Hi All, If anyone would like to continue our dairy discussion, there are several points that seemed to be overlooked: [quote:5721de2279]When we are born, we have a high secretion of the enzyme necessary to the proper breakdown of milk sugar (lactose). Here we are again with those pesky enzymes! The reason for the high secretion as an infant is to help break down the milk sugar in mother's milk. Many medical textbooks, in their discussion of all of the enzymes produced in the human body, will mention that the production of lactase (the enzyme responsible for breaking down milk sugar) [b:5721de2279]declines substantially about the age of two[/b:5721de2279]. Why? It's called the breast-feeding window. All mammals are usually finished breastfeeding by this age. It's already pre-programmed in our physiology that we will have a difficult time with milk sugar. [/quote:5721de2279] Also, [b:5721de2279]if[/b:5721de2279] it is true that all nutritional value is lost through pasteurization, what is left to gain? Just a few lingering thoughts.... Charlie, I do believe you are onto something with the idea of maybe consuming foods in their raw form (such as fat) to help with cholesterol. Although, I still have my own thoughts about LDL not being as important as many say, as long as TRI and HDL are in a good range. Don't small particles mean everything?? just wondering, crumbelina

It's really very simple, Crumbelina: Our ability to digest milk beyond the age of 2 is because we continue to drink liquid milk. North America is one of the few cultures that drinks milk after weaning, and the fact is, worldwide, the ability to keep producing lactase into adulthood is enjoyed by a small minority. It's not PC to talk about race, but the truth is that lactose intolerance is the norm among persons of African and Asian descent. But still, when a person stops drinking milk for any length of time, his body stops producing lactase. From then on, he might find it difficult to digest dairy.

[quote:560dd83239]It's really very simple, Crumbelina: Our ability to digest milk beyond the age of 2 is because we continue to drink liquid milk[/quote:560dd83239] Just because we continue to drink it doesn't mean we should or that the ability is there, there must be a reason why we stop producing the enzymes needed to digest it properly. Some causes of lactose intolerance are well known. For instance, certain digestive diseases and injuries to the small intestine can reduce the amount of enzymes produced. In rare cases, children are born without the ability to produce lactase. [b:560dd83239]For most people[/b:560dd83239], though, lactase deficiency is a condition that develops [b:560dd83239]naturally over time[/b:560dd83239]. After about the age of 2 years, the body begins to produce less lactase. However, many people may not experience symptoms until they are much older. Between [b:560dd83239]30 and 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant[/b:560dd83239]. Wouldn't you consider that an awful lot of people? And those are just the one's who know it. I used to think I had eaten something bad once in a while or blamed a certain restaurant, when it may have been caused by lactose intolerance. How many others do this as well? Certain ethnic and racial populations are more widely affected than others. As many as 75 percent of all African Americans and American Indians and 90 percent of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant. Take care, crumbelina

[quote:dda3df7d1e]...There must be a reason why we stop producing the enzymes needed to digest it properly.[/quote:dda3df7d1e] Um...yeah. If I didn't make it clear before, allow me to now: We stop producing the enzyme. For some, this might happen when we stop drinking milk, or might not happen if we keep on drinking milk. For others, it is a genetically programmed time, like hair loss. We are [i:dda3df7d1e]not supposed to [/i:dda3df7d1e]drink milk beyond breastfeeding years. By "we", I mean humans, [i:dda3df7d1e]homo sapiens sapiens.[/i:dda3df7d1e] More broadly, I mean all earthlings: Humans are the only species who drink milk as adults. (Some other adult mammals [i:dda3df7d1e]will[/i:dda3df7d1e] drink it when a saucer is placed in front of them, but 'should' not, and often suffer for it.) By "not supposed to", I mean that, according to some devotees of a stricter, paleolithic diet, and also to those whacky vegans, milk is not a normal food for adult humans. This is true, as it is for grain-based foods. But, absence any moral issues (don't get me started on PETA), there's no reason not to drink milk (or grains) if you can. It sounds like you can't. Or maybe shouldn't. You're in the majority. Most of the people on the planet do not, and can not, drink milk. This is due to historic, cultural conditions involving climate, agriculture, livestock, religion, and ultimately evolution. But is this an indicator that we "should" refrain from drinking dairy? I say no. No more than than we "should" all convert to Islam because most of the planet is Muslim, or that we "should" all learn to speak Spanish because it's the most prevalent language. But to put it simply: If dairy bothers your system, you can do one of two things: Research the issue, then spend time and energy until you figure out which milk, which fat content, pastuerized or fresh, and in what combination with which foods, after which brand of lactase pill, and which times of the day you can drink milk and suffer the least. Or, give up dairy. You'd be in the majority.

[quote:269da39abf]Um...yeah. If I didn't make it clear before, allow me to now: We stop producing the enzyme. For some, this might happen when we stop drinking milk, or might not happen if we keep on drinking milk. For others, it is a genetically programmed time, like hair loss. [/quote:269da39abf] We all agree that we stop producing the enzyme. The reasons that you list seem hard to follow. You say that the cause could be from discontinuing milk or may not happen if we don't discontinue? Others are genetically programmed? What about the fact that it is indisputable that by around age 2 we [b:269da39abf]all[/b:269da39abf] begin this decline, some more gradually than others, but nonetheless at this age it begins. We do not stop drinking milk after age 2, so that can be ruled out as a cause of it's early decline, and most continue to drink it throughout there life, ruling this out also. People lose there hair at all ages, lactase decline begins around age 2 for everyone. [quote:269da39abf]It sounds like you can't. Or maybe shouldn't. You're in the majority[/quote:269da39abf] Remember, the problems on the other site began when Graeme made the comment that [b:269da39abf]most [/b:269da39abf]would benefit from eating dairy. And I disagreed. [i:269da39abf]Not to get into that though [/i:269da39abf], I can see that you do not agree with this comment either. I drank milk and ate dairy most of my life. Once and a while I experienced problems but I did not make the connection with dairy consumption for awhile. Looking back now, I can see that it usually happened when I had consumed a large amount of dairy (sometimes somewhat hidden, like a box of macaroni and cheese!) Now that I know this, I keep my dairy limit very low. . Many think I am trying to scare people from consuming dairy, but actually I am just trying to point out that problems can stem from dairy without many knowing this is the cause of their trouble. When they "homogenize' the milk, fat particles remain in suspension-making them indigestible to the intestine and causes them to pass into the intestinal wall into the bloodstream (where allergies can arise). Sure, you could take a dairy enzyme which will help to control some of the physical symptoms (diarrhea, bloating, etc..) but some will still enter the bloodstream. Raw products on the other hand digest much quicker (which doesn't mean coke is good for you also) It's just that they contain much less lactose and are easier on the system. Fermented products are very easily digestable even for the most sensitive. I find it hard knowing all this and still suggesting that [b:269da39abf]pasteurized[/b:269da39abf] dairy is a great food and most would be better off with it. And even worse, nobody has bothered to tell me all the [b:269da39abf]wonderful benefits [/b:269da39abf]of pasteurized dairy?? It seems to me that our systems would all be better off without it, but if some find it enjoyable fine, just don't promote it as a great food. GOT MILK? And to answer your previous post: [quote:269da39abf]As to your preoccupation with dairy products and micro-organisms, I suggest you take to heart Graeme's answer: "...The easiest way is the best way." Let's keep it simple.[/quote:269da39abf] Dr. Sears colleagues thought he had a [b:269da39abf]preoccupation[/b:269da39abf] with carbs, and insulin-control, he lost many of his friends and colleagues because of his work, but he chose not to take the easy way and stay his course. Adam, sometimes "the way of progress is neither swift nor easy", and sometimes "taking the easy road will bring you through the sewers". crumbelina over and out! :P

Hi Crumbs, I've been following your discussion....of course I am pro-dairy, but I do agree with alot of your arguments. However, please clarify these statements: [quote:523e4482c7]When they "homogenize' the milk, fat particles remain in suspension-making them indigestible to the intestine and causes them to pass into the intestinal wall into the bloodstream (where allergies can arise). Sure, you could take a dairy enzyme which will help to control some of the physical symptoms (diarrhea, bloating, etc..) but some will still enter the bloodstream. [/quote:523e4482c7] From what I understand, homogenizing milk is solely a mechanical process to put the fat particles into suspension so that they don't clump into cream in your grocery store. I am confused as to how this would make then more or less digestible? [quote:523e4482c7]Raw products on the other hand digest much quicker (which doesn't mean coke is good for you also) It's just that they contain much less lactose and are easier on the system. [/quote:523e4482c7] How would it be that raw milk products contain less lactose than pasteurized? I wasn't aware that the pasteurization process destroyed/reduced lactose content. It's too bad that, as someone on A-M's site stated (and I take the liberty to paraphrase), "civilized society is a sterile one", because really, raw milk products are the best way to go, IMO. Again, all the beneficial components that are heat sensitive, most of which still haven't been identified, are lost in modern processing. But balanced against the possibility of zoonotic diseases, it's a fair compromise. For those of us who can tolerate it, milk is still an easy (and, in my book, the best assimilated) source of calcium, as well as protein. Adam, I was going to quote some of your most recent post, but it's all good! Nicely put!

Hi Lisa, [quote:bd9602b0ed]Hi Crumbs, I've been following your discussion....of course I am pro-dairy, but I do agree with alot of your arguments. However, please clarify these statements: [/quote:bd9602b0ed] When you say pro-dairy does this mean pasteurized as well? [quote:bd9602b0ed]From what I understand, homogenizing milk is solely a mechanical process to put the fat particles into suspension so that they don't clump into cream in your grocery store How would it be that raw milk products contain less lactose than pasteurized? I wasn't aware that the pasteurization process destroyed/reduced lactose content. I am confused as to how this would make then more or less digestible? [/quote:bd9602b0ed] I will post more on this later. [quote:bd9602b0ed]Again, all the beneficial components that are heat sensitive, most of which still haven't been identified, are lost in modern processing. For those of us who can tolerate it, milk is still an easy (and, in my book, the best assimilated) source of calcium, as well as protein. [/quote:bd9602b0ed] From what I understand, to pass the "test" for successful pasteurization all organisms, bacterias, and enzymes must be killed. Pasteurization is said to alter amino acids, which reduces ability to even access the protein, vitamins, minerals. Do you find this to be true? [quote:bd9602b0ed]For those of us who can tolerate it, milk is still an easy (and, in my book, the best assimilated) source of calcium, as well as protein. [/quote:bd9602b0ed] Are we talking pasteurized or raw? Why do you consider it the best choice for protein? Better than meat or eggs? Is the calcium even available? Or are we just getting the added synthetic vitamins at this point? I think there are many topics going on here all at once, many think this is just about being able to tolerate milk or not, having an allergy to it or not. I am more concerned with the long-term effects of consuming pasteurized dairy. What about the growth hormones, antibiotics we are consuming? How do you feel about that? I know many would say, we consume these in meats and other foods, but if we are truly gaining nothing or next to nothing from pasteurized dairy are the hormones and antibiotics worth it. As for the millions of lactose intolerate people, sure they could take a lactose supplement, but something seems strange to me about having to take a supplement just to be able to properly digest a food that may be causing more harm than good. [u:bd9602b0ed]Looking forward to your thoughts, Cowlover![/u:bd9602b0ed] crumbelina

[b:d8ce040bf9]Some interesting comparisons of pasteurized milk and goat's milk:[/b:d8ce040bf9] - goat's milk is less allergenic. (It does not contain the complex proteins that stimulate allergic reactions to cow's milk) -Goats milk does not supress the immune system like cow's milk. -Goat's milk is easier to digest than cow's milk. (An old statistic showed that goat's milk will digest in a baby's stomach in twenty minutes, whereas pasteurized cow's milk takes eight hours. The difference is in the structure of the milk) Reason for many babies having colic. -Goat's milk has more buffering capacity than over-the counter antacids (The USDA and Prairie View A&M University have confirmed that goat's milk has more acid-buffering capacity tha cow's milk, soy formula, and antacid drugs) -Goat's milk alkalinizes the digestive system. It actually contains an alkaline ash and does not produc acid in the intestinal system, as cow's milk does. Goat's milk helps to increase the pH of the blood stream because it is the dairy product highest in the amino acid L-glutamine. L-glutamibne is an alkalinizing amino acid, recommended by nutritionists. -Goat's milk contains twice the healthful medium-chain fatty acids, such as capric and caprylic acids, which are highly antimocrbial (Thay actually killed the bacteria used to test for the prresence of antibiotics in cow's milk!) -Goat's milk does not produce mucus, it does stimulate a defense response from the human immune system. -Goat's milk is a rich source of the trace mineral, selenium, a necessary nutrient for it's [u:d8ce040bf9]immune modulation and antioxidxidant properties[/u:d8ce040bf9] Maybe the "Got Milk?" campaign has "Got us fooled?", there was a time when milk was very beneficial and it still can be. Just not in it's pasteurized state. This is not a ban dairy campaign, just a be informed of what you are consuming campaign. __________________________________________________________________ crumbelina :P

Hi Crumbs! Veeeeeeeeeery interesting! [quote:2795838890]When you say pro-dairy does this mean pasteurized as well? [/quote:2795838890] Pro-dairy means I support the concept of drinking milk produced by cows, and the farmers who make their livings at doing this. I do prefer raw to pasteurized, but I don't believe that pasteurized is an inferior product. [quote:2795838890]From what I understand, to pass the "test" for successful pasteurization all organisms, bacterias, and enzymes must be killed. [/quote:2795838890] I'm not sure what the official standard is, but yes, all heat sensitive organisms would be killed. [quote:2795838890]Pasteurization is said to alter amino acids, which reduces ability to even access the protein, vitamins, minerals. Do you find this to be true? [/quote:2795838890] Well, Crumbs, I don't know. Certainly proteins are heat sensitive, but to what extent? Ultra high temperature pasteurization is accomplished by flash exposing milk to extreme heat for just a few seconds......enough to kill the bugs, but not enough to change the structure. I find it difficult to believe that pasteurization reduces access to proteins, etc...........when I use pasteurized dairy products as part of a balanced zone meal, I feel "in the zone", leading me to believe the protein was accessed. [quote:2795838890]Are we talking pasteurized or raw? Why do you consider it the best choice for protein? Better than meat or eggs? Is the calcium even available? Or are we just getting the added synthetic vitamins at this point? [/quote:2795838890] Both, really. I said an easy choice for protein.......IMO the [i:2795838890]best [/i:2795838890] source is the egg. "They" say about protein digestibility that egg proteins are the most digestible, followed by milk, then meat. I like milk for a protein source because a cup is one zone block, it's quick to consume, versatile, and no cooking involved. As far as the calcium being available, I think absolutely, even more so than supplements or plant sources. I have read all kinds of things about absorption, but common sense tells me that animal sources of anything will be better used in my system than plant or synthetic. I have also read somewhere about the saturated fats present in the milk enhancing the absorption of calcium. Now, all this is from stuff stored in my own little brain.........I have neither the time nor the inclination to go looking for references or resources, so I may prove to be a disappointment to you in a debate, :wink: [quote:2795838890]I think there are many topics going on here all at once [/quote:2795838890] Yup, I agree. [quote:2795838890]What about the growth hormones, antibiotics we are consuming? How do you feel about that? [/quote:2795838890] And yet another good topic. Some US dairies use BsT (growth hormone) to stimulate milk production. It's not legal for use in the European Union. Who's right? Again, you can find support for any opinion.......you just gotta form your own. Me, personally...........while in Florida, I worked on a huge commercial, yet privately owned dairy, that corroborated regularly with the University of Florida on all sorts of research projects. Several of them involved the use of BsT, and speaking with the researchers, vets, etc., I felt quite comfortable with their reasons as to why BsT is safe. As far as antibiotics in milk......this one always gets me laughing. Laws are SO strict, both in the States and Europe, regarding the presence of antibiotics in milk. It is really impossible for you to buy milk laced with antibiotics. Really. I can go into the details if you want. For now, suffice to say, that if you're worried about antibiotics, you would be better off to question what your doctor prescribes for you than to worry about their presence in your milk or meat. [quote:2795838890]As for the millions of lactose intolerate people, sure they could take a lactose supplement, but something seems strange to me about having to take a supplement just to be able to properly digest a food that may be causing more harm than good. [/quote:2795838890] I agree, insofar as these people might be better off just not consuming dairy at all. If I were allergic to peanuts, I wouldn't eat them at all, even if science came out with a pill to help me tolerate them. Now, Crumbs, I gotta tell you, I know nothing about goat's milk, and it doesn't interest me in the slightest. Well, feta cheese is pretty good! However, a few comments: [quote:2795838890]Goats milk does not supress the immune system like cow's milk. [/quote:2795838890] Wasn't aware cow's milk suppressed the immune system? [quote:2795838890]Goat's milk is easier to digest than cow's milk. (An old statistic showed that goat's milk will digest in a baby's stomach in twenty minutes, whereas pasteurized cow's milk takes eight hours. The difference is in the structure of the milk) Reason for many babies having colic. [/quote:2795838890] My personal experience is pasteurized milk digests much faster than 8 hours.......otherwise a milk meal would hold you in the Zone longer than 2 or 3, right? Also, there are many varied reasons for colicky babies....even breastfed babies get it. Incidentally, cow's milk forms a larger curd in the stomach, making it hard for babies to digest...........IMO babies have no business drinking cow's milk........breast is best. [quote:2795838890]This is not a ban dairy campaign, just a be informed of what you are consuming campaign. [/quote:2795838890] As always, a good idea!

Hi Lisa, Thanks for the reply! Some good info, still a few questions remain. [quote:f0f4cb18ca]Laws are SO strict, both in the States and Europe, regarding the presence of antibiotics in milk. It is really impossible for you to buy milk laced with antibiotics. Really. I can go into the details if you want. For now, suffice to say, that if you're worried about antibiotics, you would be better off to question what your doctor prescribes for you than to worry about their presence in your milk or meat. [/quote:f0f4cb18ca] When you have the time, I would like to know more about this. So many folks go out of their way to buy antibiotic-free meats (and spend lots to do so). Are you saying this is not really necessary? I wonder that even if they are following the strictest of laws, are the legal limits set too high? Or are there ways around them? An example of this was when the government decided that all trans fat was to be disclosed on grocery items by 2005 (I think). Frito-Lay (chip company) offered to immediately comply, being one of the first to include this on their packages. (Which was strange because many of the ingredients were "partially hydrogenated" this and that). A few months later all there packaging and products changed to "No Trans Fat", but ingredients remained exactly the same? All they did was reduce serving size (to like 5 chips) and this made the trans fat [b:f0f4cb18ca]per serving [/b:f0f4cb18ca]fall under the legal limit of having to be counted and they were able to announce that their products were now [b:f0f4cb18ca]trans fat-free [/b:f0f4cb18ca]! So when you say laws are SO strict, I take this very lightly, because I can see that it is all a game at the consumers expense. crumbelina

Looks like I found my answer after all, [b:867f222b52]BACTERIA, ANTIBIOTICS & DIOXINS BACTERIA [/b:867f222b52] February of 1999 has been filled with news stories confirming the worst fears of the dairy industry. Reports of bacterial infections in milk given to kids in the Dominican Republic caused 1,000 schoolchildren to become ill. Fifty of those children were hospitalized. Contaminated milk contained samples of 22 different bacteria. At the same time in America, a nationwide milk recall was ordered for 270,000 cases of milk products due to possible Listeria contamination. Kohler Mix Specialties of Minnesota first recalled milk and dairy products from supermarket shelves in eight Midwest states, then expanded the recall to include all 50 states. Tests on unsealed cartons of skim milk revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes. Symptoms of Listeria infection can occur up to 45 days after ingesting a tainted product. Beware the Ides of March. The Listeria bacteria can cause fatal infections in young children and the elderly. Healthy people may suffer flu-like symptoms. Pasteurization does not work. Every American knows this. Odoriferous milk from your refrigerator is dumped on day ten, but eaten with cereal on day nine. Do you wonder what you are drinking? Twenty-two different bacterium were naturally cultured from pasteurized milk in the Dominican Republic. [b:867f222b52]ANTIBIOTICS [/b:867f222b52] The USDA and FDA have recently revealed that Americans might be ingesting too many antibiotics in meat. The official announcements did not mention milk, yet cows and steers are treated with the same antibiotics and the average American eats significantly more milk and dairy products than meat. [b:867f222b52]ANTIBIOTICS IN MILK [/b:867f222b52] After genetically engineering the bovine growth hormone, Monsanto learned that cows were getting mastitis, painful ulcers on their udders which resulted in an increase in pus, blood and bacteria in milk. Monsanto arranged to have their top scientist, Margaret Miller, hired by FDA where she reviewed her own research. Aware that dairymen would have to treat cows with more antibiotics, Miller simply raised the allowable levels of antimicrobials farmers could put in milk. [b:867f222b52]FDA CHANGED THE STANDARD[/b:867f222b52]! Miller arbitrarily increased the allowable level by one hundred times -- from one part per hundred million to one part per million! On March 16, 1994, a letter signed "concerned CVM employees" was circulated to members of Congress, GAO, Dr. David Kessler (Commissioner of FDA), the Inspector General of the United States Richard P. Kusserow, and Michael Hansen of Consumer's Union. The letter in part reads: "Dr. Miller (wrote) a policy on use of antimicrobials in milk. She picked an arbitrary and scientifically unsupported number of 1 part-per-million as being the allowable amount of antimicrobial in milk permitted without any consumer safety testing. This is for any antimicrobial. A cow could be treated with several antibiotics and each one would be permitted to be in milk at a level of 1ppm without additional consumer safety testing. Effects of the different antibiotics could be additive and this is not taken into account." Michael Hansen of Consumers Reports testified and brought attention to Congressional committees that 52 drugs are known to be used as antibiotics to treat mastitis. According to Consumer's Union, FDA had approved only 30 of those antibiotics. Milk is routinely tested for the presence of six different antibiotics. Farmers are aware of the antibiotics being tested. Do you imagine they might be tempted to use any of the other 46 not currently being tested? [b:867f222b52]HERE WE GO AGAIN! [/b:867f222b52] When something doesn't work for the dairy industry the FDA often helps private industry by changing the standard. This does not make the product any safer but it does allow the FDA to officially state that the drug residue is "well within safe levels." This is usually done at the expense of the consumer. Margaret Miller's name recently "popped up into the news" again. It seems that FDA recently approved a powerful liquid antibiotic for lactating dairy cows. It is called: [b:867f222b52]LIQUAMYOCIN 200[/b:867f222b52] Before approval, FDA allowed residues of 30 parts per billion of this antibiotic to show up in milk samples. Unfortunately, milk samples tested out at 300 parts per billion. What did FDA do? They changed the standard! The new standard is now 300 parts per billion! There is evidence of both comedy and tragedy...The Dannon Yogurt Company cannot use this milk because the antibiotic kills the acidophilus which they add to their cultured product. Not so cultured, huh? FDA approved this product, and whose name do you think they have as contact for more information? None other than Margaret Miller, Ph.D. Her phone number is 301-827-5282. Let Dr. Miller know how happy you are about arbitrary changes in antibiotic protocols. Give her number to your congressman and demand an investigation. DIOXINS - WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SHOCKER The World Health Organization (WHO) recently conducted an assessment of the health risks of dioxins in Geneva, Switzerland. Peter Montague, who writes RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENTAL NEWSLETTER, obtained copies of the unofficial report. Hundreds of past issues of this brilliantly written newsletter can be found at: http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/ The most recent issue of Rachel's (issue #636) referenced DIOXINS and revealed: "Eighty to ninety percent of our daily dioxin intake comes from eating milk, meat and fish. Breast-fed infants take in 70 picograms of dioxin per kilogram of body weight per day - seven to seventy times as much as the average adult. Despite this, breast-fed infants are healthier than infants fed bottled formula." ___________________________________________________________________ Great site, check it out, click on any symptom you are interested in-very interesting! Most information supported by reputable studies and sources. http://www.notmilk.com/ crumbelina

Hiya Crumbs! [quote:d2948333c9]So many folks go out of their way to buy antibiotic-free meats (and spend lots to do so). Are you saying this is not really necessary? I wonder that even if they are following the strictest of laws, are the legal limits set too high? Or are there ways around them? [/quote:d2948333c9] IMO, I think "antibiotic-free meats", "free range meats", "organic" anything, and the like, are all just marketing ploys. By this I mean, it's consumers beware, as always. There are ways around ANYTHING. The ONLY way to be sure of quality is to grow it yourself, and even then, what of your local conditions? So no, I wouldn't go out of my way or spend big bucks for any of these products. But for those who do, so be it. [quote:d2948333c9]So when you say laws are SO strict, I take this very lightly, because I can see that it is all a game at the consumers expense. [/quote:d2948333c9] You're right, it is a game. And I said originally "Laws are SO strict, both in the States and Europe, regarding the presence of antibiotics in milk. " I should clarify this. When you have a sick milk cow, one that your vet prescribes antibiotics (AB's) for, then here's what you gotta do. She needs to be pulled from the main herd, and visually identified as an AB cow. You need to keep careful records of what she gets, when , and how much. ALL her milk must be dumped during treatment. The usual treatment time is 2 to 4 days for mastitis, possibly longer for other types of disease. Once she is recovered, you then have to observe a drug withdrawal period, usually 3 days, maybe longer, and her milk must STILL be dumped. Also, these drugs are quite expensive, not to mention the care and feeding of this cow that you cannot profit from. The withdrawal period must be adhered to strictly, and great care must be taken to ensure her milk doesn't accidentally get into your main supply, because even trace amounts of AB will show up on your tank sample, jeopardizing your whole delivery. Milk processors pick up your bulk tank milk daily, and each trucker has to take a milk sample from each farm's contribution. Usually, several farms' worth of milk may be in one tanker truck. At the processing plant, each milk sample is tested for the presence of AB's.....if any are found, that entire load is dumped, and the farm responsible for the contamination not only loses his load of milk (at considerable expense to him), but must also compensate the other farmers' who's milk was commingled, and then face heavy fines from the milk processor himself. Now, as to the AB levels allowed........I couldn't say if they are artificially high or not. I can say, that when I was at the FL dairy, we did have an episode where a cow did contaminate a load, and it was traced back to a single dose misrecorded. This was a $25,000 mistake for our farm, and that was just the cost of our bulk tank loss, alone (it was a big farm, 3000 cows). Believe me, farmers hate to lose money. I read your second post with great interest. [quote:d2948333c9]Pasteurization does not work. Every American knows this.[/quote:d2948333c9] It DOES work..........heat kills listeria. It's when humans screw up, that maybe something doesn't "work". [quote:d2948333c9]February of 1999 .........................Reports of bacterial infections in milk given to kids in the Dominican Republic caused 1,000 schoolchildren to become ill. [/quote:d2948333c9] This is unfortunate, but it reminds me of the strawberries from Mexico a few years back killing people with some sort of bacterial infection. No system is foolproof, and I would be even more leery of third world sanitation. [quote:d2948333c9]The USDA and FDA have recently revealed that Americans might be ingesting too many antibiotics in meat. [/quote:d2948333c9] MIGHT be? Are we, or not? [quote:d2948333c9]The official announcements did not mention milk, yet cows and steers are treated with the same antibiotics and the average American eats significantly more milk and dairy products than meat. [/quote:d2948333c9] Actually, this is not entirely true. Check out any cattle drug catalog, and you will see that drugs are marked specifically for lactating versus non-lactating animals. The dosages and withdrawal periods for meat and milk are not the same....meat has a much longer time, since AB's aren't flushed out of the system as they are in milk. Also, dairy farms are required to keep drugs safe for lactating cows physically separate from those for non-lactating. [quote:d2948333c9]After genetically engineering the bovine growth hormone, Monsanto learned that cows were getting mastitis, painful ulcers on their udders which resulted in an increase in pus, blood and bacteria in milk.[/quote:d2948333c9] Again, twisting the truth. Mastitis is an internal udder infection, udder ulcers something else entirely. However, research did show an increase in mastitic infections due to increased milk production, and therefore more sick cows=more AB's=more potential for milk contamination. Strict attention to herd health and milking machine maintenance were shown to reduce this increase. [quote:d2948333c9]Monsanto arranged to have their top scientist, Margaret Miller, hired by FDA where she reviewed her own research. Aware that dairymen would have to treat cows with more antibiotics, Miller simply raised the allowable levels of antimicrobials farmers could put in milk. [/quote:d2948333c9] I haven't heard this, but it wouldn't surprise me. Monsanto is a huge company, with their fingers in every agricultural pie. Heard of GM corn? The rest of the article gets into the political side of FDA, etc. I couldn't comment on the truthfulness of it, but again, none of it would surprise me. Government is easily corrupted, on all levels. I'm just looking at it from a farmer/consumer point of view. The dishonesty the article alludes to could easily be said for any industry. How do you fix this?

Hi everyone. I am lactose intolerant. I am about to embark on the Zone diet. I have noticed a lot of it includes dairy products. Would anyone know if soy products would be ok to replace the dairy with?
Please advise.

Hi!

No need to eat dairy to be in the Zone. I eat very little, a block or so twice a month at most, and I've been very successful in the Zone.

is this fda approved