops with member producers and consumers could fix our food system by cutting out the middle men who monopolize and manipulate and bankrupt farmers.Think of these coops as similar to a coop  model in healthcare.  They might only get 10% of the market, but by providing an alternative they would stabilize prices and stop manipulation.  When agribizz  got too far offtrack, more farmers and consumers would join coops, threatening the corporate profit structure and scaring the manipulators intro backing off.But just until the coops stopped growing, then the whole system would swee-saw more gently with reasonable boundaries, instead of suddenly going over a cliff.

    Permalink

    1. magicdave Posted 11:20 pm
      28 Jul 2009

      One of the biggest problems is that while I know from all of the available research that Raw Milk is healthier than pasteurized homoginized garbage, the law in most states prevents the sale of it to the general public.  There are a few states that are exceptions to the rule though.  Pennsylvania for example.  Big agrabusiness is in the pockets of those that make the laws (Congress & State Legislatures) and regulations (USDA & FDA) that govern what comes to market.  Politicians are mostly interested in getting reelected no matter how altruistic they sound reelection is what motivates them and big agribusiness has tons of money to spread around.  Corporations like Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland do not have our best interest at heart.  They have an agenda and that is controlling the production of food worldwide.  That is the biggest problem we are facing.  Those "roundup ready" seeds that allow the ground to be sprayed with weed killer without affecting the soybeans for example are destroying the non GMO varieties grown in close proximity.  How can we stop them when people have been brainwashed by them.  Even Bill Gates has helped finance the "seed bank vault" that was/is being built somewhere in the arctic.  This "seedbank" is not a place where biodiversity is being preserved.  It is a place where Monsanto can store their genetically modified versions of crop seeds.  The whole conspiracy is to eventually have control of all seed stock.  Sounds like I am paranoid huh?  Look into it and you will see that preserving biodiversity is the only way we will survive as a species.  As far as the price of milk is concerned and especially organic milk.  If a farmer is running an organic operation that relies upon feed that is shipped to him his business model is completely misguided.  To have to have feed shipped to your farm to produce milk is something very foreign to most organic dairy farming models.  An operation like that is not a sustainable model.  I suspect that these farms were started because they thought they could make a killing because the price of organic milk was premium. I may be wrong but it looks that way to me.  Write to your state representatives and to Congress too and get the laws changed so that local farmers can sell raw milk locally and watch what happens.  They will make a fair profit and we all will benefit from having a healthier choice to drink.  If you dispute my promotion of Raw Milk I suggest that you visit http://www.westonaprice.org and then click on enter the site and then click on Real Milk along the left hand column then read about the health benefits of Raw Milk for yourself and how Raw Milk was mistakenly outlawed in the first place.'nuff said,MagicDave

      Permalink

      1. amazingdrx Posted 7:12 am
        29 Jul 2009

        Given the amount of used equipment out there at bargain basement scrap prices, local farmer/consumer coops can easily meet legal standards for dairy processing.  Here in Wisconsin there are cooperative cheese factories with all the equipment needed, individual cheesemaker/farmers come in and do a batch of their particular specialty cheese all in stainless steel legal food processing facilities without the cost prohibitive over head.The resulting cheese can then be sold by the cheesemaker at reasonable prices/profits directly to consumers.  Could similar models work with other dairy products?  And even with eggs and meat and frozen, smoked, or canned food?  Yep. The expertise and equipment is out there, unused thanks to monopoly gaming, so put the people back to work.  Retirees advbising part time with younger workers learning the trade.No neeed to fight the unwinnable battle against food industry "safety" concerns, that are really all about monopoly games.  Besides which, even one lawsuit over injuries from raw milk, even one that was a fake incident funded by industry lobbyists would kill the coop movement.Better to avoid this obvious trap.  People can actually get raw milk by owning their own cow, even if they pay a farmer to milk, feed, and care for the cow.If coops could capture 10% of the food market, it would scare the food industry into at least an appearance of reform.  There's a movement stirring.  Local, organic, and real cooperatives owned by producer/consumer members.http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

        Permalink

  13. magicdave Posted 12:34 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    I think you make some very valid points but here is something to consider.  In Pennsylvania it is legal for dairies to sell raw milk products directly to consumers.  These dairies are inspected regularly by the state.  It is more economical for me to drive over 100 miles to Pennsylvania to purchase Raw Milk than it is to buy shares in a cow or goat here in Virginia.  Does that make sense to you?  To me it does not.  The legislation that came about outlawing Raw Milk happened back in the days when there were local breweries in almost every neighborhood in most major cities.  The problem arose when the earliest versions of factory farms were dairies that were right next door to these breweries.  The used mash was fed to these cows and the conditions were extremely unsanitary.  Some people got sick and a campaign was started by a wealthy man that decided it was his responsibility to protect the general public and he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to have Raw Milk outlawed. He took his fight to several states too not just New York City where he started.

     Cheese making facilities are a great idea but most cheeses are made from milk that is "cooked" and that kills most if not all of the beneficial bacteria that are in Raw Milk.  I truly appreciate your ideas and am sure they will help in the several areas that you mentioned but I will still continue to fight to legalize the sale of Raw Milk since it is a major health benefit to us all.

    Permalink

    1. amazingdrx Posted 9:04 pm
      29 Jul 2009

      Well maybe it is worth a fight Dave.  I used to buy raw milk right from a farm and make my own butter, it was great.  The milk certainly tasted great.  i nevcer got around to making cheese though, something I'd like to try.  I had no idea of the history of the problem with mash feeding, it is coming back again from ethanol fuelishness.Legalize it!!  Wisconsin ought to do it too.

      Permalink

  14. Des Emery Posted 9:25 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    Gee, I didn't know that "consolidation leads to lower prices" -- penultimate paragraph in the article. I always believed that the opposite was true, that is, that "competition leads to lower prices." I guess there's just too many family farms out there providing milk and other foodstuffs for us city folks, when "consolidating" all those properties into factory farms and putting them under the proper management protocols (like the health insurance industry does) would make them all profitable. Perhaps it's "consolidation" which also causes gasoline prices to rise and fall in unison.MagicMike - Raw Milk does contain beneficial bacteria, but it also holds disease bacteria, sours quickly, and is easily contaminated.

    Permalink

  15. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 10:53 am
    02 Aug 2009

    A good point. Consolidation leads to lower prices as the larger entity takes advantage of economies of scale -- that's the basic business theory that drives most of the thinking in government on agriculture. Obviously, as large entities are able to exert monopoly power and collude, etc., prices potentially rise. But in ag -- where most commodities are raw materials -- the monopolists (or rather the oligarchs) conspire to keep prices down. And there's enough competition for their end products (or gov't price regulation as in milk) so you don't see upward pressure on prices for the consumer. Ironic, no?

    Permalink

    1. Alida Antonia Cornelius's avatar

      Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:50 pm
      06 Aug 2009

      Economies of scale is good, but not monopolistic vertical integration control of the markets.

      Permalink

  16. magicdave Posted 1:37 pm
    02 Aug 2009

    Ironic?  Now tgere is an understatement, if there ever was one. It is downright criminal except that Big Agra has the blessing of the Federal Government. To Des Emery: Who is Magic Mike?  I have made several posts and not one of them was my screen name Magic Mike.  As far as your statement about Raw Milk containing disease and souring quickly you are COMPLETELY MISTAKEN. I would suggest that you get your facts straight before making false statements.  That statement is YOUR opinion and has no merit in the world of Epidemiology and Raw Milk.  Making such statements is why so many people believe that pasteurized homogenized white liquid known as milk is "good for you" when in fact it is not nearly as nutritionally beneficial as it was when it was taken directly from the cow's teat.  Here is a link to testimony by a well esteemed and peer review published Epidemiologist and another well esteemed expert in the field of Milk and Dairy regarding pathogens in Raw Milk.  I suggest that you read the entire testimony and perhaps learn the truth about Raw Milk.http://www.realmilk.com/expert-testimony-0508.pdf

    Permalink

  17. Des Emery Posted 5:51 pm
    02 Aug 2009

    Sorry about the name, Magicdave, my fault for scrolling letters out of sight.  As far as milk is concerned, I grew up on a farm, drank milk straight from the cow I was milking (by hand) and ran the separator to divide the cream from the milk, churned butter from the cream and fed the pigs with the skimmed milk afterwards.  I was never sick, but doctors diagnosed "undulant fever" in a couple of visiting city kids from raw milk.  From experience, I know that raw milk 'sours' faster and is better-tasting than Pasteurized milk, which is more 'antiseptic' than raw milk.  Louis Pasteur determined years ago that milkmaids got cowpox from their job, then developed immunity.  The process of milking cows has become much cleaner, as has the storage and transportation of milk itself.  But the proliferation of contamination of peanuts, spinach, lettuce, raspberries, etc., up to the present, indicates to me that foodborne germs are still around, just waiting for us to let our guards down.  Is the taste of raw milk worth the risk?  Obviously, you believe that is so, more power to you.  It would be nice if we could go back in time and enjoy the 'simple' life without the risks involved.  But in the world we live in, pandemics are both common and dangerous.  Regulations are required, but they should be directed towards monopolistic mega-corporations, and allow many niche markets to operate separately.  

    Permalink

  18. Storm Dragon Posted 3:33 pm
    03 Aug 2009

    Just a couple of comments on the topic of raw milk: First of all, if you're worried about germs, pasteurization does not guarantee safety.  People have contracted salmonella from pasteurized milk (possibly contaminated after pasteurization). Raw milk does sour faster than pasteurized milk, but the sour milk can still be used for cooking, (pancakes, muffins, etc.).  Pasteurized milk will keep longer, but when it goes bad, it's really bad.I believe it was Edward Jenner who made the connection between exposure to cowpox and immunity to smallpox-not Louis Pasteur.

    Permalink

  19. Des Emery Posted 6:22 pm
    03 Aug 2009

    Storm Dragon is correct - Edward Jenner started the development of vaccination, using weakened germs to provide protection against stronger varieties which could kill humans.  Pasteur took the next step, advocating soap and water washing to eliminate common bacteria (still a good method of slowing or preventing the spread of H1N1 flu, even if it's a virus, not a germ) and inventing the process of heating milk to a temperature which would kill pathogens.We still do not operate farms in a sterile environment, which is why we still need pasterurization as front-line protection, and will continue to need it for a long tme, at least until we can sterilize milk with a little pill dripped into the machines pulling milk from the mammary glands of cattle.The internet is a great place to retrieve information.  But it is also a purveyor of opinion.  Every "pro" group can direct a reader to many sites which confirm that view.  But so can every "anti" group.  So it's still "caveat emptor."  Or maybe "caveat lector."

    Permalink

  20. magicdave Posted 8:53 pm
    03 Aug 2009

    As far as pasteurization is concerned, more people have been been infected with various pathogens by drinking supposedly "safe" milk than have from drinking Raw Milk.  The research is available and there is plenty of it too, this it NOT an opinion it is a fact.  The internet has little to do with this information other than making it more readily available.    Raw Milk is full of enzymes and immune factors that render it safe to drink.  Pasteurization only makes milk keep longer it does not make it safer to drink.  Storm Dragon makes a good point regarding using soured raw milk.   The "sterile environment" of a dairy farm is not however.  If you consider that ALL newborn mammals are completely sterile at birth it is the first milk that begins the process of developing immune systems.  The reason that Raw Milk is safe to drink are the enzymes, immunoglobulins and beneficial bacteria present in the mothers milk that provides this protection.  Pasteurization of milk takes a safe "living" food and renders it dead.  I grew up drinking Raw Milk from pastured cows.  Farms do not need to be sterile environments but factory farms where there is much disease and filth need to be outlawed.  Ruminants in the wild do not clean their teats before giving birth.  How do you suppose that their offspring survive drinking the milk from their mother without first cleaning the teats?  Good milking practice on a dairy requires that the teats are cleaned before milking.  Raw Milk from a "real dairy farm" where the cows are milked at O'dark30 and then follow the alpha to the pasture to graze all day and come back to the barn in the late afternoon to get milked again produce milk that I would not hesitate drinking still warm and straight from the cow.  Raw Milk is both prebiotic and probiotic.  It is full of beneficial bacteria which are considered to be probiotics and it is also full of enzymes that stimulate those beneficial bacteria.  Kind of a symbiotic relationship.  The human body could not survive without the billions of bacteria that live on our skin in our mouths and especially in our colons.  We all have various strains of yeasts that live in our colon for the specific purpose of providing food for the beneficial bacteria.  I have not made these posts as just MY opinion.  I am very well read in health related areas regarding nutrition and nutritional healing.  Some of what I have stated here is opinion but most is very factual.  Generally speaking, Raw Milk from a well run dairy farm is far safer than any pasteurized milk from the grocery store refrigerated shelves.Here is an excerpt from a court case from the State of California.  It is part of the testimony by Theodore Beals Phd., M.D. regarding a little history of humans consuming Raw Milk.  You may find this enlightening, I did."Pasteurization was only introduced in about 1900.  And the history of human consumption of milk goes back well before recorded history.  And as a matter of fact, in recorded history we know that the domestication of animals for the purpose of providing fluid milk for human consumption is present in almost all civilizations across the world.  And recorded history and historians have well documented the fact that this consumption of milk was in fact very advantageous to civilization.  It was advantageous for cultures that migrated because they were able to take domestic animals with them and have a continuous supply of fluid milk.  And it's well recorded also in history that the ability to take domestic animals that provided fresh milk with armies as they moved across the country was a distinct advantage to them.  If a food is unsafe for consumption, it is very quickly eliminated from the diet of cultures.  And in fact history shows that the consumption of milk from domestic animals has persisted throughout history, and on the basis of that, I don't believe that there's any argument but that the consumption of fresh milk is in fact safe, confers competitive advantage to those that drink it." He was being specific about Raw Milk and NOT pasteurized milk.  Dr. Beals is a well respected Epidemiologist that has much experience in various health related fields including the dairy farming "industry."  I used industry in quotes only because it is my opinion that dairy farming is not an industry but rather a profession that should carry as much respect as does a physician.  Wow thinking of how the medical profession has digressed I am now wondering if that was a suitable comparison. :-) My question to those of you who seem to think that somehow pasteurization makes milk safer is this, How did mankind survive all of those thousands of years drinking Raw Milk?  There are a number of other food related issues I could raise about disease here but we have been discussing milk and dairies.    

    Permalink

  21. magicdave Posted 10:06 pm
    03 Aug 2009

    There's More: Pasteurization Does Harm Real Milkby Robert Irons, PhDProponents of raw milk know that government websites and reports on raw milk are filled with bias and even outright errors. I recently wrote to the Centers for Disease Control to point out a serious error on their website. My commnets apply to milk in general, regardless of species, because pasteurization degrades the nutritional value of all species' milk in the same manner. Just as a calf cannot thrive on pasteurized cow's milk, so a human baby fails to thrive on pasteurized mother's milk.Nutritional Value of Raw MilkIn paragraph two of a section entitled "Pasteurization Is Key to Making Dairy Products Safe" is the statement "Pasteurization does not harm the nutritional value of milk and cheese" (http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/cheesespotlight/cheese_spotlight.htm).This statement is erroneous, misleading, and factually incorrect. Many nutrients and immune-enhancing components are destroyed by exposure to high heat and the temperatures used during pasteurization. Vitamin A is degraded, proteins and enzymes are denatured, and immunoglobulins are destroyed.Vitamin ARegarding vitamin A, an important fat-soluble nutrient, a paper on this subject published in January, 2000 contains the following statement in the abstract. "Vitamin A is very sensitive to chemical degradation caused by oxygen, light, heat, and other stress factors. If light and oxygen are excluded, the dominant degradation reaction for vitamin A derivatives is heat-induced formation of kitols, that is, dimers or higher oligomers" (Runge FE and Heger R. Use of microcalorimetry in monitoring stability studies. J Agric Food Chem. 2000 Jan;48(1):47-55).SalmonellaA related error on the CDC site concerns salmonella. The agency’s official advice is "Cook poultry, ground beef, and eggs thoroughly before eating. Do not eat or drink foods containing raw eggs, or raw unpasteurized milk" (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salmonellosis_ g.htm).However, later on this page we read: "Mother’s milk is the safest food for young infants. Breastfeeding prevents salmonellosis and many other health problems."In one instance the CDC warns not to drink unpasteurized milk, and seven points later—within the same section—states that an unpasteurized milk (i.e., mother’s milk) is the safest food for young infants and that breastfeeding prevents salmonellosis and many other health problems. This is highly misleading to the average citizen.Growth in Premature BabiesThere is no question that pasteurization compromises the nutritional value of breast milk. For example, research carried out in 1986 came to the following conclusion (emphasis mine): "As part of a randomised controlled study to assess the effect of pasteurization of breast milk on the growth of very-low-birth-weight infants, the longitudinal changes in serum calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and bone-gla-protein concentrations were investigated. Infants fed untreated own mother’s milk grew more rapidly than those fed pasteurized pooled preterm milk and had higher serum alkaline phosphatase and lower phosphorus values. Serum calcium and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) concentrations were similar in the two groups. Despite the provision of 750 IU vitamin D daily from the 2nd week of life, serum 25-OHD values remained low in a number of infants in both groups, suggesting that either malabsorption of vitamin D or hepatic immaturity might be responsible for the persistently low values. Bone gla protein rose significantly after birth and was correlated with alkaline phosphatase values, but not with 25-OHD or phosphorus values. The study supports previous work that indicates that the low phosphorus content of breast milk is probably responsible for biochemical evidence of inadequate bone mineralization and that despite vitamin D supplementation, 25-OHD values do not rise adequately. Thirty-six infants were reexamined between 4 and 11 months after birth. The 25-OHD values had risen significantly in all infants except one who had vitamin D deficiency rickets" (Pettifor JM et al. Mineral homeostasis in very low birth weight infants fed either own mother’s milk or pooled pasteurized preterm milk. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1986 Mar-Apr;5(2):248-53).Another study carried out in the same year came to the same conclusion (emphasis mine): "It has been shown that milk derived from mothers with term infants is not optimal for premature babies. There is also concern about the effect of heat sterilizing breast milk. At Baragwanath Hospital, the majority of mothers remain with and care for their premature babies. Over many years, pooled pasteurized breast milk has been fed to these babies before direct breast feeding is instituted. A study was done to compare feeding pooled pasteurized breast milk and untreated own mother’s milk to very low birth weight babies. There was a significantly more rapid weight gain both in terms of regaining birth weight and, from this point, to reaching a weight of 1,800 g when using untreated own mother's milk. This occurred in spite of the fact that there was little difference, especially in terms of energy content, between the two types of breast milk. This was due to the fact that the pooled pasteurized milk was also largely obtained from mothers of premature babies. It is suggested from our data that  slower weight gain in the group receiving the pooled pasteurized milk could be due to the pasteurization, which probably destroys heat-labile milk lipase" (Stein H et al. Pooled pasteurized breast milk and untreated own mother’s milk in the feeding of very low birth weight babies: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1986 Mar-Apr;5(2):242-7). Note that the researchers atrribute the lower weight gain from pasteurized milk to the destruction of lipase.Destruction of EnzymesFrom a study published in 1977 we learn: “Human milk was subjected to heat treatments of graded severity and examined for its content of immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, lysozyme, vitamin B12 -and folate-binder proteins, and lactoperoxidase. Holder pasteurization (62.5 degrees C 30 minutes) reduced the IgA titer by 20 percent, and destroyed the small content of IgM and most of the lactoferrin. Lysozyme was stable to this treatment, but with an increase in temperature there was progressive destruction, to near 100 percent at 100 degrees C. The same was broadly true of the capacity of milk to bind folic acid and protect it against bacterial uptake; with vitamin B12 the binder was more labile at 75 degrees C than at 100 degrees C. The milk contained no detectable lactoperoxidase” (Ford JE et al. Influence of the heat treatment of human milk on some of its protective constituents. J Pediatr. 1977 Jan;90(1):29-35).Obligation to RemoveThese studies apply to the milk of all species, not just human milk. Americans look to the CDC to provide factually correct information that is not misleading. The above references prove that pasteurization does harm the nutritional value of milk. Therefore, the CDC is obliged to remove the following erroneous statement from its website, recommendations and all other CDC materials: “Pasteurization does not harm the nutritional value of milk and cheese.”The available scientific evidence shows that pasteurization does harm the nutritional value of milk and cheese.SIDEBARPopular in Europe: Raw Milk by Vending Machine!While US health officials continue their knee-jerk opposition to raw milk, European sales of fresh raw milk by vending machine are growing by leaps and bounds. Several versions are pictured below. The sign on the truck says Latte fresco crudo di giornata (Fresh raw milk daily). The raw milk dispenser is in the lower right hand corner of the truck body, next to the cab. Note the model pictured in the lower right—it’s painted with a cow and green pasture and placed next to a soft drink vending machine! The model shown in the middle is used in schools! We need these vending machines here—even if only on farms. They completely relieve the farmer of having to bottle his milk—the consumer brings the containers and fills them with a punch of a button. For more information (in Italian) visithttp://www.prometea.it/?service=latteria.About the AuthorDr. Robert Irons earned his PhD in Nutritional Immunology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. His graduate work examined the effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from fish oil on primary and secondary immune responses to infectious disease. He received postdoc training at the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute with a dual role in the extramural Nutritional Sciences Research Group; and the intramural Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, where he conducted research on the cancer protective effects of selenium against colon cancer in mice. He has published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Nutrition, Journal of Infectious Disease, and Biochemical Journal. He has served as research consultant to the Adele Davis Foundation and the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. Dr. Irons received first prize for his poster presentation at Wise Traditions 2007. Dr. Irons is Vice-President of Research and Development at V.E. Irons, Inc., a dietary supplement manufacturer established in 1946. He can be reached at robert (at) veirons.com or (816) 221-3719 extension 704. 

    Permalink

  22. Alida Antonia Cornelius's avatar

    Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 12:15 am
    04 Aug 2009

    You are right about raw milk, but the problem is that trusting the processor or the creamery to be clean enough so no one gets sick is something people must take into consideration. My cousin got polio when she was very young. Pasteurization began because of polio, which was a great problem.
    Raw milk is good if you have your own cow and go milk it and drink it right away and know how to keep it from getting contaminated between the barn and the dinner table. I would never drink raw milk unless I had my own cow.
    In India they drink raw milk all the time....someone with a goat in your neighborhood sells it to you at your door.
    Raw milk products are never going to go mainstream in the USA again.

    Permalink

  23. Des Emery Posted 7:24 pm
    04 Aug 2009

    It's unfortunate that this discussion has become a "health" concern about milk, rather than about the politics involved in monopolistic practices in the farming industry.  Mother's milk (human) is sadly out of favour around the world, even in what we consider to be underdeveloped countries, because dry milk powder is promoted as being "more fashionable."  The water required to mix the powder is usually contaminated to some degree, but the sale of the powdered milk is paramount, not the health of the mother or the child.Over here, raw milk can certainly be viewed as "better" than pasteurized milk, and 'statistics' can be quoted to prove it. but cow's milk is sold as pasteurized in such quantities that any deleterious effects from drinking raw milk are overwhelmingly subverted.  Big Ag can be blamed for a lot of things, but if they could make money by selling raw milk, it would be on the market in a minute.   

    Permalink

    1. Alida Antonia Cornelius's avatar

      Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:41 pm
      04 Aug 2009

      yep, you are right about it going off-topic...and yet you are contributing to the "health" discussion.Raw milk will only be popular when the big corporations are out of it and people can trust local creameries....and that is not possible now because they have all been run out of business.And really, raw milk can NEVER be trusted unless you know the cow personally and the people who milk it.I have seen polio...and it's not pretty.You really have to have your own goat or cow to get raw milk safely.I know.I had a cow.

      Permalink

  24. magicdave Posted 11:31 pm
    04 Aug 2009

    THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY INCIDENCES OF RAW MILK BEING THE CARRIER OF POLIO.  TUBERCULOSIS YES BUT NOT POLIO.  AS FAR AS ME NEVER HAVING SEEN POLIO I WILL SAY THIS, MY FATHER WAS A PHYSICIAN AND I SAW LOTS OF CASES OF POLIO WHEN I WAS A YOUNG BOY GROWING UP IN A SMALL TOWN IN UPSTATE N.Y.  I get my milk from a farmer I  trust and by the way, I would get my milk from any of the dozens of farms where I grew up and if I was living in Pennsylvania I would not hesitate purchasing Raw Milk from any of the dairies that offer it for sale.  First of all every one of them in Pennsylvania are state inspected regularly because it is legal for them to sell directly to the public.  I know because I have family in that state.  My second point is that here in Va. where my only options is either owning a goat,cow or buying a herd share.  Not an option for me since I live alone and cannot use the huge quantity of milk that I would wind up with and furthermore the farmers here in Va. seem to have a warped sense of the costs for boarding and feeding milk producing animals.Your point of not trusting a dairy farmer to produce a clean product doesn't fit the mold of "real dairy farmers" because they, "real dairy farmers," care about their animals.  If Raw Milk was legal it would have to stand the scrutiny of regular inspection and testing.  These farmers that derive a bulk of their income from the sale of Raw Milk and Farmstead Cheeses could not afford to make anyone sick by selling tainted products because it would put them out of business.  We are not dealing with big corporations but buying locally.

    Permalink

    1. Alida Antonia Cornelius's avatar

      Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 6:30 am
      05 Aug 2009

      Milk isn't a carrier per se of polio, but just like e-coli, it's in fecal matter and you get it from contaminated food or water or milk.Because of the polio vaccine, it has been mostly eradicated. However, it is still endemic in India where everyone has not been vaccinated and also they drink raw milk. It's all they drink.And you can freeze milk. So if you want to drink raw milk and have to purchase alot of it, and you have a large freezer, you can freeze it. My cousin freezes milk.Just like you have to cook your food to a certain temperature to take away chances of getting a bad bacteria, heating and pasteurizing milk has just become the way it's done to prevent people from getting sick. I am not saying that drinking raw milk is bad. You just have to trust the people you get it from.I totally believe in buying locally and doing everything in one's power to stop the monopolistic practices of any food supplier. 

      Permalink

  25. magicdave Posted 2:34 pm
    05 Aug 2009

    I agree with the buying locally principal and do my business with a grocery chain that buys as much locally grown produce that they can acquire. However pasteurization is why there are so many people with lactose intolerance.  A dietary problem that did not exist before pasteurization of dairy products.  When milk is still a living food it is not unsafe.  Are you aware that there are dozens of varieties of e. coli that live in your colon?  You could not survive without them.  Coliform bacteria are literally everywhere.  In the soil, in the air, in the water you drink but most of them are harmless to humans.  I will in fact make my point one more time.  How do you suppose that mammals giving birth in the wild don't kill off their offspring?  Do you think that they take a bath before giving birth?  All mammalian newborns are sterile and without any immune defense but they suckle unwashed teats and because the raw milk is literally packed with all sorts of bacteria, enzymes, immunoglobulins, even strains of e. coli, white cells and a whole host of other beneficial bacteria that engulf and destroy pathogens that are present from the uncleaned teat.  That is how it works and has for hundreds of thousands of years.  I am now retiring my soapbox but I will say one more thing before I do and that is this.  If you want to fight Big Agra-business which is what I am gleaning from your posts, activism to support legalizing direct sales of dairy products will go a long way in saving family farmers.  There are other avenues that need our attention but I will leave that for another day.

    Permalink

    1. amazingdrx Posted 3:49 pm
      05 Aug 2009

      Good points on the natural ecology of microorganisms Dave, you convinced me.  I'm going to find some raw milk again.  Might have to buy a cow-share, but so what?  That's a fine option.In fact Alida, due to the massive antibiotic influence on the food chain, commercially produced milk is more likely to contain very dangerous mutated antibiotic  resistant microorganisms and the antibiotic residue tends to kill beneficial microorganisms our health depends upon.  Germ research is conducted using sterilized growing media, is pasteurized milk an unintended sterilized growing media for the next dangerous diasease outbreak?Since there is no regulation of food safety that is very likely. Milk left too long in warm temperatures, use by dates changed to cheat consumers, and completely untested milk products make it a perfect host for mutated microorganisms, modified by exposure to antibiotics in the food chain.

      Permalink

      1. magicdave Posted 7:12 pm
        06 Aug 2009

        Here is the closest herd share farm to me. and the cost involved.
        1. How is the cowshare program with Avery's Branch Farms set up?

        You make a one-time payment of $100 to buy a share in one of Avery's Branch Farms' Jersey cows for the lifetime of the cow. From that point on you actually own a share of that cow. In addition, you pay a $35 boarding fee each month for the feeding and care of your cow. Your share entitles you to one gallon of milk each week. You may buy as many shares as you would like. We also offer half shares, which entitle you to a half gallon of milk each week. They are half the price of a full share.

        The price is cost prohibitive for me to purchase cow's milk from this farmer because I live about 2 hours drive time from this farm to have them "meet me half way" once a week costs an additional $2.50 per week for 1 gallon of milk? That over $11 a gallon. These farmers are making a killing selling direct. Picking up 1 gallon of milk a week is still cost prohibitive because not counting the upfront $100 at $35 a month for a boarding fee for 1 gallon of milk per week is still $8.75 per gallon. I am sorry but that price is way out of line for milk. I buy my milk from a farmer that pastures his cows because I was out driving one day and saw him trying to catch a heifer that had gotten loose. I helped him "drive" the heifer back into the pen when she was supposed to be and we got talking. Just for helping him I go pick up a gallon or two of milk from his Brown Swiss pastured cows for a very reasonable $4 a gallon. Herd share sellers are making a killing at the rate they charge and I believe that the unsuspecting purchasers of herd shares don't realize what they are paying but have a romantic notion of owning a part of a cow. I am all for having Raw Milk available to those who desire it but not at between $9 and $11 per gallon. Those costs just aren't realistic.

        Permalink

  26. magicdave Posted 4:49 pm
    05 Aug 2009

    Amen!

    Permalink

  27. Alida Antonia Cornelius's avatar

    Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 10:16 pm
    05 Aug 2009

    Good read..thanks.I do wish the government would do something about the milk monopolies and also the beef. The Sherman-Clay anti-trust laws were made just because of a beef monopoly...involving meet packers, and the same thing is happening in the beef industry...but no one is doing anything about these anti-trust violators.They made Ma Bell break up into little bells.Something needs to be done with the milk and beef barons also.Many of our small and medium farmers are being run out of business. You can tell by all the farm auctions in the papers.

    Permalink

    1. amazingdrx Posted 9:49 am
      06 Aug 2009

      If one payed a farmer 10 bucks per week for a cow share, then received 4 gallons of milk, that would work out to 33 cents per pound I believe?  Check my figures.  You could turn the milk into yogurt, butter, cheese and just drink the milk.Farmers are going broke now with the price under 20 cents per pound for regular milk and under 30 cents for organic milk.  I would pay more for local semi-organic milk, say 12 bucks per week for a  4 gallon share, it's still a great deal.I think CSAs could make this happen, legally and safely.  Furthermore, members who wanted pasturization could use CSA community owned equipment to do that.   In my view only 10% of consumers would go through the effort to join a CSA like this and get most of their food this way.  But that alternative would pressure the rest of the market to reform or lose market share.  Not a bad result for society as a whole and CSA members.Tie in monopoly fighting with a cleaner, safer, more organic (not necessarily pure organic), local food supply and the synchronicity might add up to a 10% market share in a few years.

      Permalink

  28. magicdave Posted 5:51 am
    06 Aug 2009

    Some interesting reading that you may find informative are a few articles in two different issues of Mother Earth News and an issue of Grit, magazines I have been reading since the days of flower children or hippies if you will. In reality I have been reading Grit since the late 50's when I was prepubescent.  I am one of those children of Woodstock and I have nurtured those seeds since the late 60's when I was actually still a boy by my standards of today.  Not to sound as if I am special but I was really at the original Woodstock.  I am just a man that has become a bit militant about what is happening to our health because of the industrialization of food production.  As an individual I cannot do very much to change the coming catastrophe but together we can make our voices heard.  Ooooops I guess I am back on my soapbox, but I digress.  The reading you may find interesting is in February/March 2009 Mother Earth News.  The article is titled The Hidden Link Between Factory Farms and Human Illness by Laura Sayre.  This article should scare you into becoming a food activist.  I would love it if you joined us.  We are a growing voice across the land.  Join the Organic Consumers Association.  You don't have to eat organic to participate but it will make it easier to make your voice heard.  The second article is in April/May 2009 Mother Earth News.  The article is titled The Amazing Benefits of Grass Fed Meats by Richard Manning.  This article will not scare you but it is enlightening.  The author has been slowly teaching grain growers to sell their farming equipment i.e, those huge diesel tractors and harvesting equipment and begin to raise pastured meat animals.  After the first year or so these former raisers of GMO soybeans and GMO corn have converted their land back into the grassland it once was and have begun what is called intensive grazing which strengthens the native grasses and doesn't pollute or use any petroleum products.  These farmers are making just as much money as they did raising those crops that were harvested for use in feedlots.  They have no need for tractors anymore.  It is also a farming concept that can be scaled up to huge proportions which would in fact peak the interest of those huge corporate food conglomerates while saving the prairie and sequestering gigantic amounts of carbon into the soil.  The last article is in the current (July/August) issue of Grit.  The article is titled Big Hopes for a Little Prairie by Kathleen McKenzie Winn.  This is just a very nice article about the discovery how the prairies used to be before industrialized farming.  I really enjoyed the photography and the article.  My plea to spend time at the Weston A Price website was to perhaps change some readers attitude towards what good nutrition really means.  I asked readers to join the OCA so we could have more voices making noise towards our so called elected representatives.The more people making noise the better to drown out Big AgraBusiness.  This holds true towards Big Pharma too.  I am suffering from a somewhat debilitating disease that I have had to "treat" myself because the specialists that I saw all spoke as one voice stating that I wasn't sick enough for them to even do a biopsy to determine the extent of my illness.  Luckily I have been involved in deep study of several philosophies of Herbal Healing for more than 40 years so I had some possibilities that have been working of late. :-)  Food is an important part of the healing process and Big Agra, Big Petro, Big Pharma have been relentless in their pursuit of the almighty $buck$ and if we should wind up a dying species so be it.  At least that seems to be the attitude of the Corporate "elite."  

    Weston A.Price was a dentist but he authored a book titled Nutrition and Physical Degeneration 60 years ago that has much relevance today for anyone that is concerned about diet and why so many debilitating diseases are rampant especially in all of the industrialized nations of the world.  He spent more than 10 years of research before he wrote it and it will really open your eyes to what has happened to our food supply and our diets in general.  This "quest" of mine is not something new for me but rather the path I chose when I was still a young boy.  My interest in nutritional healing started back in the 50's when a neighbor began teaching me about the "old ways" of the Native Americans of the North Eastern U.S, he was a "Medicine Man"  and I learned much about the herbs that they used to treat various "conditions."

    I appreciate your compliment about my description of why raw milk is better for you than that white liquid sold as milk that I consider to be poison.Thank you.

    Permalink

  29. Alida Antonia Cornelius's avatar

    Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:33 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    I am an e-activist, mostly on clean water issues. I volunteer with watershed associations. It's one of my areas of expertise. I do, however, get very involved in business issues and small producers.
    I know about monopolistic practices and believe me, in the Chicago Commodities Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade, many of the big players in commodities owning vertical integration businesses in the food industry, it is my observation that the markets are being manipulated in the dairy and beef industries just like banks holding and owning oil to make a profit.
    More regulation is needed to prevent monopolistic practices in those areas of consumer products and to control vertical integration practices and other unregulated business practices which will prevent only a few large global companies from controlling the markets. Because that is what they are doing.
    Nice discussion here.
    Many points of view and good observations.
    Regards to all...
    I hope our legislators listen and consider what is really going on in the dairy and also the beef industry.

    Permalink

    1. amazingdrx Posted 9:35 pm
      06 Aug 2009

      I couldn't agree more Alida, there are no real free markets without regulation.  And this dioscussion is actually starting to feel like our interaction on the old Grist, a welcome improvement!  Fine work indeed.  Let's have more of this, if you all please, hehey.Regulation would protect farmers and consumers from corporate excess.  Our bottomline is quality of l;ife, theirs is the next quarterly earnings report.  Let's resolve this conflict in our favor, it is our country afterall.  To paraphrase duuhbya's statement on the constitution ("it's just a gaawd damn piece of paper"), a corporation is not a citizen with the rights and privleges we the people enjoy..it is just a gaawd damn piece of paper.

      Permalink

  30. magicdave Posted 4:06 am
    07 Aug 2009

    To Alida and AmazingDRX  I am new here but I wholeheartedly agree that this discussion has been a wonderful exchange of ideas.  I am reluctant to let it go mostly because the intellectual stimulation is a refreshing change to what I am used to.  As an observation I would like to point out that I made it known to the Representative from my Congressional District (1st) that I am vehemently opposed to the passage of HR 2749 (the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009) without an amendment to protect family farms and small organic operations.  I received a response from both Congressman Dingell of Michigan (the bill's originator) and my Congressman thanking me for my support of this "important legislation."  I was angered by such a blatant disregard for my opposition to this legislation but it surely does prove that my theory that "once they get inside the Washington D.C. beltway you cannot trust any of them."  I can appreciate your working for clean water Alida.  One of my many "crusades" is clean water.  I am more involved with saving the family farmer and all small farmers for that matter.  I am certainly involved with the organic movement and have been since I was given a couple of magazines from Rodale Press back in 1972, Organic Gardening and New Farmer.  The articles I read changed my perspective on food and for the better I might add.  I have been aware of the problems of water pollution for more years than I care to admit but will tell you that the river that supplies New York City originates in the county where I grew up.  The head waters of the Delaware River were not completely clean downstream from my hometown when I was a young boy back in the '50's.  Some of the best trout fishing on the East Coast can be found in that area.  The water is now unbelievably clean even south of my home town after they were forced by the National Wild Rivers Act to stop dumping their raw sewage into the river.  Upstream from my hometown the water is so clean that I wouldn't hesitate drinking directly from the river.  New York City has the best drinking water in the world, well for a city anyway.  It may just be the best municipal water supply anywhere.My quest to allow the direct sale of Raw Milk will continue as will my activism helping to strengthen the regulation of what organic food means.  We are fighting Big Agra and to say that it is an uphill battle is certainly an understatement.  Hopefully we can continue an exchange of ideas.I am willing to provide an email address if either of you wish to stay in touch.Have a grand day,"MagicDave" 

    Permalink

  31. amazingdrx Posted 5:26 am
    07 Aug 2009

    Yeah Dave and Alida and anyone else who is interested email me,  (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    //
    var l=new Array();

    var output = '';

    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 109';l[23]=' 111';l[24]=' 99';l[25]=' 46';l[26]=' 108';l[27]=' 105';l[28]=' 97';l[29]=' 109';l[30]=' 116';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 104';l[33]=' 64';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 101';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement