The growth in the average herd size, the expansion of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in many parts of the country, and the increase in milk production per cow—along with poor pay prices and the higher costs of inputs—have all contributed to moving the family farm out of the conventional dairy business.

According to a recent issue of Hoard’s Dairyman, fluid (pasteurized) milk sales dwindled to a 62-year low, marking the lowest sales volume since 1958 when the U.S. population wasn’t much more than half of what it is today.⁴ Recent USDA statistics indicate that the amount of milk the average American drinks has declined more than 40 percent since the mid-70s.⁵

In a growing number of states (e.g., Montana, Tennessee and Wyoming), it’s possible that there are more dairy farms producing raw milk for direct consumption than for pasteurization. As states continue to legalize the sale or distribution of raw dairy products other than milk and aged cheese (both Alaska and Montana passed bills in 2021 legalizing the distribution or sale of all raw dairy products), this trend will accelerate.

1. USDA-NASS. (2021, February). Milk Production. [PDF]. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. p. 18. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0221.pdf

2. Nepveux, M. (2021, February 26). USDA report: U.S. dairy farm numbers continue to decline. Farm Bureau. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/usda-report-u.s.-dairy-farm-numbers-continue-to-decline

3. Fallert, R.F., Blayney, D.P., & Miller, J.J. (1990, March). Dairy: Background for 1990 farm legislation. (Staff report AGES 9020). Commodity Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. p. v. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41851/50675_ages9020.pdf?v=42087

4. Geiger, C. (ed.). (2020, September 29). Washington Dairygrams – September 25, 2020. Hoard’s Dairyman. https://hoards.com/article-30898-washington-dairygrams-september-25-2020.html

5. Falat, B. (2021, August 9). Number of dairy farms continue to decrease. WAOW TV-9 News; https://waow.com/2021/08/09/number-of-dairyfarms-continue-todecrease/.

The post Decline in Conventional Dairies Continues (US) appeared first on Real Milk.

On May 24, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras (2021)¹ rubber-stamped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA’s) denial of a citizen petition² filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and dairy farmer Mark McAfee (petitioners) to lift the interstate ban on raw butter, disposing of petitioners’ appeal³ by granting FDA‘s motion for summary judgment. The upshot of the judge’s decision is that FDA can ban any food in interstate commerce it wants under its power to regulate communicable disease;⁴ FDA did not provide any evidence in the case specifically establishing that commercially produced raw butter has ever been blamed for causing a foodborne illness outbreak in the U.S.⁵

FDA had rejected the petition in February 2020⁶, and FTCLDF and McAfee appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Two issues were before Judge Contreras: whether FDA had the statutory authority to require pasteurization for butter, and second, whether FDA acted arbitrarily when it banned a food in interstate commerce that had little or no record of making people sick.

Through a statute in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 USC 341⁷), Congress has given FDA the power to issue standard of identity regulations for most foods; standard of identity regulations are requirements prescribing what a food product must contain to be marketed under a certain name in interstate commerce. For instance, the standard of identity for milk in final package form requires that it be pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized and that it contain not less than 8.25% non-fat milk solids and not less than 3.25% milkfat.⁸ FDA’s long-held position is that the pasteurization requirement can be part of the standard of identity. As Judge Contreras noted in his opinion (p. 6),⁹ standards of identity “promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.”

There are several foods that Congress prohibits issuing standard of identity regulations for and one of those is butter. Congress has defined butter in the FFDCA which serves as a standard of identity for the food; that definition does not require that butter be pasteurized. When FDA violated the FFDCA by requiring that butter in interstate commerce be pasteurized, they claimed it had the power to do so under the authority given it to regulate communicable disease⁴. The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) authorizes FDA “to make and enforce such regulations as in its judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of a communicable disease from foreign countries into the states or possessions or from one state or possession into any other state or possession” (42 USC 264).¹⁰ There is little or no evidence that Congress intended to give FDA the power to ban a food completely in interstate commerce under the PHSA, but that is what the judge found in his opinion.

In discussing the conflict between the FDA’s pasteurization requirement under the PHSA and the FFDCA’s statutory definition of butter, the judge stated:

• [T]he two statues hardly touch on the same topic, much less conflict in such a way that one would have to supersede the other. While the PHSA is concerned with containing the spread of infectious diseases regardless of the means of transmission, standards of identity are meant to ensure that consumers know what foods they are buying. Rarely do two statutes with such different purposes conflict.⁹ (p. 7)

What the judge ignored in making this statement is that both standard of identity regulations and Congress’ definition of butter are concerned with public health; the 60-day aging requirement for raw cheese and the pasteurization requirement for milk and other dairy were implemented by FDA because of the agency’s health concerns. When Congress passed the law creating the definition for butter, it didn’t think a pasteurization requirement was necessary to protect the public health; it could have amended the definition at any time since to require pasteurization but has never done so.

The second issue before the court was petitioners’ claim that the pasteurization requirement for butter was scientifically “unsupported” and therefore “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law” (pp. 4, 17).³ On this issue, the judge’s holding against McAfee and FTCLDF was even more troubling. The most important consideration in determining whether there is scientific support for banning a food in interstate commerce is looking at the food’s history of making people ill. In the court record before Judge Contreras, there are only two foodborne illness outbreaks since 1908 where raw butter is definitively listed as the suspected cause of illness; in both outbreaks the butter was homemade.¹¹ In its letter to McAfee and FTCLDF rejecting the petition, FDA included a table listing 13 foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to butter from 1908 through 2003. There is a column in the chart indicating pasteurization status; only one of the outbreaks has “unpasteurized” in the column while the other 12 have either “not specified” or “not specified but commonly unpasteurized” in the table (pp. 18-22).¹¹

The judge upheld the ban on raw butter in interstate commerce even though FDA failed to specifically link a single outbreak to commercially produced raw butter. There are a dozen states that allow the sale or distribution of raw butter, including California where Organic Pastures Dairy Company, a business McAfee founded, has sold well over 2 million pounds of raw butter the past 20 years without incident (p.14).³

The judge justified his decision by indicating FDA’s findings that raw butter could contain pathogens that may cause illness were sufficient for him to uphold the ban, but shouldn’t the number of illnesses a food has caused be a more important consideration? Moreover, any food that is improperly produced or handled is capable of making people sick. FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban any food under its authority to regulate communicable disease; under the judge’s ruling, there isn’t a food the agency conceivably couldn’t ban.

In his ruling, Judge Contreras stated that the court had to be “highly deferential” on FDA‘s decision to ban raw butter, citing a legal doctrine called Chevron Deference, a doctrine which basically leaves the courts powerless to overturn agency decisions (p. 4).¹ As long as Chevron Deference is in effect, lawyers for the agencies before the court might as well write the opinions themselves. If the courts ever want to reestablish their independence in reviewing agency decisions, this doctrine needs to go.

The best path to overturning the sham that is the raw butter ban is to legalize its sale or distribution one state at a time. Tennessee legalized the retail sale of raw butter in 2019.¹² Utah did the same in 2020,¹³ and Montana has legalized the sale from producer direct to consumer in 2021.¹⁴ The petition has further established the excellent track record for food safety of raw butter; the move to legalize sales of the product in the state legislatures should continue.

Alexia Kulwiec, executive director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, offered this statement, “FTCLDF is very disappointed¹⁵ in the decision, and has until late July to decide whether it will appeal. FTCLDF is considering all available options at this time.”¹⁶

Photo Credit: “Bread and Butter” by Marina Shemesh on PublicDomainPictures.net

References

1. Contreras, R. (2021, May 24). Order: Denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [19-3161 (RC)] U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-05-24-Order-Denying-Plaintiff_Granting-Def-SJ.pdf

2. McAfee, M., & Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. (2016, June 22). Citizen petition seeking legalization of interstate transport of unpasteurized butter. p. 5.
https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1-CitPetFDA-Butter-062216-1-1.pdf

3. McAfee, M., & Farm-to-Consumer. (2020, May 25). Second amended complaint [Civil Action No. 19-3161]. https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Filed-Second-Amended-Complaint-5.26.20.pdf

4. Kennedy, P. (2017, April 14). Raw butter, a communicable disease? A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/raw-butter-communicable-disease/ (Originally published 2016, June 23 at
Farm-to-Consumer

5. Kennedy, P. (2016, March 17). OPDC citizens petition for raw butter. A Campaign for Real Milk. Citing “the CDC has no outbreaks, no cases of illness or death recorded in its databases related to commercially produced raw butter illness or pathogen defects.” https://www.realmilk.com/opdc-citizens-petition-for-raw-butter/

6. Kennedy, P. (2020, March 18). FDA Denies Petition to Lift Interstate Ban on Raw Butter. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/fda-denies-petition-to-lift-interstate-ban-on-raw-butter/

7. United States Code. (1938/1993). 21 USC 341 – Definitions and standards for food: “No definition and standard of identity and no standard of quality shall be established for fresh or dried fruits, fresh or dried vegetables, or butter, except that definitions and standards of identity may be established for avocadoes, cantaloupes, citrus fruits, and melons.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved July 4, 2021 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/341

8. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993/2020, November 10). 21 CFR 131.110(a) – Milk. Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved July 4, 2021 from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=131.110

9. Contreras, R. (2021, May 24). Memorandum opinion: Denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. [McAfee et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 1:2019cv03161 – Document 23 (D.D.C. 2021). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2019cv03161/212153/23/] Accessible at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-05-24-Memorandum-Opinion-on-SJ-Orders.pdf

10. United States Code. (1944/2002). 42 USC 264 – Regulations to control communicable diseases. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved July 4, 2021 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264

11. FDA. (2020, February 27). Letter from FDA to Mark McAfee and Pete Kennedy, Re: Docket No. FDA-2016-P-1852 [Letter]. https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FDA-RawButterPetition-Response-2-27-2020.pdf

12. Kennedy, P. (2019, May 7). Raw butter sales now legal in Tennessee. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/tennessee-raw-butter-sales-now-legal/

13. Kennedy, P. (2020, April 19). Raw Butter and Raw Cream Sales Now Legal in Utah. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/raw-butter-and-raw-cream-sales-now-legal-in-utah/

14. Kennedy, P. (2021, May 10). Montana Local Food Choice Act Now Law. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/montana-local-food-choice-act-now-law/

15. Kennedy, P. (2020, March 21). FTCLDF Takes the FDA to Court Over Raw Butter Petition. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/ftcldf-takes-the-fda-to-court-over-raw-butter-petition/

16. Kulwiec, A. (personal communication via email, 2021, June 16).

The post Judge Upholds FDA Raw Butter Ban appeared first on Real Milk.

Years ago I wrote an article called “Be Kind to Your Grains. . . and Your Grains will be Kind to You,”¹ noting that grains are very difficult to digest without proper preparation such as soaking and sourdough fermentation.

One of the ways that we are cruel to our grains is the extrusion process, whereby grains—both whole and refined—are transformed into breakfast cereal. Extrusion involves high heat (120-140 degrees C) and pressure to force a slurry of grains out a tiny hole to make corn flakes, Cheerios, shredded wheat, puffed grains, etc. Unpublished research indicates that in the extrusion process, the proteins in grains become warped and distorted, with very toxic effects. Rats fed extruded grains die within a few weeks, and in a corn flake experiment, rats fed corn flakes died sooner than rats fed the box they came in! The corn flake-fed rats suffered seizures and died of convulsions, indicating extreme toxicity to the nervous system.² And a recent study found that extruded grains can cause undesirable changes to gut flora.³

A new study out of China indicates that heat processing has a similar effect on milk proteins. The researchers looked at four processing methods: boiling (presumably to imitate the pasteurization process), microwave heating, spray drying, and freeze drying. Not surprisingly, the heat-intensive processing methods caused oxidative damage to the proteins. Interestingly, microwaving caused more damage to the milk proteins than boiling!

The real surprise was the finding that freeze-drying caused as much damage as heat-intensive spray drying (150-175 degrees C). When spray-dried and freeze-dried milk powder were fed to rats, both groups developed oxidative damage in plasma, liver, and brain tissue. Further, “hippocampal inflammatory and apoptosis genes were significantly up-regulated. . while learning and memory genes were significantly down-regulated. Eventually, varying degrees of spatial learning and memory impairment were demonstrated.”⁴ In other words, rats fed milk that was spray-dried by both heat and freezing became stupid.

Where do we encounter spray-dried and freeze-dried milk powders? Number one is low-fat and especially non-fat milk. Manufacturers routinely add spray-dried skim milk to non-fat and low-fat milks to give them body—to keep them from looking blue. They don’t have to label this additive because the FDA allows manufacturers to call spray-dried milk powder “milk” on the label. That means that the non-fat and low-fat milks that so many people dutifully consume—and give to their children on government recommendations—contain oxidative protein products that can damage the blood, the liver, and the brain.

Spray-dried milk is the first ingredient in chocolate milk fed to children in school lunch programs. (The second ingredient is sugar.) Just think, the main beverage that our children are drinking in school causes damage to the blood, the liver, and the brain! The children also get extruded cereal in school breakfast programs and they often put chocolate milk on their cereal! Is there any wonder that we have such a tragic health crisis in our children today?

The distribution of whole fluid milk is actually something of an inconvenience to the dairy industry, especially in Third World countries—it’s heavy and wet and requires refrigeration. Plus, they can get so much more money for the valuable butterfat by putting it into ice cream. Why waste the butterfat on growing children when we can get the government to forbid whole milk in school lunches? The long-term plan is to ship bags of skim milk powder to impoverished areas of the world, where it can sit in warehouses for years, and then reconstitute it with vegetable oils for sale on supermarket shelves. All this will happen in far-away places before reconstituted milk “rich in polyunsaturates” comes to the U.S.

What about whey left over from the production of cheese? Up to 88 percent of milk is whey, so disposal of the liquid whey poses quite a problem for the cheese industry. You can’t put whey in the sewers because it rapidly becomes very acidic and will etch holes in the concrete pipes. A lot of very acid whey is a by-product of Greek yogurt production and someone recently told me that in Greece, they dump this whey into the Mediterranean Sea, causing acidification of the Mediterranean waters.

Here in the U.S., they solve the whey problem by spray drying it. As you can imagine, in a nation of cheese eaters, this is a huge industry. Whey powder serves as an ingredient—often labeled as “natural”—in baked goods, including crackers, muffins and bread, salad dressings, emulsifiers, infant formulas, and medical nutritional formulas. It’s also foisted on the public as whey protein powder for use by athletes and in smoothies. Whey protein is more fragile than casein protein in the milk solids, so damage by spray drying is likely to be higher. Doctors routinely warn kidney patients to avoid it. The irony is that the last thing Westerners need in the diet is more protein!

Then there are all the plant-based proteins out there—soy protein, pea protein, rice protein, etc. These proteins must first undergo separation from the plant matrix—a process that involves a lot of chemicals—and then high heat to make the powders. They are likely to abound in toxins— the toxins originally in the seed (especially high in soybeans) and the toxins formed during processing.

What about freeze-dried proteins? Where do we encounter them? These often show up in foods for the health-conscious consumer as freeze-dried milk powder, freeze-dried whey, and freeze-dried colostrum. Buyer beware!

As you can see, we need to treat our proteins with care. Fragile milk proteins, especially, should not be heated, as even the relatively low heat of pasteurization denatures them. Tightly bound meat proteins actually benefit from gentle heating, such as braising and stewing, which opens them up to expose more surface area for digestive enzymes. Collagen proteins may be the toughest of the lot, as they can be heated to the boiling point and cooled many times—even boiled rapidly for a long time—without losing functionality. But what happens when you take collagen proteins over the boiling point to make collagen powders—or make broth in a pressure cooker—is anyone’s guess. Low temperature home dehydration of vegetables, soups, and even meat is probably fine—many traditional cultures dried various foods in the sun and then pounded them to make a powder.

The bottom line: avoid industrially processed proteins and powdered foods—especially anything that contains powdered milk or whey proteins—and stick to traditional methods of food preparation and processing. The Chinese researchers concluded, “This means that humans should control milk protein oxidation and improve the processing methods applied to food.”⁴ Since all industrial processing methods damaged the milk proteins, the correct conclusion is that milk, Nature’s perfect food, should not be industrially processed at all—just consumed raw or made into cream, butter, cheese, or fermented milk products.

This article first appeared in the blog nourishingtraditions.com, by Sally Fallon Morell.

This article was published in the Winter 2019 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/food-features/be-kind-to-yourgrains-and-your-grains-will-be-kind-to-you/
2. https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/modern-foods/dirty-secrets-of-the-food-processing-industry/
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267476182_Effect_of_feeding_piglets_with_different_extruded_and_nonextruded_cereals_on_the_gut_mucosa_and_microbiota_during_the_first_postweaning_week
4. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/ra/c9ra03223a#!divAbstract

The post New Evidence that Processing Destroys Milk Proteins appeared first on Real Milk.

Flavored milks are highly sweetened beverages made with powdered skim milk—they are actually the dairy industry’s way of getting rid of all the skim milk left over from the production of butter and cream, mostly for ice cream. Since Americans are huge ice cream eaters (and since Americans are eating more butter these days), there’s an enormous amount of this waste product that the industry needs to get rid of.

With the advent of modern industrial agriculture, which separates all the farm animal species into confinement facilities, it’s no longer possible for the farmer to give his leftover skim milk to his pigs after sending his cream to the dairy factory. So what better thing to do with this lowfat waste product than feed it to children!

Because of USDA dietary guidelines, school children are not allowed to have whole milk at lunchtime—the kind of milk they need to grow normally. Instead their choices are limited to lowfat and flavored milk beverages in chocolate and strawberry flavors. These beverages contain more sugar than sodas! School students choose chocolate milk over plain milk two to one, and there are reports of children in the breakfast programs putting chocolate milk on their cereal!

Thanks to the efforts of Jamie Oliver, host of Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, plus input from thousands of concerned parents, many schools dropped the flavored milk offering. Because the kids hate the watery plain lowfat milk, they ended up not drinking milk, and the dairy industry was not pleased, especially as some policymakers began calling for the introduction of full-fat milk at school lunches.

What? Give valuable butterfat to growing children? That would be terrible for the bottom line. So the industry increased their lobbying efforts for flavored milks. I receive the American Dairy Association North East Dairy Promotion News, and this issue featured an article entitled “Checkoff Reinforces Importance of Offering Flavored Milk in Schools.” According to the article, “In response to recent changes in nutritional guidelines allowing schools greater flexibility in meeting nutrition requirements, ADA North East distributed informational kits to 1,600 school districts about the importance of offering lowfat flavored milk to students.” The promotional kits included a flyer with “five reasons flavored milk is nutritious and appealing to schools and students alike,” and a mouse pad featuring chocolate, strawberry and white milk logos. The campaign seems to be working. “Many schools have already reintroduced flavored milk thanks to support from local dairy farmers and cooperatives.”

A few years ago, when researching the subject of flavored milk for a presentation on school lunches, I was astounded to find three web pages dedicated to hawking flavored milk. Typical arguments go like this: “Flavored milk is a terrific way for kids, teens and adults to enjoy milk and get the same nine essential nutrients found in milk—nutrients that can help kids grow into strong and healthy adults.

“Milk, including flavored, is the number one food source of three of the four nutrients the Dietary Guidelines for Americans say both adults and children need to consume more of—vitamin D, calcium and potassium.

“Research shows that children who drink flavored milk drink more milk overall, have better quality diets, do not consume more added sugar or fat and are just as likely to be at a healthy weight compared to kids who do not consume flavored milk. In fact, flavored milk contributes only 4% of the added sugars to children’s diets ages 2-18, while soft drinks and non-carbonated sweetened beverages contribute about 46% of the added sugars.”¹

So why isn’t flavored milk a good way to get the “three out of four” important nutrients in milk? Since the milk has been heated—once for pasteurization and again for the powdering process—any enzymes that help the body absorb calcium and phosphorus will be destroyed. You need vitamin D to utilize calcium and phosphorus but it is unlikely the vitamin D will be absorbed since it is a fat-soluble vitamin, and there is little or no fat in the flavored milks.

These flavored milks typically also contain cornstarch, carrageenan (hard to digest), natural and artificial flavors and vitamin A palmitate. Strawberry-flavored milk labels list high-fructose corn syrup along with sugar, plus natural flavoring and red dye—but no strawberries!

Back to the newsletter from the American Dairy Association North East: on the back page is a photo of Abbey Copenhaver, New York dairy farmer and registered dietitian. She is participating in the Ironman race sponsored by Team Chocolate Milk, and is shown drinking a bottle of lowfat chocolate milk. She did the marathon, which consists of a 2.4-mile swim, 112-mile bike ride and 26.2-mile run, in fourteen hours four minutes. (Winners typically complete the course in just over nine hours.)

Abbey looks nice and slim, as she should, engaging in so much exercise. But on the opposite page we have two group photos of the State Dairy Princesses—the outgoing winners and the incoming winners. Recently at a dairy conference I attended, a dairy farmer who was promoting whole milk for school children pointed out that all six of these teenage gals are overweight, some quite a bit so.

The dirty little secret of these flavored milks is that they provide the perfect combination of ingredients for weight gain—in spite of industry claims to the contrary. First is the low fat powdered milk. If you feed low fat milk to pigs—who have a metabolism similar to that of humans—they will rapidly gain weight, but they will stay lean if fed whole milk. It seems counter intuitive to many, but readers of Wise Traditions know that we need those animal fats to stay slim. They provide energy, support thyroid function, help with detoxification (so those toxins won’t need body fat to lodge in) and contribute to satiety.

Then we have the sugar, or combination of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. The added sweeteners in one serving of flavored milk add up to 25 to 30 grams—30 grams is two tablespoons. If this added sugar contributes only 4 percent of sugar intake in children ages two to 18, then these kids are eating a heck of a lot of sugar. . .maybe because flavored milk leaves them so unsatisfied.

A third ingredient in flavored milk that can cause weight gain is free glutamic acid (basically MSG), formed during the milk powdering process, and also lurking in the artificial and “natural” flavors. Researchers use MSG to induce obesity in test animals. And a study at the University of North Carolina found that “people who eat more MSG are more likely to be overweight or obese,” no matter how many calories they consume overall.²

The fact that spokespersons can promote these food-like products is an indictment of the whole dairy industry. They are absolutely not appropriate for anyone, especially growing children. What kind of society believes that it is a good idea to feed such garbage to children, and what will become of that society in future generations?

This article is taken from a blog post at nourishingtraditions.com.

1. https://www.drink-milk.com/common-questions/flavored-milk/.
2. https://www.reuters.com/ar ticle/us-msg-linked-weight-gain/msg-linked-to-weight-gain-idUSTRE74Q5SJ20110527.

The post Flavored Milks: How Low Can You Go? appeared first on Real Milk.

“Pasteurization of milk ensures safety for human consumption by reducing the number of viable pathogenic bacteria.” So begins an article published in the Journal of Food Protection, published in 2011.

According to the study authors, one argument against pasteurization is its association “with destruction of selected vitamins present in raw milk.” This statement is not completely accurate, and we will return to it in a moment. Nonetheless, the direct effect of pasteurization on vitamin levels is important to know.  The researchers looked at studies measuring vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, B12, C, E and folate, eliminating many for various reasons, some or all of which seem frivolous—such as not published in English, not reporting sample size, not including a standard deviation, not reporting mean values. Nevertheless, even after leaving out over half the studies looking at vitamins levels published between 1936 and 2003, the researchers came up with interesting results.

Starting with the fat-soluble vitamins, studies on vitamin A were inconsistent, with two studies reporting a reduction and—strangely—two reporting an increase in vitamin A after pasteurization. (The suspicion is that vitamin A was added to the pasteurized milk.) The available data did not allow the researchers to make important conclusions about vitamin E, although “pasteurization appeared to qualitatively reduce concentrations” of vitamin E. They did not examine vitamin D “because secreted bovine milk is deficient in vitamin D based on human nutrition needs.” Vitamin K2 was not on the radar screen until very recently, so the researchers did not look at this fat-soluble vitamin either.

Looking at the water-soluble vitamins, researchers found a significant decrease for vitamins B12, B2 and folate, with a slight decrease in vitamins B1 and B6.  As for vitamin C, “In the majority of trials, a numeric decrease in vitamin C was found after heat treatment.”

These results are pretty shocking.  Every water-soluble vitamin decreased, some significantly. But not to worry, say the researchers, since “milk is not an important source of vitamin C and folate,” nor of vitamin B12! Only the reduction of B2 has them a little worried: “With the exception of vitamin B2, pasteurization does not appear to be a concern in diminishing the nutritive value of milk because milk is often not a primary source of these studied vitamins in the North American diet.” Put another way, “The effect [of pasteurization] on milk’s nutritive value was minimal because many of these vitamins are naturally found in relatively low levels.”

Note the word “often.” Milk “is often not a primary source of these studied vitamins. . . “ For someone not drinking milk, or drinking little milk, this statement is true.  But what about babies and toddlers? Milk is often a primary source of these nutrients for this group. And what about a mom worried about her children’s junk food habits or pickiness, who wants to ensure that her children at least get the basics of what they need. Raw milk can be a primary source of these nutrients for these children. And what about vegetarians depending on milk for vitamin B12? The destruction of B12 by pasteurization could be disastrous for these folks.

But let’s go back to the premise that people are opposed to pasteurization because it destroys vitamins in the milk.  Indeed, it does, but this is only half the story.  What pasteurization completely destroys is the enzymes—after all, the test for effective pasteurization is the destruction of the enzyme phosphatase–and many of these enzymes act as carriers for the vitamins and minerals in the milk.  This explains why levels of some vitamins in milk seem low—since the enzymes in raw milk ensure that they are completely absorbed, the levels do not need to be high.

The researchers did not even examine vitamin D levels on the assumption that there is not enough vitamin D in milk to satisfy human needs.  If this is the case, where do infant humans and animals get their vitamin D?  The fact is that vitamin D is very difficult to measure in foods, and also vitamin D levels vary widely depending on the diet of the human mother—and presumably depending on the diet of the animal mother also.

Pasteurization destroys the enzymes and carrier proteins needed to absorb calcium, folate, B12, B6, vitamins A and D, iron and many other minerals. To absorb these nutrients in pasteurized milk, the body has to produce its own enzymes, something that takes a lot of energy to do, especially in amounts required to ensure 100 percent assimilation.

So despite assurances by apologists for pasteurization, heat treating Nature’s perfect food does have a negative effect on the amount of nutrients and their availability—a profoundly negative effect.

One more thing: most of the studies the researchers had available were for regular pasteurization, not for ultra-high temperature (UHT) pasteurization—and most milk today, even organic milk, is ultra-pasteurized. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the additional heat pretty much kills everything.

What emerges is a story of the most colossal waste—think of the nutrients that our growing children are not getting, but should be getting, because we pasteurize!

The Weston A. Price Foundation is America’s leading champion of raw milk, especially raw whole milk from pastured cows. 

This article was first published on Sally Fallon Morell’s Nourishing Traditions blog! Check it out here: http://nourishingtraditions.com/pasteurization-vitamins-milk/

[include content_id=634]

The post What Pasteurization Does to the Vitamins in Milk appeared first on Real Milk.

A new study out of Sweden found that drinking pasteurized milk is risky indeed. Researchers followed two cohorts, one of over 61,000 women and the other of over 45,000 men. Author Karl Michaelsson and his colleagues analyzed the data to determine the association between milk consumption and time to mortality or fracture, including hip fracture. Higher milk intake was associated with higher mortality in one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, with a higher fracture incidence in women. The study was published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ 2014;349:g6015).

An amazing letter followed this study, published in the same journal (BMJ 2014;349:g6993). The author is Jonathan R. Kerr, professor of epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Escuela de Medicine ye Clencias de la Salud, Universidad del Rosario, Bogota, Colombia. The title: “Milk and mortality: raw versus pasteurised milk.”

He writes: “A serious flaw in Michaelsson and colleagues’ study is that it did not distinguish between raw and pasteurized milk. These two entities are completely different in structure, content, nutritional benefits, and disease associations, and referring to both as “milk” underestimates this difference.

“Whole raw milk, from grass-fed cows, is an enhanced source of nutrients, including beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus acidophilus and high levels of vitamins (A, B, C, D, E, K), enzymes, calcium, conjugated linoleic acid, in a package that optimises absorption of all its contents.

“Pasteurisation reduces contamination with pathogens but also kills the beneficial lactobacilli that produce vitamin K2, improve absorption of nutrients, and normalise gut function.

“Pasteurisation denatures the fragile and nutritious milk proteins and enzymes, and it reduces the vitamin content. In addition, contamination can occur after pasteurisation and lead to outbreaks of serious infection. Pasteurisation also negates the reduction in childhood asthma and atopy associated with the consumption of raw milk.

“The authors also did not measure the fat content of the milk. This is important because deficiencies in fat soluble vitamins A, D, E and K are associated with decreased bone mass and osteoporosis. Most health conscious people try to limit their intake of saturated fat, which is widely accepted to be associated with heart disease, although this is controversial.

“In conclusion, even though legislation mandates the pasteurisation of milk, raw milk from grass-fed dairy cows is still available in Europe and North America and is widely available in less developed countries with an agrarian economy, such as Columbia.”

Of several letters generated by the original article, this one was the most read and generated the most interest! The author is obviously very familiar with all the information posted at realmilk.com.

[include content_id=634]

The post Risks of Pasteurized Milk appeared first on Real Milk.

The study observed 16 participants who drank three different types of milk (pasteurized milk, raw milk, and soy milk) over the course of 8 days per type. Participants were randomly assigned the order of milk in unmarked containers. Each participant consumed one type of milk over the course of 8 days; they were tested for lactose via a hydrogen breath test on days 1 and 8. After a short break, they repeated the cycle with a different type of milk.

One of the study’s biggest flaws is its small sample size: the study only chose 16 participants after screening 440 applicants who claimed to have problems digesting milk.

Another large flaw is the brevity of the experiment. “It takes longer than eight days for beneficial bacteria to recolonize the gut of a severely lactose intolerant person. These good bacteria produce the lactase enzyme, which helps digest lactose,” says Mark McAfee, Chairman of the Board at the Raw Milk Institute.

Additionally, McAfee suggests that the H2 breath test is insufficient to diagnose milk sugar digestion problems in 97% of applicants. “Most people are not overtly lactose intolerant but are better described as pasteurization intolerant, something for which medical science may not [yet] have an appropriate test,” he says.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  http://www.westonaprice.org/lab

The post Raw Milk Advocates Respond to Stanford Study that Claims Raw Milk is No Easier for the Lactose Intolerant to Digest appeared first on Real Milk.

One dairy farmer in New York has been feeding his calves UV-treated milk. He “wrestles a 3-week-old calf onto a scale. The calf totters about; the scale reads 52 kilograms, a healthy weight. [The farmer] makes a note.”

Another dairy farmer in Minnesota installed a UV milk purifier on his farm a year and a half ago. “We were having a lot of problems with clostridia when we were feeding milk replacer,” he said. “That was all but eliminated after we switched over to feeding UV purified milk.”

Michael Schmidt, the author of The Bovine blog who conducted his own two-calf study comparing the effects of feeding calves raw milk vs. store-bought pasteurized milk, writes of the UV milk experiments: “If it works for calves, why wouldn’t it work for people? Though probably the bar of surety is set higher when we’re dealing with food for humans.”

Draw your own conclusions by reading more about the experiment here:

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/uv-light-instead-of-pasteurization/

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  http://www.westonaprice.org/lab

The post Farmers Experiment with Milk Treated with UV Light Instead of Pasteurization appeared first on Real Milk.

In the 2012 report, undeclared allergens were the primary hazard, accounting for 37.9% of the total reports. Of the 85 reports citing undeclared allergens, 35 were for milk and milk-derived ingredients – more than peanuts/tree nuts, eggs and soy combined. The report also names the types of foods that were most likely to contain undeclared allergens: the top three types of foods were Bakery, Chocolate/Confections/Candy, and Dairy. For each of these three types of food, undeclared milk and milk-derived ingredients were the most common reason.

Though it might seem odd for dairy to contain “undeclared milk-derived ingredients,” this report illuminates an alarming trend in the dairy industry: dairy manufacturers are adding more and more processed, artificial ingredients to the milk sold in stores.

Click to read more about the third annual Reportable Food Registry Report.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit. Donate to help us continue the research work started by Dr. Weston A. Price.

The post Milk Is the Most Reported Undeclared Allergen in the Third Annual Reportable Food Registry Report appeared first on Real Milk.

A Pilot Study

Raw milk is a colloid, in which fat globules of various sizes are dispersed within a watery phase of dissolved proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, electrolytes and minerals, along with low levels of probiotic bacteria such as lactobacillus. The purpose of this pilot study is to examine whole milk—raw and processed— to look for any differences in its colloidal structure that can be seen using an optical microscope. In particular, we looked for differences between unpasteurized raw whole milk compared to whole milk that is pasteurized (heated to 170 degrees F for nineteen seconds) or ultrapasteurized (heated to 280 degrees F for two seconds, using superheated metal plates and steam, and then chilled). We also looked at the effects of homogenization of milk. Milk samples were observed under the microscope over a large range of magnification and two types of illumination, bright field and dark field.

PROCEDURES AND METHODS

Five types of commercial fresh whole milk were sampled, as follows:

1. Ultrapasteurized, homogenized whole milk

2. Organic pasteurized (not ultrapasteurized), homogenized whole milk

3. Organic pasteurized (not ultrapasteurized), unhomogenized (“cream top”) whole milk

4. Raw whole organic milk, brand “A”

5. Raw whole organic milk, brand “B”

The milk was purchased and sampled on the same day and kept under the same refrigeration until minutes before sampling. Because milk is a heterogeneous liquid, each milk container was gently inverted in the carton or bottle several times in a similar fashion to mix it just before sampling. Using a pipette, a small volume (50 microliters) of milk was placed on a clean glass microscope slide. A glass cover slip was placed over it to spread out the droplet. This constituted a sample slide. Sample slides were made just before observation and photography under the bright-field microscope and again just before dark-field observation, so that all samples observed were individually and similarly prepared just before microphotography.

The following magnifications were used with bright-field microphotography, in which the sample was illuminated from below with a tungsten lamp: 75x, 175x, and 350x.

The following magnifications were used with dark-field microphotography, in which the sample was edge-illuminated with a xenon lamp using a dark-field condenser: 500x, 800x, 1200x, 2100x, and 4200x. We achieved higher magnifications than the usual limit of light microscopy by means of digital optical enhancement. Altogether eight different magnifications, ranging from 75x to 4200x, were used to examine each milk sample.

Representative photographs were taken at least in triplicate for each power of magnification. Thus, at least twenty-four digital micro-photographs per type of milk were produced and compared, for a total of one hundred twenty photographs.

RESULTS

The one hundred twenty photographs were visually examined and qualitatively compared to examine the colloidal structure of the different types of milk at different magnifications and illumination.

Figure 1 shows raw milk at 175x under bright field, which shows a distinct colloidal structure of aggregates of the fat globules (white) amidst aqueous regions (dark). By comparison, Figure 2, which shows pasteurized unhomogenized milk also at 175x, shows much smaller aggregates of fat globules and a more uniform colloidal structure. Figure 3, which shows pasteurized, homogenized milk, and Figure 4, which is ultrapasteurized, homogenized milk, both at 175x, show no discernible colloidal structure at this magnification, as a virtually uniform gray field is seen. The horizontal scale for Figures 1 to 4 is 1.33 mm (millimeters) for the full width of each microphotograph.

FIGURE 1 Raw milk magnified 175 times

FIGURE 2 Pasteurized, unhomogenized milk, magnified 175 times

FIGURE 3 Pasteurized, homogenized milk magnified 175 times

FIGURE 4 Ultra-pasteurized, homogenized milk, magnified 175 times

Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 show raw milk; pasteurized, unhomogenized milk; pasteurized homogenized milk; and ultrapasteurized, homogenized milk respectively. All photographs are 800x magnification.

Here, too, the raw milk shown in Figure 5 exhibits the most detailed ultrastructure, with greater variation in density of structure and material in regions throughout the photograph. Figure 6 showing pasteurized unhomogenized shows a less detailed structure at the same magnification compared to raw milk in Figure 5. A visual comparison of Figures 5 and 6 (unhomogenized milk) to Figures 7 and 8 (homogenized milk), shows how homogenization breaks down fat globules to a size that is no longer distinguishable at this power of magnification. Here the horizontal scale for these 4 figures is 0.29 mm (millimeters) for the full width of each microphotograph.

FIGURE 5 Raw milk magnified 800 times

FIGURE 6 Pasteurized, unhomogenized milk, magnified 800 times

FIGURE 7 Pasteurized, homogenized milk magnified 800 times

FIGURE 8 Ultra-pasteurized, homogenized milk, magnified 800 times

Figures 9 and 10 compare raw milk and ultrapasteurized, homogenized milk at 4200x. The horizontal scale for these 2 figures is 0.055 mm (millimeters, 55 micrometers) for the full width of each microphotograph.

The heterogeneity in size of the fat globules is seen for the raw milk, ranging in size up to 7 micrometers in diameter, with many in the range of 3 to 5 micrometers. However, the fat globules are smaller, more homogeneous in size, and indistinct in the processed milk, ranging in size only up to 2.3 microns, and with mostly smaller fat globules present.

FIGURE 9 Raw milk magnified 4200 times

FIGURE 10 Ultra-pasteurized, homogenized milk, magnified 4200 times

There is an apparent trend seen in these examples shown and all of the photographs taken, that the most highly processed milk— ultrapasturized and homogenized—shows the least distinct colloidal structure and the most homogeneity using the optical microscope. By contrast, raw milk shows the most distinct colloidal structure under the microscope at all magnifications observed, and this was the case for both commercial brands of raw milk. The raw milk ultrastructure consisted of a variety of sizes of milk fat globules, as seen under the highest powers of magnification, and in addition, patterns of organization of these globules when viewed under lower magnifications that appeared to be fractal in nature, that is, self-similar at various powers of magnification.

CONCLUSION

Raw whole milk is a natural colloid which has a structure that can be seen across a range of magnifications under a light microscope. In this regard, it is like a living system that shows an organized structure seen under the microscope at the same levels of magnification that living cells show organized structure, too. Thus, raw milk appears to have an organized yet complex and heterogeneous structure, as do living organisms, that is, the property of organized heterogeneity in various domains of order.

Pasteurization as well as homogenization alters the colloidal structure of milk, rendering it a less complex and more homogeneous liquid. Such milk has lost its structural complexity.

We could not distinguish any differences between pasteurized milk and ultrapasteurized milk from the microphotographs. Moreover, the milk that was pasteurized at the lower temperature but unhomogenized looked similar to raw milk at high magnifications as the heterogeneous size of the fat globules, ranging from about 2 to 7 micrometers, were similar.

It must be said that the optical microscope has limitations and cannot distinguish particles smaller than about 0.2 micrometers. Thus, any structure about this size or smaller cannot be resolved by light microscopy.

During sample preparation, it was noted that organic whole milk that is pasteurized but unhomogenized could not be completely mixed by hand mixing or shaking. Chunks of fat similar to butter were floating at the surface of the milk or stuck to the milk container, despite gentle inversion of the milk or even vigorous shaking for minutes. Thus, it appears that pasteurization itself has permanent effects on the fat globules of whole milk, making much of the fat congeal and separate from the watery phase of the milk, much like butter.

DISCUSSION

A colloid is a unique state of condensed matter in which small particles are dispersed in a liquid phase such as water. Milk is a complex aqueous colloid: a micro-structured aggregate of water, fat globules, various proteins, carbohydrates, electrolytes, vitamins and minerals. This may be compared to the colloidal state of the living cell itself, composed of similar constituents, which used to be called protoplasm, the primary material inside the living cell, as shown in the amoeba in Figure 11. Moreover, raw milk and blood (see Figure 12) look remarkably similar at high magnification.

FIGURE 11 Amoeba observed under dark-field microscopy, which has a similar colloidal structure to raw milk.

FIGURE 12 Normal healthy blood magnified 4200 times.

Scientific research shows that this colloidal state is dynamic, ubiquitous and appears to be integral to life’s functions. In fact, some natural colloids, such as proteins and fat particles in water, even display life-like responses to certain stimuli. That is, aqueous colloids—sols and gels—show some typical properties of living organisms, such as sensitivity to geo-cosmic rhythms (Piccardi, 1962), including circadian rhythms of day and night and solar rhythms such as the sunspot cycle of eleven years. Colloids can also absorb energy, such as light, and self-organize into larger, more complex forms, similar to living systems (Zhao et al., 2008). Some pioneering scientists working at the frontiers of water research think that many of the mysteries of life are intimately related to properties of aqueous colloids and water interfaces with membranes, a topic that is under considerable research activity at present (Pollack et al., 2006).

In light of the apparent relationship between colloidal structure and living function, let us reflect further on the results of this study. We have observed that pasteurization, ultra-pasteurization, and homogenization impact the colloidal structure of milk, altering its organizational integrity. Heat, as is used in pasteurization, is well known to denature the quaternary structure of proteins, deactivate enzymes, destroy vitamins and kill microbes. Homogenization affects the integrity of the fat globules, rendering them smaller and more uniform, and thus, alters raw milk’s colloidal ultrastructure, too. In summary, we have observed that processed milk loses “organized heterogeneity,” a term synonymous with the living state. Thus, whereas raw milk may be considered “alive,” processed milk is seen to be “lifeless.”

REFERENCES

Piccardi G. (1962) The Chemical Basis of Medical Climatology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publ.

Pollack GH, Cameron IL, Wheatley DN (editors) (2006) Water and the Cell. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Zhao Q, Zheng J, Chai B, Pollack GH. (2008) Unexpected effect of light on colloidal crystal spacing. Langmuir 24:1750-1755.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was funded in part by the Weston A. Price Foundation. The author would also like to acknowledge Harry Jabs, who made helpful comments and edits of earlier drafts of this paper.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2012.

Beverly Rubik, PhD, is president and founder of the Institute for Frontier Science in Oakland, California. She is also a faculty member at several universities and maintains a consulting practice.

For more information about her work, contact her at brubik (at) earthlink (dot) net or call (510) 428-4084.

The post Microphotography of Raw and Processed Milk appeared first on Real Milk.