The Land of Milk and Money
Tentative Table of Contents
Section One: Introduction
Section Two: The Relationship Between Humans and Milk
Milk Then and Now: What has Changed?
Dairy Regulation Over Time
The FDA Sets the Global Standard
The FDA Rules by Manipulation of Statistical Reading
Margins Over Milk Quality
What is Melamine and Where is it?
What is the Harmful Impact of Melamine?
Milk Substitutes are Substantially Worse
Synthesis
Conclusion
Annotated Works Cited
The Land of Milk and Money
Introduction:
Milk is not what it used to be. The changes over the last century or so have caused the product to deviate from its true integrity. Economic desires have implicated the quality of milk, which for thousands of years has been associated with good health and good fortune. For the duration of human history there has been an undeniable connection between industry, money, and crime. When it comes to the dairy industry there are no exceptions to be made. Regarding this industry there is a murky history wherein politicians, executives, and yes- the milkman- have all been in bed together for the lust of a bigger paycheck. Who is bearing the brunt of this? The customer, and the cost of which is both financial and physiological. Although some may feel that they are exempt from this, it is crucial that the public takes notice. Many people today follow fad diets that are in fact advertised by the companies that manufacture and produce our foods. If you look in your fridge, you may believe that what you are eating is clean, or even good for you. Maybe you feel because you don’t consume dairy products, this issue doesn’t apply to you. Nearly all foods in relation to dairy, especially milk and the substitutes of (milk), are subject to dangerous alterations. People may believe that they have better things to do than to be bothered with the drama involved in the dairy industry. However, when this drama directly impacts your finances, your children’s health, and your country’s future it might be wise to take note. If so far, this message produces any questions surrounding your current diet- it should. It’s about time that people pulled their heads out of the sand, looked at what’s happening in Washington D.C., and looked for a feasible resolution. This isn’t a story that begins during a recent time, but rather one that has been drug out for roughly the last one-hundred years or so. Times change, human behavior doesn’t (especially regarding business ethics), and the impact to which this damage is extended is immeasurable. People need to take a greater concern as to what laws and regulations get passed regarding their food.
The trumpet not only has sounded to signify the warning- but is blaring. There is a war going on. At home we seem to be at peace in our daily lives, going to and fro, with little concern of what happens in the world outsides ourselves. This false sense of peace has led to an ignorance of the people who make the dangerous presumption that all is well in the developed world. There is a war on knowledge, there is a war on your health, and there is a war to divert the public from seeing what is truly going on. This information isn’t hidden within archives, in a library, on the other side of the world. No. It’s accessible to the public, but for the masses bread and circuses appease. Although the language that is being used may seem melodramatic, the discussion is still about the corruption within the dairy industry. What we consume both literally and intellectually has an impact upon what happens within society. If we cannot discern the differences between true health and the latest fad diet, then we give heed to the likelihood of malnutrition. If malnutrition occurs then the executive function that humans have is likely to become prohibited, if not inhibited. If we cannot physically operate as humans are supposed to do, then we cannot possibly expect to critically think about the dire changes needed to happen within our society.
The Relationship Between Humans and Milk
For thousands of years humans have consumed milk. The current stage in human existence would not have been reached without milk. Any statement otherwise is both baseless and harmful to the individual who makes those claims, for they know not the physiological detriment that comes with excluding milk. Regarding the establishment of permanent human residences, without milk, humans would not have been able to survive during the harsh winter months where the weather does not permit for crops to be grown. For the agricultural revolution to be a possibility, milk was needed as an essential element to maintain human life. Milk acted as a primary source of nutritional intake not only during the winter months but year-round, and continuously throughout time since that point. For time immemorial humans have consumed milk, predominately in the raw form. From the compiled research of Sarika Rana, raw milk is described as, “an underrated superfood [that’s] produced from grass-fed cows and is considered to be raw because it skips the process of pasteurization, a process that… kill pathogens.” Raw milk has extensive benefits. The beneficial properties known to be found in milk are what have aided in the critical development stages of human life. The elements found in raw milk that are required for human function consist of vitamins, proteins, bacteria, fats, etc. These all are abundantly found in milk in the forms usable for humans. For the duration of human existence, milk has been the cornerstone of physiological development. If any human is lacking these essential nutrients during, or after the prenatal and youth periods of growth they may never fully develop. If a human has been deprived of the materials needed to construct a healthy, properly functioning body, their ability to process anything may be severely impaired. Without milk humans physiologically wouldn’t be able to maintain life from the establishment of settlements to our current point of societal achievement. The idea that humans can or should suddenly disregard milk consumption as necessary is contrary to thousands of years of recorded human development. If humans wouldn’t have been able to reach this point lacking milk consumption, it is unfathomable that without milk there is a positive future in store.
Milk Then and Now: What has Changed?
The milk that we drink today is vastly different from the milk that humans consumed even 250 years ago. If it doesn’t seem like that was very long ago, or maybe it does, both perspectives fall beside the point. The milk has changed. The information provided by the Science History Institute relays the life, education, and studies of Louis Pasteur. In Dole, France, in the year of 1822, he was born and would grow to have the largest effect (by any individual) upon the dairy industry. This effect is inclusive of the scientific analysis of food borne illnesses, and how humans perceive them. This was done with the inventive process coined pasteurization. This process took place after his schooling, where he excelled in his respective field of biology.
Pasteur…was then [after school] appointed in 1848 to the faculty of sciences in Strasbourg and in 1854 to the faculty in Lille. There he launched his studies on fermentation... At the time the majority believed that fermentation was spontaneously generated by a series of chemical reactions in which enzymes—themselves not yet securely identified with life—played a critical role (Science History Institute).
Louis Pasteur, in the year of 1857 dove headfirst into his work that he sought to continue surrounding fermentation. It was at his laboratory at the Ecole Normale in which he crafted the “[P]asteurization process” that Louis officially attained a patent for in 1865. This was with the intended use of combatting the “diseases of wine” (Science History Institute). Pasteur had a revelation that these diseases were stimulated by microorganisms, and with his pasteurization process could be destroyed. This was achieved by heating wine to a temperature between 60° and 100°C”. The pasteurization process was then implemented to other substances in which similar biological issues remained “such as milk” (Science History Institute). It is important to note that when milk is pasteurized the critical elements to human development within are destroyed.
Dairy Regulation Over Time
In the year of 1895 pasteurization machines became available on a commercial scale. In 1908, the city of Chicago, Il. passed an ordinance that required all milk sold within city limits to be pasteurized. Thirty-nine years after Chicago passed their legal pasteurization requirements, Michigan became the first state to do so on a statewide scale.
However, it’s interesting to note that during the late 1930’s, it has been estimated by the NCLEG (the North Carolina General Assembly) in a report by Barbara Riley that, “25% of disease outbreaks” could be attributed to infected food and water. Of this statistic, only 1% of food borne illness could be linked to milk products (including milk in the raw).
In 1924, the U.S. Public Health Service created what is known as the Standard Milk Ordinance (SMO). While this was voluntary, it was developed to aid states with effective programs for the prevention of milk borne diseases. In 1965, the SMO was subject to major change, with the name alteration to include the word pasteurization. From this point forward, it would be known as the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO). This regulation became the standard for the certification of interstate milk distributers; this was by the Voluntary Cooperative State/Food and Drug Administration Program, wherein all fifty states take part. For example, if a dairy farmer in California wanted to sell their product in Washington state; by crossing state lines, it becomes interstate commerce which is subject to regulations by the FDA. In 1973, the FDA published their final rule in which all milk and milk derived products moving within the country needed to be pasteurized.
However, in the year of 1984 things became increasingly interesting, when a public interest group brought suit against the FDA regarding the regulation of pasteurization in both interstate and intrastate commerce. This case would become known as Public Citizen v. Heckler and would have a profound impact upon the dairy industry. The court ruled that the FDA must adopt a rule banning the interstate sale of raw milk and associated raw milk products. The intrastate sale of raw milk products fell to the discretion of the states. Three years later in 1987, the FDA adopted this final rule. This was a major ruling regarding state legislature and dairy. This ruling is important as it gave states more power in the regulation of the statewide dairy industry. This also held major significance to the dairy industry, wherein the nature of milk (which is subject to spoil) disabled producers from reaching a broader consumer base. For dairy producers, pasteurization was a necessity to increase both their consumer base and profits.
The FDA Sets the Global Standard
The primary influence upon what is safe to eat/drink comes from the U.S. Federal Government, as their institutions, backed by their studies, are what provide the research to which laws are enacted. State legislature has the independence to implement whatever laws they feel are necessary. However, federal institutions can override state sovereignty if their research supports the laws they have decided to pass. The food regulations that are passed within the states are not the only place where the U.S. federal government has influence in this matter. This extends to the entire world. The global authority behind the research done by the U.S. is shown as the European Union implements many of their laws and regulations. One of such examples is displayed when there was a toxic-substance outbreak within dairy products. The U.S.’s findings regulated the traceable amounts of the substance discovered within the product, and how much would be permitted in the products going forward. According to the International Journal of Food Contamination, from researchers Tanzina Azad and Shoeb Ahmed, the FDA’s findings were, “later adopted by [the] United Nation’s standard body, Codex Alimentarius Commission through a new rulings [sic] in 2010…”
The FDA Rules by Manipulation of Statistical Reading
The Food and Drug Administration’s role is to advance public health and to provide the science-based information enabling the general populous to maintain and improve their health. When the FDA fails to perform their role, it can have dire consequences. These consequences are even more appalling when the FDA is conscious of a public health crisis. It is even absurd that given their responsibility, there could be the manipulation of facts to aid in the growth of capitalism. From a publication by the FDA, claims are made that lead readers to believe that in the instance of an outbreak the use of pasteurization would have been able to prevent it. John F. Sheehan who works for the Division of Dairy and Egg Safety analyzed both the studies used by the FDA, and the official statements made in their publication. What Sheehan found was that the FDA’s stance was entirely contrary to the statistical reading of the studies following this outbreak. Sheehan responds, “the most important flaw in the reports that the FDA cites is that none of them generates [sic] any evidence that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak” (Sheehan, John F.). Another frightening aspect of the FDA’s statement was unearthed again by the Weston A. Price Foundation and published online at realmilk.com (no specific author/contributor given published credit). What this foundation’s work uncovers is that in the Hopkins study used for the FDA’s ruling, “raw dairy products accounted for 36 percent of individual illnesses attributed to milk, while the rest could be attributed to pasteurized dairy products.” What is of low moral character (for the FDA) is that even though twice as many illnesses were attributed to pasteurized products in the study, they argued that, “on a per serving basis, [1 percent of consumption] raw dairy products are almost 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized dairy products” (realmilk.com). The real harm that was done by the FDA’s deceit is found in several areas; the limited time frame (1993-2006), the question being asked, and the “unreasonable confidence given to the answer” (realmilk.com). This timeframe was selected, failing to include the country’s largest outbreak in 1985. Small-scale milk productions have more frequent incidents but are minor in consequence. Large-scale milk productions have less frequent attributed illnesses but are monumental in consequence. Large spans of data are necessary to include the outbreaks due to pasteurized milk. The Weston A. Price Foundation performed their own studies surrounding this issue to include with their response. From their findings, illnesses could be attributed to pasteurized milk “11 times more” than to raw milk (realmilk.com). Based off of the statistic that 1 percent of Americans consume raw milk, this would make, “pasteurized milk appear up to twice as dangerous as raw milk on a per-serving basis” (realmilk.com).
Margins Over Milk Quality
The adulteration of food on a global scale is an established concern that continues to rise. The dairy industry particularly finds no exemption from this issue. As the motive for food fraud is primarily economic, the impact is a frightening public health concern. The economic reasoning behind this manipulation of product is not only found in the perishable nature of milk and the low purchasing ability of the consumers but is extended to the gap between supply and demand. Disastrously, the adulteration of milk has been remarkably easy (and relatively unchecked). This is due to the absence of adequate monitoring which is accompanied by the failure to properly enforce surrounding laws. Those who fall victim to this are both dairy and non-dairy consumers as the chemical changes are not limited to just milk, but milk-substitute products also.
Published by the International Journal of Food Contamination (IJFC), Tanzina Azad and Shoeb Ahmed’s direct research claims that, “in contrast to common belief, milk adulterants can pose serious health hazards leading to fatal diseases.” Typical strategies of adulteration used by dairy producers include the watering down of milk, followed by the addition of chemicals to prevent the consumers from being the wiser. Of these chemicals, several of which are, “too harmful to be overlooked.” Some of these chemicals included in the IJFC report are listed as, “urea, formalin, ammonium sulphate, boric acid… and melamine”. Regarding these chemicals, one of which, Melamine, is widely used throughout the industry. What occurs is that due to the high value of milk fat, “manufacturers of milk and dairy products remove milk fat for additional financial gain.” In order to prevent the consumers from realizing their product is far different from what it used to be, dairy producers will, “compensate it by adding non-milk fat such as vegetable oil.” What is then done is the addition of detergents that emulsify and dissolve the oil, “giving a frothy solution, which is the desired characteristics of milk…” Overall, aspects of integrity have been compromised, and the ethics of those involved are in question as, “[a]dulterants are added in milk… thereby increasing the milk quality in a dishonest way” (Ahmed, S.).
What is Melamine and Where is it?
Melamine is a chemical that has been used on a wide scale throughout several different industries. The U.S. National Library of Medicine National Center for Biotechnology Information published a report that includes the findings from the research of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This NIOSH report lists some of the products wherein melamine is present, such as, “paint and coatings on automobiles, laminates for furniture, and glues for wood and particle board…”. The research published in their report also uncovered that one of the products wherein melamine is found to be commonly present, regarding direct human interaction, is in table and cookware. The use of melamine in tableware has been disclosed to the public. According to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (part of the FDA), within the United States melamine has been approved for the use of cookware; including “utensils, plates, plastic products… and industrial coatings, among other things…” This specific kind of tableware is created with a chemical substance known as melamine-formaldehyde resin.
From a public forum hosted by the FDA, they have disclosed that this residual melamine can leach into food that encounters the tableware. Studies have shown that products which are composed with melamine, “may put people at risk of conditions such as kidney stones and kidney failure, and of death” (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition). If products composed of melamine in which people eat from are linked to severe ailments, including death, then it is reasonable to make the claim that adding melamine directly to foods or beverages would be harmful.
What is the Harmful Impact of Melamine?
As melamine has been consistently used within products that most humans use (or ingest) on a regular basis, studies have been performed to look for any possible health implications. From the NIOSH study, in a test conducted upon rats, there is a direct link to reproductive issues when exposed to excessive amounts of melamine. These reproductive issues have a paternal affect known as spermatogenesis which alters both the independent mobility of sperm, as well as the overall count. As for females, the effects are consistent with “embryo mortality: [f]etal death” (National Center for Biotechnology Information). These studies are further corroborated by the IJFC regarding melamine, which claim that, “it causes renal failure and infant death” (Ahmed, S.).
In 2008 an extreme case of melamine poisoning reaped havoc upon the nation of China. In a study and analysis composed by Carl G. Skinner, et al., “nfants in China fell ill when fed formula containing large amounts of melamine.” This event showed that melamine alone could cause its own toxicity when ingested at larger doses (or accumulative doses). In 2008 approximately 294,000 infants in China were affected by melamine exposure in formula. There were over 51,900 corresponding hospitalizations and 6 documented deaths (Skinner, Carl G. et al.). Since this outbreak, the FDA passed a regulatory mandate that has since been implemented nearly worldwide, beginning with the United States and the European Commission. “Both the European Commission and the [FDA] have applied a maximum acceptable limit of 2.5 mg/kg for melamine” (Ahmed, S.). There is a known causation of death, reproductive damages, and other possible health implications as a result of melamine consumption. This is both a disheartening reality and an utter failure by the governing bodies that regulate the public’s food. Rather than entirely eradicating this known toxin from the food source, the permittance of continued lethal adulteration has been allowed.
Milk Substitutes are Substantially Worse
For the people who have read this far and feel a sense of affirmation towards their decision to forgo the consumption of dairy. The following information should alter your approach to that decision. The idea that milk is harmful and that substitutes are a healthier alternative was marketed by the dairy industry. This was a business decision, as the, “production cost of soy milk is 70% lesser [sic] than normal milk and soya bean protein is much more [sic] cheaper than milk protein” (Ahmed, S.). By marketing milk alternatives as healthy, producers can drastically increase margin. This is because alternatives are cheaper to make and if people think that what they are buying is healthier, they will pay more for the product. Alternative milk options (soy, oat, almond, etc.) are essentially water with flavoring. The producers then add chemicals to manufacture a texture that is appealing to those consuming these products. This is by adding chemicals such as melamine. The consumer then doesn’t receive any healthy properties found in the milk, and is lacking in the materials needed to physiologically function.
Synthesis
There is a dangerous false notion that because enzymes contribute to fermentation that they are bad for you. When discussing pasteurization and fermentation the true issue is consuming spoiled goods. For example, if you eat something that is rotten, it is not the properties within the food themselves that make you sick, rather the state of spoil that they are in. The move to implement pasteurization nationally and globally was a decision based upon profit restriction and business potential. Pasteurizations true purpose (behind the guise of sanitation) was to enable the distance in which milk could be shipped to, by increasing shelf life. By pasteurizing the milk that humans physiologically need and have always depended on for proper/full development vital nutrients are destroyed.
The changes made to milk since pasteurization have not been of the motive to promote better health, rather to promote economic increase. This has been at the detriment of the public. The regulatory organizations that are to be looking out for the public are equally culpable in these crimes against humanity. When these organizations fail to carry out their responsibilities the impact upon society is deleterious. The governments knowledge of this matter and their failure to use their justifying powers to fully rectify this issue is beyond worrisome. When the public cannot physically operate and there are exponential damages to generations, the public’s ability to change the very system that is harming them will continue to weaken. Unfortunately, this is not speculation about possible future occurrences, but rather the analysis of compiled documentation that tells a disheartening story.
Conclusion
People shouldn’t take any information promoted to them at face value. People need to investigate the physiological effects that each food has on their body and can’t put the burden on anybody else to do that for them. If people claim to be advocates of good health, proper nutrition, and a lifestyle that promotes betterment- then they need to be aware of what is going on. The beneficial properties found in milk are sacrosanct in the critical development stages of human life. If overtime people are lacking the essential elements required to build a healthy body, the detrimental effect from generation to generation will be exponential. This is without factoring in the addition of elements known to be harmful. If the publics’ ability to maintain and improve health is corrupted by corporate interests, the calamitous effects upon society are irreparable. As far as milk consumption goes, fear not for there is a solution. People can avoid these fillers, people can obtain the nutrients necessary to function, and people can begin getting involved in making the necessary changes. Just remember that milk is healthy, milk is essential, and milk should be consumed in the raw.
Annotated Works Cited
Ahmed, S. (2016, December 5). Common milk adulteration and their detection techniques. Retrieved from Common milk adulteration and their detection techniques. (P)
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. (2017, December 12). Melamine in Tableware Questions and Answers. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from Melamine in Tableware Questions and Answers. (P)
Morell, Sally, and Mary Enig. From Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook That Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats. New Trends Publishing, 1995.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Melamine, CID=7955, Melamine (accessed on Nov. 6, 2019) (P)
Rana, S. “Benefits of Raw Milk: From Digestion to Maintaining Bone Health and More!” NDTV Food, 20 July 2018, Benefits Of Raw Milk: From Digestion To Maintaining Bone Health And More!. (S)
Realmilk.com, Webmaster. “The Johns Hopkins Raw Milk Study.” A Campaign for Real Milk, The Weston A. Price Foundation, 12 Aug. 2015, The Johns Hopkins Raw Milk Study. (S)
Riley, B. (2012, March 20). Federal and State Regulation of Raw Milk. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from https://www.ncleg.gov/DocumentSites...arch-FedandStateRegsofRawMilkPresentation.pdf. (P)
Science History Institute. (17 Jan. 2018). Louis Pasteur. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/louis-pasteur. (S)
Sheehan, John F. “RESPONSE TO THE FDA A Point-by-Point Rebuttal to the Anti-Raw Milk PowerPoint Presentation” Real Milk, The Weston A. Price Foundation, Nov. 2007, http://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SheehanPowerPointResponse-UpdatedAug2010.pdf. (P)
Skinner, Carl G et al. “Melamine toxicity.” Journal of medical toxicology: official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology vol. 6,1 (2010): 50-5. doi:10.1007/s13181-010-0038-1 (P)
Tentative Table of Contents
Section One: Introduction
Section Two: The Relationship Between Humans and Milk
Milk Then and Now: What has Changed?
Dairy Regulation Over Time
The FDA Sets the Global Standard
The FDA Rules by Manipulation of Statistical Reading
Margins Over Milk Quality
What is Melamine and Where is it?
What is the Harmful Impact of Melamine?
Milk Substitutes are Substantially Worse
Synthesis
Conclusion
Annotated Works Cited
The Land of Milk and Money
Introduction:
Milk is not what it used to be. The changes over the last century or so have caused the product to deviate from its true integrity. Economic desires have implicated the quality of milk, which for thousands of years has been associated with good health and good fortune. For the duration of human history there has been an undeniable connection between industry, money, and crime. When it comes to the dairy industry there are no exceptions to be made. Regarding this industry there is a murky history wherein politicians, executives, and yes- the milkman- have all been in bed together for the lust of a bigger paycheck. Who is bearing the brunt of this? The customer, and the cost of which is both financial and physiological. Although some may feel that they are exempt from this, it is crucial that the public takes notice. Many people today follow fad diets that are in fact advertised by the companies that manufacture and produce our foods. If you look in your fridge, you may believe that what you are eating is clean, or even good for you. Maybe you feel because you don’t consume dairy products, this issue doesn’t apply to you. Nearly all foods in relation to dairy, especially milk and the substitutes of (milk), are subject to dangerous alterations. People may believe that they have better things to do than to be bothered with the drama involved in the dairy industry. However, when this drama directly impacts your finances, your children’s health, and your country’s future it might be wise to take note. If so far, this message produces any questions surrounding your current diet- it should. It’s about time that people pulled their heads out of the sand, looked at what’s happening in Washington D.C., and looked for a feasible resolution. This isn’t a story that begins during a recent time, but rather one that has been drug out for roughly the last one-hundred years or so. Times change, human behavior doesn’t (especially regarding business ethics), and the impact to which this damage is extended is immeasurable. People need to take a greater concern as to what laws and regulations get passed regarding their food.
The trumpet not only has sounded to signify the warning- but is blaring. There is a war going on. At home we seem to be at peace in our daily lives, going to and fro, with little concern of what happens in the world outsides ourselves. This false sense of peace has led to an ignorance of the people who make the dangerous presumption that all is well in the developed world. There is a war on knowledge, there is a war on your health, and there is a war to divert the public from seeing what is truly going on. This information isn’t hidden within archives, in a library, on the other side of the world. No. It’s accessible to the public, but for the masses bread and circuses appease. Although the language that is being used may seem melodramatic, the discussion is still about the corruption within the dairy industry. What we consume both literally and intellectually has an impact upon what happens within society. If we cannot discern the differences between true health and the latest fad diet, then we give heed to the likelihood of malnutrition. If malnutrition occurs then the executive function that humans have is likely to become prohibited, if not inhibited. If we cannot physically operate as humans are supposed to do, then we cannot possibly expect to critically think about the dire changes needed to happen within our society.
The Relationship Between Humans and Milk
For thousands of years humans have consumed milk. The current stage in human existence would not have been reached without milk. Any statement otherwise is both baseless and harmful to the individual who makes those claims, for they know not the physiological detriment that comes with excluding milk. Regarding the establishment of permanent human residences, without milk, humans would not have been able to survive during the harsh winter months where the weather does not permit for crops to be grown. For the agricultural revolution to be a possibility, milk was needed as an essential element to maintain human life. Milk acted as a primary source of nutritional intake not only during the winter months but year-round, and continuously throughout time since that point. For time immemorial humans have consumed milk, predominately in the raw form. From the compiled research of Sarika Rana, raw milk is described as, “an underrated superfood [that’s] produced from grass-fed cows and is considered to be raw because it skips the process of pasteurization, a process that… kill
Milk Then and Now: What has Changed?
The milk that we drink today is vastly different from the milk that humans consumed even 250 years ago. If it doesn’t seem like that was very long ago, or maybe it does, both perspectives fall beside the point. The milk has changed. The information provided by the Science History Institute relays the life, education, and studies of Louis Pasteur. In Dole, France, in the year of 1822, he was born and would grow to have the largest effect (by any individual) upon the dairy industry. This effect is inclusive of the scientific analysis of food borne illnesses, and how humans perceive them. This was done with the inventive process coined pasteurization. This process took place after his schooling, where he excelled in his respective field of biology.
Pasteur…was then [after school] appointed in 1848 to the faculty of sciences in Strasbourg and in 1854 to the faculty in Lille. There he launched his studies on fermentation... At the time the majority believed that fermentation was spontaneously generated by a series of chemical reactions in which enzymes—themselves not yet securely identified with life—played a critical role (Science History Institute).
Louis Pasteur, in the year of 1857 dove headfirst into his work that he sought to continue surrounding fermentation. It was at his laboratory at the Ecole Normale in which he crafted the “[P]asteurization process” that Louis officially attained a patent for in 1865. This was with the intended use of combatting the “diseases of wine” (Science History Institute). Pasteur had a revelation that these diseases were stimulated by microorganisms, and with his pasteurization process could be destroyed. This was achieved by heating wine to a temperature between 60° and 100°C”. The pasteurization process was then implemented to other substances in which similar biological issues remained “such as milk” (Science History Institute). It is important to note that when milk is pasteurized the critical elements to human development within are destroyed.
Dairy Regulation Over Time
In the year of 1895 pasteurization machines became available on a commercial scale. In 1908, the city of Chicago, Il. passed an ordinance that required all milk sold within city limits to be pasteurized. Thirty-nine years after Chicago passed their legal pasteurization requirements, Michigan became the first state to do so on a statewide scale.
However, it’s interesting to note that during the late 1930’s, it has been estimated by the NCLEG (the North Carolina General Assembly) in a report by Barbara Riley that, “25% of disease outbreaks” could be attributed to infected food and water. Of this statistic, only 1% of food borne illness could be linked to milk products (including milk in the raw).
In 1924, the U.S. Public Health Service created what is known as the Standard Milk Ordinance (SMO). While this was voluntary, it was developed to aid states with effective programs for the prevention of milk borne diseases. In 1965, the SMO was subject to major change, with the name alteration to include the word pasteurization. From this point forward, it would be known as the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO). This regulation became the standard for the certification of interstate milk distributers; this was by the Voluntary Cooperative State/Food and Drug Administration Program, wherein all fifty states take part. For example, if a dairy farmer in California wanted to sell their product in Washington state; by crossing state lines, it becomes interstate commerce which is subject to regulations by the FDA. In 1973, the FDA published their final rule in which all milk and milk derived products moving within the country needed to be pasteurized.
However, in the year of 1984 things became increasingly interesting, when a public interest group brought suit against the FDA regarding the regulation of pasteurization in both interstate and intrastate commerce. This case would become known as Public Citizen v. Heckler and would have a profound impact upon the dairy industry. The court ruled that the FDA must adopt a rule banning the interstate sale of raw milk and associated raw milk products. The intrastate sale of raw milk products fell to the discretion of the states. Three years later in 1987, the FDA adopted this final rule. This was a major ruling regarding state legislature and dairy. This ruling is important as it gave states more power in the regulation of the statewide dairy industry. This also held major significance to the dairy industry, wherein the nature of milk (which is subject to spoil) disabled producers from reaching a broader consumer base. For dairy producers, pasteurization was a necessity to increase both their consumer base and profits.
The FDA Sets the Global Standard
The primary influence upon what is safe to eat/drink comes from the U.S. Federal Government, as their institutions, backed by their studies, are what provide the research to which laws are enacted. State legislature has the independence to implement whatever laws they feel are necessary. However, federal institutions can override state sovereignty if their research supports the laws they have decided to pass. The food regulations that are passed within the states are not the only place where the U.S. federal government has influence in this matter. This extends to the entire world. The global authority behind the research done by the U.S. is shown as the European Union implements many of their laws and regulations. One of such examples is displayed when there was a toxic-substance outbreak within dairy products. The U.S.’s findings regulated the traceable amounts of the substance discovered within the product, and how much would be permitted in the products going forward. According to the International Journal of Food Contamination, from researchers Tanzina Azad and Shoeb Ahmed, the FDA’s findings were, “later adopted by [the] United Nation’s standard body, Codex Alimentarius Commission through a new rulings [sic] in 2010…”
The FDA Rules by Manipulation of Statistical Reading
The Food and Drug Administration’s role is to advance public health and to provide the science-based information enabling the general populous to maintain and improve their health. When the FDA fails to perform their role, it can have dire consequences. These consequences are even more appalling when the FDA is conscious of a public health crisis. It is even absurd that given their responsibility, there could be the manipulation of facts to aid in the growth of capitalism. From a publication by the FDA, claims are made that lead readers to believe that in the instance of an outbreak the use of pasteurization would have been able to prevent it. John F. Sheehan who works for the Division of Dairy and Egg Safety analyzed both the studies used by the FDA, and the official statements made in their publication. What Sheehan found was that the FDA’s stance was entirely contrary to the statistical reading of the studies following this outbreak. Sheehan responds, “the most important flaw in the reports that the FDA cites is that none of them generates [sic] any evidence that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak” (Sheehan, John F.). Another frightening aspect of the FDA’s statement was unearthed again by the Weston A. Price Foundation and published online at realmilk.com (no specific author/contributor given published credit). What this foundation’s work uncovers is that in the Hopkins study used for the FDA’s ruling, “raw dairy products accounted for 36 percent of individual illnesses attributed to milk, while the rest could be attributed to pasteurized dairy products.” What is of low moral character (for the FDA) is that even though twice as many illnesses were attributed to pasteurized products in the study, they argued that, “on a per serving basis, [1 percent of consumption] raw dairy products are almost 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized dairy products” (realmilk.com). The real harm that was done by the FDA’s deceit is found in several areas; the limited time frame (1993-2006), the question being asked, and the “unreasonable confidence given to the answer” (realmilk.com). This timeframe was selected, failing to include the country’s largest outbreak in 1985. Small-scale milk productions have more frequent incidents but are minor in consequence. Large-scale milk productions have less frequent attributed illnesses but are monumental in consequence. Large spans of data are necessary to include the outbreaks due to pasteurized milk. The Weston A. Price Foundation performed their own studies surrounding this issue to include with their response. From their findings, illnesses could be attributed to pasteurized milk “11 times more” than to raw milk (realmilk.com). Based off of the statistic that 1 percent of Americans consume raw milk, this would make, “pasteurized milk appear up to twice as dangerous as raw milk on a per-serving basis” (realmilk.com).
Margins Over Milk Quality
The adulteration of food on a global scale is an established concern that continues to rise. The dairy industry particularly finds no exemption from this issue. As the motive for food fraud is primarily economic, the impact is a frightening public health concern. The economic reasoning behind this manipulation of product is not only found in the perishable nature of milk and the low purchasing ability of the consumers but is extended to the gap between supply and demand. Disastrously, the adulteration of milk has been remarkably easy (and relatively unchecked). This is due to the absence of adequate monitoring which is accompanied by the failure to properly enforce surrounding laws. Those who fall victim to this are both dairy and non-dairy consumers as the chemical changes are not limited to just milk, but milk-substitute products also.
Published by the International Journal of Food Contamination (IJFC), Tanzina Azad and Shoeb Ahmed’s direct research claims that, “in contrast to common belief, milk adulterants can pose serious health hazards leading to fatal diseases.” Typical strategies of adulteration used by dairy producers include the watering down of milk, followed by the addition of chemicals to prevent the consumers from being the wiser. Of these chemicals, several of which are, “too harmful to be overlooked.” Some of these chemicals included in the IJFC report are listed as, “urea, formalin, ammonium sulphate, boric acid… and melamine”. Regarding these chemicals, one of which, Melamine, is widely used throughout the industry. What occurs is that due to the high value of milk fat, “manufacturers of milk and dairy products remove milk fat for additional financial gain.” In order to prevent the consumers from realizing their product is far different from what it used to be, dairy producers will, “compensate it by adding non-milk fat such as vegetable oil.” What is then done is the addition of detergents that emulsify and dissolve the oil, “giving a frothy solution, which is the desired characteristics of milk…” Overall, aspects of integrity have been compromised, and the ethics of those involved are in question as, “[a]dulterants are added in milk… thereby increasing the milk quality in a dishonest way” (Ahmed, S.).
What is Melamine and Where is it?
Melamine is a chemical that has been used on a wide scale throughout several different industries. The U.S. National Library of Medicine National Center for Biotechnology Information published a report that includes the findings from the research of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This NIOSH report lists some of the products wherein melamine is present, such as, “paint and coatings on automobiles, laminates for furniture, and glues for wood and particle board…”. The research published in their report also uncovered that one of the products wherein melamine is found to be commonly present, regarding direct human interaction, is in table and cookware. The use of melamine in tableware has been disclosed to the public. According to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (part of the FDA), within the United States melamine has been approved for the use of cookware; including “utensils, plates, plastic products… and industrial coatings, among other things…” This specific kind of tableware is created with a chemical substance known as melamine-formaldehyde resin.
From a public forum hosted by the FDA, they have disclosed that this residual melamine can leach into food that encounters the tableware. Studies have shown that products which are composed with melamine, “may put people at risk of conditions such as kidney stones and kidney failure, and of death” (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition). If products composed of melamine in which people eat from are linked to severe ailments, including death, then it is reasonable to make the claim that adding melamine directly to foods or beverages would be harmful.
What is the Harmful Impact of Melamine?
As melamine has been consistently used within products that most humans use (or ingest) on a regular basis, studies have been performed to look for any possible health implications. From the NIOSH study, in a test conducted upon rats, there is a direct link to reproductive issues when exposed to excessive amounts of melamine. These reproductive issues have a paternal affect known as spermatogenesis which alters both the independent mobility of sperm, as well as the overall count. As for females, the effects are consistent with “embryo mortality: [f]etal death” (National Center for Biotechnology Information). These studies are further corroborated by the IJFC regarding melamine, which claim that, “it causes renal failure and infant death” (Ahmed, S.).
In 2008 an extreme case of melamine poisoning reaped havoc upon the nation of China. In a study and analysis composed by Carl G. Skinner, et al., “nfants in China fell ill when fed formula containing large amounts of melamine.” This event showed that melamine alone could cause its own toxicity when ingested at larger doses (or accumulative doses). In 2008 approximately 294,000 infants in China were affected by melamine exposure in formula. There were over 51,900 corresponding hospitalizations and 6 documented deaths (Skinner, Carl G. et al.). Since this outbreak, the FDA passed a regulatory mandate that has since been implemented nearly worldwide, beginning with the United States and the European Commission. “Both the European Commission and the [FDA] have applied a maximum acceptable limit of 2.5 mg/kg for melamine” (Ahmed, S.). There is a known causation of death, reproductive damages, and other possible health implications as a result of melamine consumption. This is both a disheartening reality and an utter failure by the governing bodies that regulate the public’s food. Rather than entirely eradicating this known toxin from the food source, the permittance of continued lethal adulteration has been allowed.
Milk Substitutes are Substantially Worse
For the people who have read this far and feel a sense of affirmation towards their decision to forgo the consumption of dairy. The following information should alter your approach to that decision. The idea that milk is harmful and that substitutes are a healthier alternative was marketed by the dairy industry. This was a business decision, as the, “production cost of soy milk is 70% lesser [sic] than normal milk and soya bean protein is much more [sic] cheaper than milk protein” (Ahmed, S.). By marketing milk alternatives as healthy, producers can drastically increase margin. This is because alternatives are cheaper to make and if people think that what they are buying is healthier, they will pay more for the product. Alternative milk options (soy, oat, almond, etc.) are essentially water with flavoring. The producers then add chemicals to manufacture a texture that is appealing to those consuming these products. This is by adding chemicals such as melamine. The consumer then doesn’t receive any healthy properties found in the milk, and is lacking in the materials needed to physiologically function.
Synthesis
There is a dangerous false notion that because enzymes contribute to fermentation that they are bad for you. When discussing pasteurization and fermentation the true issue is consuming spoiled goods. For example, if you eat something that is rotten, it is not the properties within the food themselves that make you sick, rather the state of spoil that they are in. The move to implement pasteurization nationally and globally was a decision based upon profit restriction and business potential. Pasteurizations true purpose (behind the guise of sanitation) was to enable the distance in which milk could be shipped to, by increasing shelf life. By pasteurizing the milk that humans physiologically need and have always depended on for proper/full development vital nutrients are destroyed.
The changes made to milk since pasteurization have not been of the motive to promote better health, rather to promote economic increase. This has been at the detriment of the public. The regulatory organizations that are to be looking out for the public are equally culpable in these crimes against humanity. When these organizations fail to carry out their responsibilities the impact upon society is deleterious. The governments knowledge of this matter and their failure to use their justifying powers to fully rectify this issue is beyond worrisome. When the public cannot physically operate and there are exponential damages to generations, the public’s ability to change the very system that is harming them will continue to weaken. Unfortunately, this is not speculation about possible future occurrences, but rather the analysis of compiled documentation that tells a disheartening story.
Conclusion
People shouldn’t take any information promoted to them at face value. People need to investigate the physiological effects that each food has on their body and can’t put the burden on anybody else to do that for them. If people claim to be advocates of good health, proper nutrition, and a lifestyle that promotes betterment- then they need to be aware of what is going on. The beneficial properties found in milk are sacrosanct in the critical development stages of human life. If overtime people are lacking the essential elements required to build a healthy body, the detrimental effect from generation to generation will be exponential. This is without factoring in the addition of elements known to be harmful. If the publics’ ability to maintain and improve health is corrupted by corporate interests, the calamitous effects upon society are irreparable. As far as milk consumption goes, fear not for there is a solution. People can avoid these fillers, people can obtain the nutrients necessary to function, and people can begin getting involved in making the necessary changes. Just remember that milk is healthy, milk is essential, and milk should be consumed in the raw.
Annotated Works Cited
Ahmed, S. (2016, December 5). Common milk adulteration and their detection techniques. Retrieved from Common milk adulteration and their detection techniques. (P)
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. (2017, December 12). Melamine in Tableware Questions and Answers. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from Melamine in Tableware Questions and Answers. (P)
Morell, Sally, and Mary Enig. From Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook That Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats. New Trends Publishing, 1995.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Melamine, CID=7955, Melamine (accessed on Nov. 6, 2019) (P)
Rana, S. “Benefits of Raw Milk: From Digestion to Maintaining Bone Health and More!” NDTV Food, 20 July 2018, Benefits Of Raw Milk: From Digestion To Maintaining Bone Health And More!. (S)
Realmilk.com, Webmaster. “The Johns Hopkins Raw Milk Study.” A Campaign for Real Milk, The Weston A. Price Foundation, 12 Aug. 2015, The Johns Hopkins Raw Milk Study. (S)
Riley, B. (2012, March 20). Federal and State Regulation of Raw Milk. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from https://www.ncleg.gov/DocumentSites...arch-FedandStateRegsofRawMilkPresentation.pdf. (P)
Science History Institute. (17 Jan. 2018). Louis Pasteur. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/louis-pasteur. (S)
Sheehan, John F. “RESPONSE TO THE FDA A Point-by-Point Rebuttal to the Anti-Raw Milk PowerPoint Presentation” Real Milk, The Weston A. Price Foundation, Nov. 2007, http://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SheehanPowerPointResponse-UpdatedAug2010.pdf. (P)
Skinner, Carl G et al. “Melamine toxicity.” Journal of medical toxicology: official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology vol. 6,1 (2010): 50-5. doi:10.1007/s13181-010-0038-1 (P)
