MrNatural’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Huh?

  I've read this article 3 times. I understand the points, but don't understand why anyone would focus on HFCS+obesity+subsidy link. You can splice and dice into infinity and beyond.

  Personally, I think it's not just HFCS but the amount of processed foods one consumes every day. That's just one item.

  WHat about the Commodities Market? Sure, corn producers get their subsisdies by that corn still goes to the highest bidders, no? Who then process the heck out of it for various non-nutrient dense foods.

  And then there's fat: if you're not getting good fats into your body EACH meal, then your liver will work day and night to produce it. In this sense, artificial sweeteners (diet soda) are to blame as well.

  Avoiding this nonsensical non-nutrient dense foods is easy: if it's in a box, it's been processed, and therefore you're putting your body and health at risk.On Tufts study: Corn subsidies are a sop to HFCS industry, but don't alone make bad food cheap posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Kill your customers

  It's really weird how corporations think they can kill their customers and somehow business will continue.

  It used to be that a good business idea met the needs of its customers, and as long as it it did so very well and efficiently, repeat business would follow.

  Side note: did anyone notice how many organic companies got their peanuts from PCA? Yeah, LARABARS, Cliff, et. al. How can they call their product 100% organic if they get it from PCA? We have the OTA to thank for this, too. On Salmonella-linked Ga. peanut-butter plant had dismal sanitary record posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Peer Reviewed by the Choir

  I appreciate the realmilk.org comments here, but why did they ignore the downloadable court testimony? Go to realmilk.org and download Expert Witnesses Defend Bacteria in Raw Milk. It's the 3rd red boxed item.

  I've never trusted the scientific perspective and here's why: a scientist has to control all of the variables to get repeatable observations and data. They literally zero in on the tree and cannot possibly account for that tree's context because that context has so many variables that that differ from one tree to the next.

  How do you account then for the fact that plant life along some major NW streams contain 25% salmon genes?

  As for raw milk any discussion must include the common sense variables - all of them - before making a decision. Cleanliness - duh! - of the operation. Handling techniques. The cleanliness of the people handling the milk. But shouldn't you back up and observe what kind of cows there are, and what their lives are like?

  You should because if you read that testimony above the Australian animal expert alluded to the fact that stressed out cows shed pathogens. They shed it in their feces, urine and milk.

  Amazingly Umbra and others here miss some crucial points raised in the PDF: pasteurization creates the climate in which E. coli thrives. Don't be fooled: pasteurization doesn't kill E. coli.

  So what if the choir sings in harmony? They're singing the wrong song, and have been for years. Get your raw milk from a place that you know.

  Now, let's talk honey: if it's not crystallized it probably has HFCS in it....On Umbra on raw milk posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 20 Responses