Re: Whole Milk Conclusion

On Feb 5, 4:49 am, spam...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 19:46:17 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 3, 4:37 pm, disabled...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I've been reading as many old posts as I could find on this topic,
along with numerous web pages
relating to whole milk. At least one post said that the calcium in
homogenized, or pasturized milk can't be absorbed by people?

Here in Canada, I understand that we can't buy whole milk because of
fears over contamination by such things as e.coli and having recently
been investigating the use of ultraviolet light for water contaminated
by e.coli, I've been wondering what negative or positive effects
ultraviolet light would have on whole milk as compared to
homoginization, or pasturization?

Hang on there. There is fresh whole milk straight from the cow,
usually called raw milk. Extremely healthy stuff.

Why? According to your silly dictum that grians are only for birds,
milk should only be for calves. What about the

Apples and oranges. Or grains and milk. Two totally different things
entirely.

millions of humans who
have lactiose intolerance. Far more than have gluten intolerance. And
then there are the allergies to milk proteins.

Lactose intolerance affects some people. Not all, therefore cannot be
used as a reason to suggest that milk by itself is not nutritionallu
useful.

And allergies to milk proteins is a recent occurrance related to
denaturization of the milk proteins caused by pasteurization and the
processing of said milk. Raw milk rarely ever causes allergies.


Then you have homogenized milk where the fat globules, which are
naturally of varying sizes, are forced thru tiny holes and broken up
into smaller similar shaped globules. This stops the milk from
separating into cream and milk.

Then you have regular pasteurization which kills off bacteria thru
high temperature treatment. It diminishes the quality of the milk
significantly and lengthens its shelf life, which is why the milk
industry loves it.

Actually it is low temperature (149F for 30 seconds). It has virtually
no effect o the nutritional value of the milk.

Virtually? Is that your spin on it? It causes more damage to the milk
than you are willing to let on.


Then we have Ultra High Temperature pasteurization, ehich really
destroys all the milks food value, renders it a dead entity that can
sit on the shelf at room temperature for months. Even bugs won't eat
it. The milk industry absolutely loves this and are lobbying to make
it mandatory in the US that all milk be killed of this way.

What on Earth is alive in milk, except bacteria,

Un-denatured proteins, lipids, lactose, vitamins etc. Heat denatures
them all. When raw, the milk is a living liquid, when pasteurized it
becomes greatly denatured, ie dead, and provides mostly denatured
molecules of substances which were once whole and life giving.

and your stomach acid
will kill those. And the silly statement that bugs won't eat UHT milk
is just plain stupid. The reason it keeps is because all the bugs have
been killed. Introduce them again, and the milk will spoil just as
quickly as any other milk.

Bugs also won't eat white sugar or margarine. Wonder why.

Denatured non-food substances will not rot. Real food rots and must be
consumed as fresh as possible, which guarantees maximum real
nutrition.

Foods that don't rot are no longer food. Unless preserved using time-
honoured and proven preservation methods.


Tell us what part of the carbohydrate, protein, fat and vitamin and
mineral content that UHT pasteurisation destroys.

http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/ultra-pasteurizedmilk.html






Like many people, I've aways thought of irradiation of foods as a bad
thing and something involving the passing of the food product through
some radioactive source such as plutonium. It wasn't until I read a
post that mentioned the exposure of whole milk to ultraviolet light is
referred to as irradiation, that I had a change of heart over this
issue to some degree. Knowing that U.V. light is used in treating
sources of water using in bottled water and things like apple juice,
etc, makes the thought of irradiation a little more palletable.

Anyway, I'm wondering if a final conclusion has been drawn over the
issue and what pro's and con's are still in question?

Thanks for your time!
D.BC

If you want healthy milk, avoid all the processing and get real fresh
raw milk.

What is healthy about brucellosis, , ,

"..... the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything".


Thousands upon thousands of small farm families raised
millions of children with real fresh raw milk without even a hint of
the disease seen in industrial milk production before the advent of
boiling or steaming the milk to death.

Bull***. Read your history books. There are plenty of people in
history who suffered from bovine TB, and I knew someone who died of
brucellosis from raw milk. You are such an ignoramous. If it were not
so obvious that you were so ignorant, you would be dangerous.

proof?


Real food = real health.

But you have'nt got a clue what real food is. I'm still waiting for
you to tell us about these dietary carbs that are not effectively
sugars.

"effectively sugar" - that is still as funny now as the first time you
just said "all carbs are the same as sugar".

And every time you mention that, it reminds me that I am wasting my
time arguing with someone who should enrol in the Special Olympics.
Moron.

TC


jack- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast