Why Would the FDA Make an Academic Article About Potential Benefits of Raw Milk Go Away?; Profile on Food Rights Advocacy
Okay class, pay attention.
Today's subject of discussion: academic freedom.
Enough with the groans, everyone. I know it's not the sexiest topic when it comes to food issues, but you may change your attitude when you hear the story I'm about to tell you.
Two weeks ago, I wrote a post about what I thought was a well balanced scientific assessment, by a prominent
international science writer, of several large-scale research studies out of Europe about the potential health benefits of raw milk (with the unsexy title, "The evidence around raw milk"). It was published in SPLASH, the newsletter of the International Milk Genomics Consortium (IMGC), which is housed at the University of California, Davis.
The IMGC has been doing research for years on the benefits of mother's milk, and obtains financial support from the California Dairy Research Foundation (CDRF), a nonprofit arm of the state's conventional milk industry.
The IMGC has begun extending its research in recent years to cow's milk. Potentially dangerous territory, as we all know, since those who regulate milk in the U.S. think everything that needs to be known about milk is known, as in pasteurized milk is wonderful and unpasteurized milk is deadly dangerous.
But the newsletter article from the IMGC didn't reinforce that view. Yes, it summarized statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control about the dangers of raw milk ("The CDC estimates the risk of a glass of raw milk causing a disease outbreak is at least 150 times that of a glass of pasteurized milk," it said at the very outset.)
But after summarizing the CDC data, it explained potentially positive implications of major research studies out of Europe on raw milk. "The data suggest that raw milk can cause both trouble and advantage to a human body...To be sure, heating milk to 72°C for 15 seconds reduces the odds of a bad belly, but does it also destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health? Apparently so."
Then, it poured gasoline on the flame it had ignited, by saying that "there is strong evidence that (raw milk) benefits young children..." And, turning a roaring fire into an inferno, it added that "the world needs studies testing whether large numbers of grown-ups suffering from asthma, hay fever, and similar medical problems see their allergies dampen down after drinking raw milk for a prolonged period."
In retrospect, such statements were akin to standing on street corners in 1491 and shouting out that the world was round. My post went up Oct. 2, presumably a day or two after the October issue of SPLASH went up, with three articles. By last Friday, only two of the articles were still available to all visitors. "The evidence around raw milk" had disappeared.
The one- paragraph intro to the third article, "The evidence around raw milk", was there as well, but when you click to read more, you are taken to a page asking for your log-in info. So I registered, figuring I could access the article that way. When I received a link to get a password, and got onto the site and tried to call up the article in question, it said "Insufficient Privileges." The article had been pulled. And off to the left column of the page, where it showed who had been on the page before I got there, the most recent name was that of John F. Sheehan, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Director of Plant and Dairy Food Safety. (Damn, the evidence the Internet sometimes leaves behind!)
So what exactly happened to the raw milk article? The word I have on pretty good sources (I don't want to identify them because this stuff is so sensitive that jobs and careers could be placed at risk) is that someone from the FDA (Sheehan?) contacted the CDRF and demanded that the SPLASH raw milk article be removed. I'll make an educated guess that the FDA was upset because the SPLASH article asserted that the European research indicates pasteurization may "destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health."
I make that guess because Sheehan testified on just this subject before the Maine legislature in 2011, in connection with a (successful) effort by the FDA to block legislation that would have made it easier for small dairies to sell raw milk directly to customers.
He argued in his testimony that the European research on the role of proteins in conferring health benefits, and their sensitivity to pasteurization couldn't have been correct. “Pasteurization does not destroy milk proteins,” he claimed. “Caseins, the major family of milk proteins, are largely unaffected by pasteurization. Any changes which might occur with whey proteins are barely perceptible.”
Back to our lesson on academic freedom. The FDA obviously has a different view of "truth" than the European researchers. And certainly, the issue hasn't been resolved. It requires further research and analysis. That is what academic freedom is all about--analyzing, researching, debating, discussing.
The view underlying academic freedom is that no one holds a monopoly on truth. It explains why professors get tenure--so they will feel free to express their views on scientific (or other research) despite the political pressures of the day. Censoring scientific papers is a big no-no within the tradition of academic freedom.
I have no way of knowing whether anyone at UC Davis or CDRF protested to the FDA that pulling the raw milk article was a serious infringement on academic freedom. But I can guess at what the FDA reaction would have been--something like if you were to tell an underworld enforcer trying to sell you "protection" that such practices are against the law. A laugh, and then a question: "Who you gonna complain to?"
But perhaps the FDA should be looking over its shoulder, and asking a different question: How long can it keep its finger in the dike and preventing the Truth from asserting itself?
**
It's always strange to read about your activities through the prism of (another) journalist, and especially in the context of age. But suffice it to say there is, what seems to me, a nice profile of my activities on behalf of food rights at Philly.com.
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
david, i have a copy of the article if anyone wants to read it. you all can contact me at dcoxlaw@columbus.rr.com.
Damn....you control the food and water and you can control the world.
Nice write-up about you David.
David,
Thank you so much for writing about raw milk scientific discoveries, the scientific truth and the FDA meddling and oppression of this truth.
What Sheehan did is corrupt ( good catch on that one ), and FOOD INC criminal!!! Nothing short of it. He will lose his job over this...this time he screwed up and got caught. It is RICO Racketeering at the federal level. By denial of the truth of the benefits of raw milk and only permitting the story of pasteurized milk to be advocated by the FDA as the official line, this is nothing short of manipulation of data and ....is even criminal. Especially when 8 kids have officially died after consumption of properly pasteurized milk because of allergies to pasteurized milk!! UC Davis is telling us why those kids died....yet the FDA is blocking this information. The FDA is by default causing more kids to die from allergies to pasteurized milk!!
There is a criminal charge that should accompany his firing at the FDA. Where is the attorney general when you need them?
I have filed a FOIA for the information regarding this email exchange by Sheehan. It is my friends inside of the UC Davis Milk genome project that are being pushed around by Sheehan. They can do little except to continue their work on raw milk and the ill effects of pasteurization on the living whole elements found in raw milk. The Milk Genomics researchers are very well aware of the 160 million years of evolution that it took to make raw mammals milk the perfect food to grow little mammals. They are not about to let some paid-off corporate hit-man at the FDA ruin the lives of consumers...or oppress the truth. In fact they tell me that this FDA stunt....speaks volumes and is a confirmation that the research is valid.
The more that the FDA tries to cover its tracks the more that RICO charges stick. That is called "conspiracy". A judge will have a hay day with all of this.
This is getting fun and truly juicy. This is how true change is fueled. I love my job!!
Mark
I try to be an optimistic person as much as possible, but the FDA is also the organization which allows prescription drugs onto the market - drugs with death as a side effect. These myriad drugs are still on the market. Whenever I hear an ad on TV for some drug and they start listing the side effects (which are in no way all-inclusive) I think to myself: if this ad were about some herb, it would never have even made it to the screen. And no herb I know of has anywhere near the side effects of chemically concocted drugs. So I'm not optimistic that our food safety czars at the FDUh are going to get into any kind of legal trouble for saying almost anything they want to say, whether it's truthful or not. Finding out the "truth" part would have to be up to the consumer, as it is now for any thinking person who wants real food, no drugs and anything else controlled by the mobsters at the fda who we already know give out false, misleading and downright cherry-picked information about almost everything.
I don't doubt that people are starting to wake up to the realities of this blatant deception because I see it occasionally myself (mostly in the older generation though, few young people even care). I just doubt that anyone in a position of power is ever going to be in any trouble at all. This Sheehan creature won't even be registered as a blip on the legal radar. He's shielded.
As I've seen happening locally in the past week with some local raw milk producers, the people in authority positions will continue to bully. They may not bring down the hammer this week or next month but eventually they'll "do their jobs". The idiot from the health department here (who shut down the raw milk producer) doesn't even understand the basics of campy and yet is flinging around statements in various newsrags as if he were the angel of mercy. People who are uninformed as to the truth about real food, SEE him as the angel of mercy. That's how he keeps his job.
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14563149-organic-food-no-bett...
I am so glad my kids are grown. It is amazing what stupid words come out of supposedly educated peoples mouths.
@ Sylvia: At least the parents in that article seem to have some common sense, whereas the "doctor" talked complete and utter gibberish. She would have to be a moron to think that there isn't ever going to be collateral damage from chemically soaked/pesticided foods. Ah well, I hope she's eating them - that would explain her lapse in judgement!
But the parents are still pretty confused about sunlight, aren't they? The gubment did a spectacularly outstanding job of scaring the hell out of people when it comes to sunlight. They're afraid of the sun but not afraid of slathering on poisonous sunblock.
Shazam.
David, what a saga this is going to turn out to be! Honestly, how frustrating that arrogant so called "leaders" of this country should operate in such a manner. And they accuse us "peasant consumers" of being "conspiracy theorists." That article and your post should go "viral." After all, that is what this wonderful Internet is for...transparency of ALL ideas and information. And Mark, I hope your efforts pay off positively also, just be careful. I can't wait to read the next chapter!
Marietta
Marietta,
I agree on taking this viral. Feel free to put links to this post on Facebook and Twitter, and also to obtain the article from Gary Cox (per the first comment here) and send it around to your friends and others you know are interested. I can't advise you to post it, since it is copyrighted, and thus can't be displayed without permission of the owner, the California Dairy Research Foundation. I am seeking that permission, and will advise on what transpires.
David, your investigative reporting on this scummy move by FDA is TERRIFIC!. You are upholding the best traditions of your profession. Move over, Woodruff and company.
This may have been mentioned already, but it's relevant here again: the October 22, 2012 issue of the New Yorker has a lead article, "Germs Are Us - Bacteria Reconsidered" at page 32 by Michael Specter, which recaps the steadily growing science we speak of here, e.g. the micro biome project, gut diversity, and the growing interest in medicine of the possibilities of healing our bodies with friendly bacteria (fecal transplants, etc. etc.). Life is infinitely diverse, and nature abhors a monoculture. In this context, FDA is a monoculture.
Thank you, Steve. I like your assessment of the FDA's role in the life scheme.
Oh! The utter ignorance is astounding. And they just keep saying the same old, same old. Doesn't this just make you feel sorry for the poor underfunded fda?
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/106-years-jungle-squalid-fac...
Watch the video (and try to keep from laughing) and then read the article below it.
I meant Watergate's Bob Woodward, but Bob Woodruff is admirable too. All good company, David. And this whole thing should go viral.
I'm a mother of 4 children whom I breast fed. Every single OB nurse instructed me to not microwave or over heat my expressed milk as it would destroy proteins. If it is known that heating breast milk past "barely warm" is a No No, then why is it ok for any other milk?
The FDA is a monoculture. Love that concept.
But...it is does not use enough cuss words. We need cuss words. The FDA sucks....they really suck. John Sheehan leads the sucking Monoculture.
Life on earth is a biodiverse poly culture and the FDA hates life on earth.
Please let me purge my gut on this. It is therapy.
I intend on ending John Sheehan as the Tsar of anything at the FDA. We have some deep connections with Michele Obama. I intend on using these relationships and a whole lot more to evict John Sheehan from the FDA. He should count his last paychecks. He is done.
Academic freedom is a huge issue that deserves more attention. And one of the ironies of it is that some of the most vile right-wing politicians who claim to support raw milk are also some of the biggest opponents of academic freedom. For example, in Wisconsin, Steve Nass, who is a far-right-wing raw milk advocate, but also an opponent of acaedmic freedom.
http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=32107
Politics sure does make strange bedfellows, doesn't it?
David, sorry, but I can't resist correcting you on something.
That the earth was round was already an established fact in Europe in 1491, and had been for many centuries. What was not known was that there was an entire continent (two, actually) between Europe and Asia.
Also, the FDA is full of shit. Even people in the conventional dairy industry know that pasteurization alters milk proteins. In fact, intentional denaturation of casein and whey proteins, through heat, is used in the manufacturing of most ice cream mix and yogurt to enhance the texture and mouthfeel.
Bill,
The more we discover about feces...the more I page homage to it...pretty soon calling some one at the FDA full of shit will be a compliment. Feces are now part of the most advanced life saving medical therapies...the FDA deserves a name far below our Biodiverse ecosystem content.
Anyone have a name that would fit John Sheehan ?? Shit is far above him and should be reserved for higher living vital life forms.
Good point, Mark. I suppose I should have said, "FDA is full of toxic chemicals"
Yes, Mark, derogatory words should not include the living essential forms of our natural world. For the likes of Sheehan, Taylor, Vilsack, Whitcomb (exclusive to Maine), etc. I prefer "Spawn of the Devil," or something not of the world as we know it.
And a humongous THANK YOU to David for the continuous stream of critical information flowing from his computer!
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/a-simple-fix-for-food/
The govt entities and monsanto types aren't singing about these types of studies either....
Silvia.
Its great to see a study that reinforces what I’ve been saying and doing for the last 30 years.
There is not enough profit in agriculture to justify this government sponsored GMO, chemical and drug approach to livestock and crop production. Indeed the only winners are the companies who produce this toxic crud.
Ken
Ken,
It makes perfect sense, as you and others have said numerous times: if you take care of the land, it'll take care of you. All those chemicals added to the land,water, air, animals, plants and our bodies can only cause disease and contamination.
It’s hard to see how our direction can change from the top down when our accepted measurements of productivity--the official quantifiers of our standard of living--are so miserably flawed. The most fundamental official measure of success, “economy,” is a prime example. Economy is calculated merely as money moved, meaning more fuel burned increases the economy, more chemicals used increases the economy, more illnesses treated increases the economy, more lawsuits increase the economy, more welfare increases the economy, more police, courts, and jails increase the economy, more debt (and its ugly cousin, more money creation) increases the economy. If we destroy our soils, and to survive must expend energy and time and resources to keep ourselves alive, the economy increases. Meanwhile, you’ll look long and hard to find an American that doesn’t believe wholeheartedly that a strong economy is absolutely essential to a good life. Most believe economic growth is essential to our survival. Does anyone have the slightest idea what they’re wishing for?
Soil health alone is a fair measure of economic potential (read: “opportunity”), since health and strength are completely dependent on it. Suggest that to a politician, bureaucrat, businessman, social worker, or economist, and you will likely be brushed off as a fool or an idiot.
Hi Dave,
I actually know quite a few social workers who would agree with you.
The philosophy you are attacking here (and I would agree with your attacks) is neo-liberalism. It is the established free-market doctrine of the global banking system and the last 30+ years of supply-side "Free market" economics.
It saddens me that the raw milk movement parrots much of the philosophical underpinnings of neo-liberalism (i.e. private property, consumer choice, the free market works better than gov't, etc, etc) only with a strange agrarian angle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
There are two economies. Corporations and governments like to talk as if there is only one economy .... the formal economy (the economy that is taxed and regulated) . Even corporations and governments understand that the largest economy is the informal economy ( the unregulated and untaxed economy). The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund recently studied the informal economy, partly to understand how they could grow the formal economy by converting parts of the informal economy into the formal economy. As a result of the study there was a realization that when too much of the informal economy is formalized the informal economy starts to collapse. Since the formal economy depends on the health of the informal economy AND the ever important continuous growth of the formal economy depends on a healthy informal economy, they do see the importance of looking after the health of the informal sector.
A strong informal economy IS essential to a good life. Unfortunately we have been letting the informal economy be converted to the formal economy for too long.If we want the informal economy to recover , we need to learn to get our necessities ,like food, in informal ways ( untaxed and unregulated).
http://www.verdant.net/informaleconomy.htm
"
"There was another crisis in 1998 when the rouble collapsed. How did the peasants do then?"
"Even better. That crisis improved the situation in the villages very considerably. The majority of Russian economists believed what they had been told by the West, that the only way to survive in the post-communist world was to take loans from the world community. That was the policy of the government. So when Western companies left, deciding they could never make any money, Russia feared the worst. Within a year most of the offices in Moscow belonging to Western companies had closed. But as food imports went down, the shops filled with Russian food. Russian farms filled the gap. Often their goods turned out to be much better. So the crisis improved Russian agriculture."
"Step by step, it has become clear that the crisis was good for Russia, urban as well as rural. The economic conditions have been improving since 1998. This is not accidental. Russia has begun to regain control of its own economy. The main danger to the economics and livelihoods of developing countries, including the former Soviet Union, is dependency. You have to control your frontiers before you can begin to control your own economies. It is a very important lesson - and the complete opposite of what the IMF or George Bush would tell you."
"Would it be going too far to say that informal economics reflects the dominant way of living on the planet?"
"The modern formal economy needs only about a quarter of the global workforce. The other three-quarters are engaged in survival through the informal economy. It is a necessity for polarised, unjust societies. It happens in urban as well as rural areas, especially squatter settlements. The core of the informal economy is not peasant farming, but family and neighbourhood relationships of mutual support. So while the informal economy is seen - if it is seen at all - as the political economy of the margins, when you put it all together you can see it is not marginal at all."
"As capitalism becomes more global, is the informal economy declining - or will the peasants inherit the Earth?"
"I think it is zigzagging. It depends on conditions. Industrial economies are much more imposing. But this imposition has its limits. In Russia we have seen the collapse of the state without the rise of a fully functioning capitalist model. In this vacuum the informal economy takes over. Look at what has happened in Argentina, where the banks won't give people their money and they are moving out of the cash economy and engaging in swapping and barter. Even in England, you find people in the villages who have got fed up with the rat race and have started to farm their gardens and take part-time jobs. Not everyone wants to live in the formal economy. The informal sector can make you more a master of your destiny."
miguel
Miguel-
Here's a question for you.
How do you expect an informal economy in raw milk to thrive when we have so few dairy farmers left?
I would suggest that the real problem here is corporate control of land. We need to break up the factory farms. Yes... this means abolishing private property in land. Land should be communally owned.
Ironically, the same Joel Salatin who many of the fundamentalist propertarians here adore and you gratuitously snipe at is the only food movement writer I've seen giving a nuanced discussion of "property" vs. stewardship. Small farmers would, of course, be far more stable and secure on the land under a community stewardship dispensation than under the model of bank-dominated "property". But such a discussion seems utterly beyond the capabilities of this blog, because of the knee-jerking on both sides.
I'd be curious to see his discussion of property vs. stewardship, Russ. I can only imagine it has strong Abrahamic overtones... something which Aldo Leopold objected to in his discussion of land stewardship in the famous "Sand County Alamanc." Salatin has attacked this kind of Leopoldian stewardship as "radical" enviromentalism (again... this is only liberal enviromentalism. For radicalism see EarthFirst!, ELF, Sea Shepard, etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Leopold
Personally, I subscribe to a permacultural outlook on land stewardship and the food system. Though I do eat meat on occassion, I am a cheese maker by trade and ex-Vegetarian. Salatin's emphasis is on meat animals, and he (along with many "libertarians" both of rightist and more progressive persuasions) often display a naïveté about the realities of maintaining a sustainable dairy industry.
Unlike meat animals, who can be harvested at the whim of their proprietors, dairy farming requires a robust and often capital-intensive and labor-intensive processing infrastructure. Fresh fluid milk does not last very long, and needs to be turned into something less perishible in short order. On the other hand, if the abattoirs are full, you can always wait until next week or next month to slaughter the beef animals.
That sounds like a natural, rational limit on the dairy sector and its sustainability. Meanwhile overcoming such limits is what concentrated corporate/government power and corporate welfare are for, and then the propaganda justification for their existence. If we abjured the greedy will to exceed nature and reason, we'd regain our freedom and prosperity.
A great point, Russ. Sounds like you've read Marx's Grundrisse.
I am certainly in favor of moving the dairy industry in a sustainable direction, towards more green technology. The cheese factory where I did my apprenticeship and which I rent to make my cheese has a greenhouse for biological remediation of wastewater laden with cleaning chemicals.
@ BillAnderson: I cannot believe what you said about raw fluid milk. It doesn't "last very long"?? It lasts upwards of 10 days. And no, Bill, it doesn't "need to be turned into something less perishible". Raw milk doesn't perish, it sours -naturally - if you do absolutely nothing with it. And it can be used in that soured state (clabbered). For someone who claims to know all about this subject, you seem a bit deficient.
And - I cannot believe the assumptions you are making about Joel Salatin. This is where I have to end my conversation about that subject, however, or I will get to a point where I will call you some not very nice names and I really don't want to go there.
At this point however, I have just had all the political rantings of yours that I can stand. I am afraid I must take some sort of sabbatical from this blog to get away from the vile spewing for a while. I just don't understand why you can't save all that blather for your posts a Lew Rockwell, rather than having to bring them here where they literally do not belong.
Nevertheless, before I take a break for a while, here's an article I thought some of you might like to view.
http://www.alternet.org/food/busted-food-myths-brought-you-corporate-fro...
Soured milk makes great pancakes and sweet cakes too. can't do it with pasteurized milk.
Agree with you on raw milk's shelf life. I just had some earlier today that's been in the fridge for three weeks, and it hadn't even begun to sour. That isn't always the case, but from this particular producer, it is pretty much the rule.
Agree with you as well that Bill A.'s need to give everyone a political label awfully annoying.
Hi folks,
Just because the raw milk doesn't taste sour doesn't mean that the bacterial and enzymatic composition of the milk hasn't changed. The type of bacterial activity in refrigerated milk adversely effects the properties of the milk for cheese making purposes, long before you can detect it by taste. The best way to make raw milk cheese is with milk that has never been cooled below 50F, and is renneted within 24 hours of harvest. This is required by law for many AOC raw milk cheeses in France, to ensure the quality and artisanship of the cheese.
Once again, the leadership of this movement demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of milk bio-chemistry. I really don't have the time to explain everything to you right now. I have been making raw milk cheese for the last 12 hours, and have a one hour drive ahead me to get back home.
Perhaps the problem with my "political labels" is that you don't understand what they mean. "Petit bourgeois" is not a political label, it is a description of one's class relationship to the institution of capital. Look it up.
After two years of reading your comments my impression is that you are fairly myopic and can only see what you've conditioned yourself to see. There is more to raw milk than cheese-making. I appreciate your passion for it and I do like raw milk cheese; however I also appreciate raw milk for its own sake and for other uses. I do not appreciate your arrogance toward others and what you perceive as their ignorance. Insulting and bullying are not the way to educate. For what it's worth, you're not the only one who uses those tactics on this blog.
Hi Mary,
After over two years of reading comments from raw milk libertarians, my impression is much the same as your impression of me. They are myopic and only see what they want to see.
I happen to know a number of people who work in public health and in the conventional and organic dairy industries. I have an ex-employer who is a pasteurization engineer and is supportive of raw milk rights. He also personally knows John Sheehan from his years in the dairy industry.
This raw milk issue is not as black-and-white as the raw milk libertarians make it out to be. I say this knowing dozens of dairy farmers (mostly organic, but some who are not) and cheese makers (both artisan and commodity cheese makers).
Again, I apologize for any arrogance. Its just that I am profoundly frustrated with the lack of scientific understanding amongst this movement leadership.
"Agree with you as well that Bill A.'s need to give everyone a political label awfully annoying. "
It seems like he's trying to fill the void this blog leaves by refusing to coherently discuss and get straight the politics of the Food Freedom issue. It's mind-boggling that I see commenters here saying this isn't a political issue, when it's nothing but a political issue.
That's why no one here has any ideas other than doomed-to-fail appeasement. Because people are in denial about what corporatism is (a totalitarian ideology and strategy) and insist on treating this as a technical misunderstanding to be resolved by better hoop-jumping and better education of the FDA. It's a microcosm of reformism in general. Ironically (because I gather most here are of the "conservative/libertarian" persuasion), in its actions this is a predominantly liberal discussion group. The mindset goes: Capitalism and the government mean well and are sustainable, but perpetrate abuses that need to be reformed.
(Ironically, Bill concurs in that failed mindset, and the political terms he throws around have no relation to anything he actually prescribes.)
That's why no one here has any ideas other than doomed-to-fail appeasement. Because people are in denial about what corporatism is (a totalitarian ideology and strategy) and insist on treating this as a technical misunderstanding to be resolved by better hoop-jumping and better education of the FDA.
***
Russ, I don't think this is accurate. Many of us do not endorse, nor are we working from the above idea or goal whatsoever. We are for the abolishment of the FDA/USDA, and many other unconstitutional and corporate controlled federal agencies, and are and have been for a long time 100% convinced that "reforming" them is like teaching a turtle to fly.
Many of us would love to see corporate personhood (what an oxymoron!) dismantled (which is a feasible solution beyond the complete destruction of the principle of private property).
I would be interested to hear in a nutshell what you think 1. the heart of the problem is 2. What the solution is, both first steps and longer term 3. where we start and 4. why this is a workable solution with a coherent philosophical foundation behind it.
Apologize for any arrogance. It was not my intention. I just get very frustrated at the lack of a scientific approach to this issue amongst the movement leadership.
Pasteurization is not the only new-fangled modern invention which has changed the properties of the milk that humans consume. Our ability to artificially extend the "sweetness" of milk through refrigeration (be it raw or pasteurized) is an artificat of modern technology of the last 100 years. Also, our ability to transport milk over long distances through motorized transport is another artifact of modernity. There is a reason that traditional dairying societies made cheese and fermenting milk products, particularily when they planned to ship said dairy products into commercial trade.
The precise food safety problem with this refrigerated "Sweet" fluid milk being transported from the country into the city/suburbs is that IT IS STILL SWEET. When you lower the pH of milk through lactic acid fermention, you also select against pathogens. That is why raw milk cheese is legal to ship across state lines, but fluid raw milk for direct consumption is not.
John, I am opposed to capitalist private property, not individual personal property. There's a big difference. Corporate personhood is one of the legal doctrines that makes capitalist private property possible.
Bill
There are many scientific opinions out there, just because they do not concur with what you believe does not make them wrong or any less scientific. Remember scientific fact more so in microbiology is continually evolving. What is considered fact today might very well be altered or disproven tomorrow.
Ken
Re Bill's claim that "refrigeration ... is an artifact of modern technology of the last 100 years." This is more establishment fiction. Refrigeration is as old as Man. European dairy people would have been able to refrigerate and freeze milk with the change of seasons, for long periods of time if needed. Also, ground temperatures are constant throughout the year, going only several feet down, regardless of how hot or cold it might be on the earth's surface. So, for example, where I am as I type this, Chicago area, the water termperature six feet down below the soil surface is 53 degrees, year round. Even as a one man band, I could easily rig a way to keep milk cool here, at 53 degrees, in the dead of Summer. And give me back my matrilineal family structure, my village, and my nation, and refrigeration would really be a piece of cake. The things they forgot to teach us in the establishment school system.
Tom, milk behaves much differently at 53F than at 36F.
And yes, I certainly agree with you that underground is the best place to preserve dairy products. But there are many good reasons that milk should be lacto-fermented into cheese first, before it is put into the cheese cave.
My key point is that refrigeration, at all kinds of temperatures, from below freezing to cool, was used in the ancient past. Sweet raw milk as a "product" has stood the test of time, for thousands of years. Common sense tells me it works just fine, fresh, cooled, frozen, fermented...
I appreciate you promoting cheese in this forum, I love cheese, but I am puzzled why you take the establishment hypochondria approach to fluid raw milk. I suspect you have a demon gripping your mind. In a country where Big Ag can sell us any kind of slop they want, and not even mark it on the label, from antibiotics and hormones and steroids in the milk, cheese and meat, altering our body chemistry, to toxic pesticides and herbicides in the produce, to genetically altered laboratory creations that have never existed in the food chain before, in all kinds of foods now... but you keep slamming raw milk, one of the cleanest purest most natural foods you can find. I hope you rethink your ideas here.
If people want to avoid raw milk, if they want to avoid the outdoors because they might get hit by lightning, or be allergic to a bee sting, or get hit by an asteroid, then by all means, hide in the plastic bubble. But don't force the rest of us into that hypochodriacal, calcium deficient bubble. That's all I ask. I'll take my chances with the food my ancestors ate for thousands of years. I'd rather risk getting an upset stomach from some sour raw milk, than risk getting cancer from calcium deficiency. But that's me.
Can I git a witness? Yeee haaaaayy.
Though I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with you about the desirability of keeping raw milk "sweet", Tomm. People certainly try to keep the milk "sweet" as long as neccessary (even modern industrial commodity cheese makers and milk processors do this) but as soon as we have a chance to preserve it, we must take advantage of that opportunity. There is no point in sitting on the milk if we can turn it into cheese.
The desire to keep milk "sweet" for long periods of time is unnatural and contributes to much of the issues that this (unfortunately) right-wing movement is grappling with. That is the demon I fight... I would like to make cheese fresh out of the cow, and be able to make a living doing so. But I have to do it within a modern industrial milk processing infrastructure. Its quite a challenge, and requires a strong understanding milk bio-chemistry and cheese making tradition.
if Russ thinks ... "no one here has any ideas other than doomed-to-fail appeasement", he hasn't been paying attention. In British Columbia, the REAL MILK has been flowing since 1999 under several cowshares : first, under categorical exemption from the Minister of Agriculture. Thereafter, with another categorical exemption from the Director of Food Safety under the Minister of Health. Does my finessing the Powers-that-Be = making them acknowledge & abide-by our right to use and enjoy our own property, amount to 'appeasement'? Just the opposite = it is practical demonstration of how a citizen reminds the civil servants of their proper place.
Since 2008, when the bureaucrats came at us - using a law framed in mischief - we've withstood them ... missing only 3 days of delivery in those 4 1/2 years, in the face of officious idiots accompanied by police officers with loaded guns on their hips. Staring-down the tyrant is hardly "appeasement".
Just last Monday - after a pleasant and productive exchange with the BC deputy Health Officer - we're starting to educate the various regional Health Officers. We are slowly and surely asserting our rights by simply 'doing' = doing the work at the same time, doing the politics. If the apparatchik mentality needs validation in the form of a make-work program to justify their paycheques ... I'll do that much for them. Complying with regulation is not 'appeasement' ; Licencing is the way it's done in the Babylonian system
JohnM:
1. The heart of the problem is that whereas economies are naturally local/regional, with some demand-driven broader geographic trade as an appendage, we have instead a globalized economy which is supply-driven and forced upon regions and localities by alien "central" governments and corporations. It's a command economy, regardless of its nominal forms. ("Capitalist" vs. "communist", "public" vs. "private", are scam dichotomies which have meaning only where an alien hierarchy imposes on the natural economy and polity. Among natural communities, people don't think in such ways. There's only power, and whether it stays decentralized at its natural, rightful community level, or whether it's concentrated and usurped upward.)
Globalization (including the notion that an entity like the US government can economically command the thousands of foodsheds and watersheds encompassed in these fraudulent borders) requires a big, aggressive central power (government and its corporations). This power, in turn, both persuades and coerces the people into believing globalization's products are necessary, and that therefore the government/corporate power is necessary to distribute them (and to keep in line those who actually produce anything, especially those who would try to produce anything on a local level).
Belief in the need for pasteurization and an indoctrinated aversion raw milk is a perfect example of this.
2. The solution, which will be imposed by the end of the fossil fuel age anyway (nothing can replace them, though of course it's part of the corporate/government project to propagate the lie that some magical new energy source can replace them), is economic relocalization, in particular the full relocalization of food production and distribution on a pastoralist and organic basis. (Using the term "organic" in the original Howard/Rodale sense, not the much-diminished credential.) Political relocalization has to accompany this.
Lots of people are already doing the economic stuff, albeit on an ad hoc basis, primarily because most still see it as a supplement to the permanent globalized regime. But globalization can't continue, if only for energy and environmental reasons, and in the meantime corporatism won't allow this to continue. For as long as it's in power, it will increasingly try to repress this challenge to it. Most people here agree that the assault on milk is meant in part to serve as a template for the broader assault on all community food efforts. That's certainly the goal of the Food Control Act.
3. We need to continue along the path of the Food Relocalization/Community Food vector and greatly expand it. But we need a new basis fore this. We have to get it straight in our minds, the enemy we're up against, and what we need to do. Then, build a coherent movement and strategy for doing as much as we can while the system exists and assaults us, while educating the broader public. At the same time come up with a plan for fully relocalizing economies and polities as the system's power and authority weaken. All this will need to include whatever level of civil disobedience is necessary to get the job done.
As for political imperatives at the moment, some clear ones are the abolition of the corporate form (it serves no constructive purpose except from globalization's point of view; it only facilitates organized crime), the abolition of GMOs and CAFOs, and the restoration of political and economic sovereignty to localities, like the CELDF's projects try to accomplish. These can be phrased as "demands", but they really have to be a campaign to convince a critical mass of the people that these things have to be wiped out. Once that critical mass exists, the job will get done one way or another.
As for the broader philosophy of Food Sovereignty, I'm happy to discuss its coherence. Do you have a more specific question about it, since it's such a broad topic. (Meanwhile, almost no one ever asks for a discussion of the philosophical coherency of the status quo, including "property" in land and resources. But Food Sovereignty recognizes that land tenure has to be tied to constructive work on the land. As did John Locke's original land property concept.)
I don't usually link my blog, but I have hundreds of posts on this stuff there. Here's some of the posts on basic movement strategy.
http://attempter.wordpress.com/movement-strategy/
There's just one problem with your theory, Russ. Our ruling class does have plans for something to replace fossil fuels once they run out. Its called nuclear energy, and its no coincidence that Obama is so cozy with the nuclear industry.
Re-localization of food will not just happen spontaneously and by default at the end of the fossil fuel age. It must happen by a well-planned and intentional socioeconomic movement that seeks sustainability and stewardship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/08/big-nucle...
Also, Russ, check out the below read. It should dispose you of the Lockean notions of private property in land.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-A-Counter-History-Domenico-Losurdo/dp/1...
The ruling class post-oil plan is to try to resume full-scale feudalism while maintaining as many of its luxuries as possible, on the backs of the re-serfed 99%. That's part of why people around the world (including in the West; the foreclosure onslaught is part of liquidating the middle class, who are really tenants on bank-owned land) are being driven off the land, and why the attack on local food is being stepped up.
(As for nukes, it's completely dependent upon cheap fossil fuels for the infrasturcture, extraction, and transportation of inputs. Uranium itself is a similar non-renewable resource. The 1% will use nukes as long as they can, just like they'll use unconventional oil, ethanol, and so-called "renewables" (also oil-dependent, as far as any large-scale deployment). They'll monopolize these for as long as they can. They'll try to use these during the transition from fossil fuel corporatism to post-oil feudalism.)
The stuff I'm saying here explains all the evidence, and explains it far better than any other theory of what's happening in the world.
You don't need to tell me about Locke. I cite him to remind propertarians that according to the original philosophical justification* for land ownership (as opposed to land as a commons stewarded by the community), the vast majority of today's ownership (banks, corporations, the 1%) is illegitimate, and "property" is really a Might Makes Right scam in favor of big property. Smallholding and its simulations (like mortgage-holding) are tolerated only where convenient, but as Kelo enshrined, are not to be tolerated wherever they interfere with big property's prerogative.
"Property" in land and resources, just like the corporate form, benefits only oligopoly wealth and power. Smallholders and small businessmen would be better off, more secure and with a far more level playing field, if those government-generated formalities didn't exist at all.
[*What qualifies? A resident individual, family, or group which personally works the land.]
As my comment said, I don't think spontaneity is sufficient. On the contrary I explicitly said a coherent movement is necessary. It needs to be organized to grow and distribute the food while being economically viable for the producers and customers. It needs to resist government pressure and assault. It needs to be ready to seize opportunities to relocalize power.
Regarding your complaints about what's "petty bourgeois", what else is possible? There's almost no "proletariat" left, and what little there is has fully assimilated the "ownership society" mindset. Liberals and liberalism are worthless for anything. So if the options are a tedious and doomed effort to hector the middle class mindset into becoming a proletarian mindset, or else to speak to the many ways the middle class mindset itself is now under assault by the 1%, I know which sounds more likely to work.
They will find a way to make uranium mining tenable, post-fossil fuels, even if it means re-instating formal slavery. Do not doubt the innovative capabilities of capitalism, Russ.
If a left-wing food movement is going to be successful, we need to learn how to be as innovative and progressive as the "1%" capitalist class. Otherwise we are doomed to this on-going false dichotomy of right-wing proprietarianism (aka "libertarianism") and the so-called "progressive" or "liberal" foodie establishment (i.e. Michael Pollen and his ilk).
Personally, I'd rather speak to the proletarian mindset than the middle class one. My comrades are all either progressive dairy farmers (read: left-wing peasants) or other cheese makers (read: proletarians).
And, btw, if Graeber is to be believed, Feudalism perhaps was quite an improvement in the welfare of the working class over the "Axial" age that preceded it.
"Personally, I'd rather speak to the proletarian mindset than the middle class one. My comrades are all either progressive dairy farmers (read: left-wing peasants) or other cheese makers (read: proletarians)."
Typical dairy farmers and cheese makers (factory workers, not small craftsmen?) readily agree with you on property and corporate capitalism?
Depends on the individual, but I do think that the cheese makers are more likely to because of their class relationship to capital.
Also, Russ, its worth pointing out that many of the fundamentalist proprietarians do not find their justification for private property in Locke. They find it in the Old Testament Abrahamic compact between God and the tribes of Israel.
Needless to say... then as now, the ruling-class rationale for private property is founded upon the violent conquest of one peoples by another. We know the fate of the various "pagan" societies (read: societies that held a materialist spirtuality) that were wiped out at the hands of these early mesopotamian monothiests.
excuse me. One correction:
....early PATRIARCHAL mesopotamian monthiests.
In order to achieve an effective bottom up, democratic solution, irrespective of the political ideology, people need to honestly search their inner core in an attempt to determine what truly motivates them. We live in a fool’s paradise if we continue to disregard and treat with contempt our true human nature, thinking that our social ills can be remedied via the political process alone.
“The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues.”
Rene Descartes
Ken
Not a fan of Descartes, Ken, but I do appreciate your point about searching our inner core to determine what motivates us. In socialist theory, the prime motivator of political and economic behavior is one's class relationship to capital. That is what informs my analysis of this movement's rhetoric as "petit-bourgeois"
I would argue that pursuit of pecuniary profit is among the worst and most reactionary motivators of human behavior, which results in many horrible atrocities. Yet our established capitalist economic doctrines (i.e. neo-liberalism) hold it to be the prime motivator of human behavior, and so we are compelled by circumstance and social convention (whether we like it or not) to pursue pecuniary profit.
Personally, I am motivated by a desire for a sustainable agriculture and food system, public enviromental stewardship (of the type that Salatin disparages as "radical" enviromentalism), and the liberation of humanity from the oppressive bonds of corporate-state power, religious ignorance & fundamentalism, poverty, racism, sexism, militarism, and prisons. But I do not believe that noble goal can be achieved through an individualistic free-market approach. It requires a collective solution, and a social movement that has a global consciousness.
I suppose I just see the raw milk issue as tengential to these goals. If land was owned communually, and anyone who wanted to farm could get 40 acres and cow without signing their life away to the banks, this raw milk controversy would be a non-issue.
In the informal economy first of all there is an unfilled demand for something like real milk. Some of those who want the milk start to produce it and provide it for other people in return for their support. Demand grows and eventually the production comes to the attention of officials .In their eyes the solution is to regulate and tax the production, to make this production part of the formal economy. I find it interesting that once milk production becomes part of the formal economy the regulations turn the product into something that is no longer acceptable to those who want milk. The next step is to tax the producers in order to convince the consumers to consume the product. Had the production remained part of the informal economy, once demand was satisfied production would level off or decrease. Instead we have a situation where we need to create a demand artificially in order to support an industry that nobody wants to support.
miguel
Again, miguel, what use is this information if land is so expensive because of rampant financial speculation and the exploitation of labor, that a farmer has to sign his/her life away to the bank just to have the opportunity to produce milk?
If you really want a thriving informal economy in raw milk, then we need to redistribute the land. 40 acres and a cow for all who want it.
Barring that, I'm certainly not opposed to make raw milk part of the formal economy.
Bill,
If you get the milk for the cheese you make fresh without it being cooled below 50 deg and within 24 hours of milking, do you get it directly from a farm that you visit and inspect personally? Do you make the cheese for people in your family,your neighbors or your local community? People that you know personally? If you do,then what is the advantage to becoming part of the regulated economy? If family, friends and neighbors pool their resources and work together ,they can start producing their own food now. Why worry about getting the land redistributed ( how does that happen anyway?) Change begins at the individual level and spreads from there.
miguel
"Change begins at the individual level and spreads from there."
Perhaps this is the crux of our political disagreement miguel. Social change happens not because of individuals, but because of the material forces of production, and the property relationships (and subsequent class struggle) which they engender. This is called the theory of historical materialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
The advantage for me in becoming part of the regulated economy is that it means I can actually make a living off artisan cheese making, so I can pay my bills and put food on the table. Its called capitalism. I don't like it, but its the system we live under and I don't have much of a choice but to do it, since I don't own land.
btw... the whole "change starts with the individual" drivel is EXACTLY why I have no qualms about branding this movement as petit bourgeois. That is classic petit bourgeois rhetoric.
Bill
You speak of “collective solutions” as if individual are not involved.
“Social change happens not because of individuals”?
“The whole ‘change starts with the individual’ drivel is EXACTLY why I have no qualms about branding this movement as petit bourgeois”???
I thought you supported change from the bottom up?
Doesn’t such change require an individual making a conscientious choice?
What motivates an individual to vote?
Could a sense of justice, empathy, greed, selfishness or pride be considered motivating factors?
I do not aspire to the upper class bourgeois morality.
Ken
I support change from the bottom-up, but this requires more than just individuals making a choice. It requires a social movement with a global consciousness, and with the technological ability to assert itself through social mediums and overtake the currently dominant paradigm.
Justice, empathy, greed, selfishness (and selflessness), pride (and humility) are all motivating factors in human behavior. This is true regardless of class, but class often dictates the way that these factors manifest themselves.
That you do not aspire to bourgeois morality is good to know Ken, but I'm curious what you mean when you speak of "vice." This seems to me to be a ruling-class paradigm.
“Unfortunately we have been letting the informal economy be converted to the formal economy for too long.”
That, in a sentence, is the crux of the problem. In America, as in other highly technological, highly industrialized countries, the tentacles of the formal economy--media, education, and political control--have more reach than ever in history. (The aristocracies, guilds, and popes of old were putzes in comparison to the globalized, business/government socioeconomic controllers of today.) We have reached the point where few can imagine any other living than working for steady wages, than a job greasing machinery with effects far too big to understand. Central controls have never been so formidable. Even now as the formal economy collapses into a void of debt and disease, as the true value of everything gradually gets obliterated by the manipulations of third-party payments, taxes, rules and regulations, as we become ever less confident of decisions not made by experts, the indoctrinated clamor for even more controls, even more political solutions. It seems we have reached a generational tipping point, where the simple actions of livelihood--of providing products or services to another human being, face-to-face--have become foreign, unworthy, valueless.
Here's a passage from Robert Neuwirth's book, “Shadow Cities” in which he discusses the now billion or more people living in what he calls “squatter cities”:
“This was Southland, a small shanty community on the western side of Nairobi, Kenya. But it could have been anywhere in the city, because more than half the city of Nairobi lives like this: 1.5 million people stuffed into mud or metal huts with no services, no toilets, no [legal] rights.
...The sun slammed down on the thin steel roof and we perspired as we ate. After we finished, Armstrong straightened his tie, put on a wool sports jacket and we headed out into the glare. Outside, a mound of garbage formed the border between Southland and the adjacent legal neighborhood of Langata.
It was perhaps 8 feet tall, 40 feet long and 10 feet wide. And it was set in a wider, watery ooze. As we passed, two boys were climbing the Mount Kenya of trash. They couldn't have been more than five or six-years-old. They were barefoot and, with each step, their toes sank into the muck, sending hundreds of flies scattering from the rancid pile.
I thought they might be playing King of the Hill. But I was wrong. Once atop the pile, one of the boys lowered his shorts, squatted and defecated. The flies buzzed hungrily around his legs. When 20 families, 100 people or so, share a single latrine, a boy pooping on a garbage pile is perhaps no big thing.
But it stood in jarring contrast to something Armstrong had said as we were eating: that he treasured the quality of life in his neighborhood. For Armstrong, Southland wasn't constrained by its material conditions. Instead, the human spirit radiated out from the metal walls and garbage heaps to offer something no legal neighborhood could: freedom.
This place is very addictive, he had said. It's a simple life, but nobody is restricting you. Nobody is controlling what you do. Once you have stayed here, you cannot go back. He meant back beyond that mountain of trash, back in the legal city of legal buildings with legal leases and legal rights. Once you have stayed here, he said, you can stay for the rest of your life.”
Robert Neuwirth was recently asked this question by an apparently very indoctrinated interviewer: “How can you think about them [as cities if] they don't have organization, they don't have governance, they don't have services. You have to have some sort of order. How do you respond to people who say - that they just reject the premise that this is a city?”
Neuwirth's answer: “When you go there, you discover that they're not disordered. We're not talking about places that are completely lawless. They form their own organizations. Every squatter community has residents' associations. Every neighborhood has its informal associations of who leads it. In fact, many of the communities were built by a kind of cooperative or mutuality, where 10 families would get together and build 10 homes. So this is not something that comes without structure. That's the first point. The second point is that we make the mistake of thinking that these communities are outright deprived. One of the huge surprises I had when I went to Kibera and first came into the community, this is the, basically, largest mud hut settlement in sub-Saharan Africa, is how much commerce there is there. The main drags are just loaded with stores, all run by the squatters themselves. There's bars, there's, you know, health clinics, there's grocery stores, there's places where you can buy just, you know, the average necessities, drug stores. So this is a tremendously thriving economy, even though each store may be worth very little. In aggregate, it's a huge amount of commerce. And people are negotiating what their rights are, let's say. So can you have a bar there? And can you have a grocery store here? And is it OK for a cigarette shop to be located here? Or a church to be located there? So they're sort of proto-zoning, if you will. So the communities are basically organizing themselves and that says to me that they are communities and they are creating structures that we can work with and that are adaptable to working in partnership with the city.”
It's inspiring to see the way people can strive to build community even under such vicious assaults. Imagine what the inmates of the world's shantytowns will accomplish when they take back the land, their land.
This renders it all the more deplorable to see the way the rump "middle class" in the West, currently being liquidated, including what's left of real farmers, still clings to the system ideology which is destroying them. We could start rebuilding community mindsets, polities, and economies right now. The imperative is clear enough - as much as possible, break free of reliance upon the centralized political system and the corporatist economy (including the intellectual dependency on them so pronounced at this blog), build alternatives to them (for example community political councils and time banks as alternatives to cash), and try to resist their depredations.
This is especially necessary and doable where it comes to our food, since above all other sectors food markets are naturally local (but this is more or less true of all economic sectors; globalization is a high-maintenance planned economy artifice in all sectors), while the inevitable collapse of fossil-fueled corporatism will mean literal death for millions if we don't relocalize and democratize our food production and distribution.
Albert Howard said it well (quoting from memory) - Weak soil means weak people and weak democracy.
The structural facts of the growth economy render it the inherent enemy of sane, moral, practical agriculture. That's why it's so frustrating that the discussion here almost always assumes corporatism as normative and natural. John Sheehan is doing his job, period. He hasn't committed any "abuses". He's a typical bureaucrat in a corporate capitalist system. (For example, universities are there to serve the corporatist system. "Academic freedom" within the system was always to some extent a scam, and by now is fully so. Complaining that a scam isn't being sincere is to miss the point completely.) If you don't like what he does, you have to abolish his job, meaning abolish his system. Yet some people here claim to think it's meaningful to whine to the system about its own cadres.
A truly strong economy is a naturally scaled, bottom-up 100% demand-driven human economy. Such an economy will always be predominantly local/regional. The centralized, top-down imposed, supply-driven capitalist command economy which prevails today is fundamentally weak and depends completely on cheap oil, corporate welfare, government-sanctioned lawlessness on the part of powerful economic actors, and government thuggery. Once the cheap oil gives out it all comes down. The goal of today's increasingly fascist policy is to preserve the system's power as full-scale feudalism is resumed. ("Capitalism" was always really a hybrid, neo-feudalism adapted to the fossil fuel age.)
Thise who want strong human economies will have to rebuild them from the ground up with little or no help from, and increasingly in defiance of, the existing system. That has to mean taking back the land.
"...rebuild ... from the ground up... That has to mean taking back the land."
Returning to the land is the theme of my first post in this forum, FDA arms buildup. And how do we do this? Groups like the American Indian Movement have physically picked up arms, "Wounded Knee", to reclaim their lands. I don't believe they succeeded in gaining sovereignty over one square inch, although they may feel what they did was helpful to the cause. Around the world people have fought to the death to try to defend their homelands from the global establishment... I mentioned in a post the Saami people's attempts to recover their homelands in northern Europe. There may actually be Nations in the Amazon, such as the Achuar people, who are successfully holding off big oil and other arms of the global terrorists as we speak, look into it...
I find Dave Milano's quotes re Shadow Cities quite interesting. I myself lived in Rio de Janeiro for two years, 4 1/2 million people lived in the favelas there, as squatters. I rarely ventured in there, at times it looked like a nightmare, other times I saw laughing people, once a goat walked past me (raw milk could be happening in these ghettos), I'm really no expert on that scene, one thing you see all the time in the third world is severely deformed people. Obviously mainly due to severe mineral vitamin deficiencies. A lot of the people there can only afford white rice. Weston Price's pictures and claims make more and more sense as I think about this, ie if you improved that white rice diet slightly, added some wonder bread, some pastuerized milk, ... brought it up to the standard american diet, what would you have? You'd have people that are deformed but not as noticably. Crooked teeth, near sighted, one arm longer than the other, "allergies", ... How many health problems are really due to mineral vitamin deficiency?
I've spent most all of my life in the US, and 8 years ago a simple plan came to me that people can use to return to the Earth, in this part of the global prison at least. It's not complete sovereignty, but it's a huge improvement. I combined ideas I got from Seminoles that still live communally in the Everglades, with other ideas such as the legal structures used by condo associations today. Basically, for a fraction of the cost of what people are paying today for housing, food, car, taxes, childcare, utilities... you could have your own land, cabin, energy, garden orchard grazing areas, forest, community kitchen, community clubhouse, your own dairy, no need for a car, economies of group cooking, baking, cheesemaking, a small herd... this would be in the country, but you could have a presense in town too, so you could work part time in town if needed, and avail yourself of city resources. The magic number I used was about 25 people, who each buy 5 acres, so you'd have about a half mile by half mile piece of land, most of it preserved, giving you that amazing substance called wood, freely, when trees die and fallen branches, for cooking and heating and building... If you need to leave you can sell your share, like someone selling his condo, where he had the use of group areas as well as his individual area. These legal structures work, I am just taking it to a new level. Some or all of the group could form their own business, farming, dairy, cheesemaking would be naturals, as you're already doing that for yourselves... This type of community could multiply, I like bicycles, but you could go farther out and use say an old school bus, look into wood burning cars, ... and run it to town and back twice a week on wood from dead trees...
Call your group whatever you want, an employee owned business, a partnership, corporation, workers of the neighborhood uniting, ... or use the old name, your family or clan...Do the math, a life of ease, all your basic needs met, self sufficient, clean, with time to do the other things that give life meaning: feasting, chasing women, art, dance, drama, meditation, seeking, music, praying, massage, herbal knowledge ... be a renaissance man.
I've tried this twice, no one was listening. There are small intentional communities, but the ones I've seen look like mini versions of the global prison. Mine would be fundamentally different, an Oasis. Reading and talking only get you so far in life. Sometimes you have to put it in gear. I hope someday people decide to make the change.
"How many health problems are really due to mineral vitamin deficiency?"
The more I learn about nutrition and the affects on the body and mental processes, the more "abnormalities" lean towards insufficient nutrition and/or adulterated nutrition.
I just sent off a letter to Michele Obama, requesting that John Sheehan be fired.
Miracles do happen...especially when you demand action repeatedly for very good cause, you have all the facts and Sheehan got caught red handed in the UC davis scientific raw milk cookie jar and Michele gets pissed. She is the first mom.
One can dream!!
David, a friend of mine, whom I sent your article to, started a petition on change.org. There may be some repercussions yet against this outrageously arrogant censorship of information by the FDA. Lets hope others see this and spread the word also. And Mark, this is such a sensitive time for the First Lady, she may not be able to be of much support even if she wanted to be. It's worth a try though, let's see what happens.
That is a great idea, about the petition. Please let us know when it is ready for signatures.
I appreciate the sensitivity of the next few weeks for the first mom...but she could be very empowered to talk with her hubby if all goes well for them. In the close of the letter....I said that this could wait until after the election. Then I wished her luck.
We will see. Sheehan is pretty darn bold when he treads on UC Davis science. That it pretty thin ice. He must think we in the raw milk movement are not connected with the scientists that support us. We are very connected. His actions just inflame the fires and confirm the findings.
Mark I wish you best of luck. I've written her a number of times, thinking I knew where her thinking lies on food, nutrition and health, and have received precious little to make me believe it made an impact. She spoke up early in the administration, said a few sensible things, and has been silenced on these topics.
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/report-casts-doubt-on-medical-guidelines
"Many medical guidelines don't stick to quality standards designed to make them trustworthy, and the situation hasn't improved over the past two decades, researchers have found."
That speaks volumes.
"The IOM also recommends that panel chairs and co-chairs be free of conflicts of interest, which in theory might warp their judgments."
Good luck with that one.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918
"Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show
Fueling the surge are prescription pain and anxiety drugs that are potent, highly addictive and especially dangerous when combined with one another or with other drugs or alcohol."
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/italy-bans-novartis-flu-vaccines-pendi...
Any warning here in the US?
I own 1/20 of a milk cow named, Cindy. I pay $25 a month to the farmer to care for and feed my 1/20 of Cindy and for that I receive one gallon of raw milk per week.
There is no need for you to tell me the benefits of drinking Raw Milk.
I make Kombucha and drink a tall glass of it every day too.
There are lots of great benefits there also.